Did Jesus Have a Sinful Nature While on Earth?

[grahame]

HP: Clearly barking up a tree called unsupported conjecture mate. If I was a guessing man I would say the best you will get out of that tree is more unsupported conjecture. Certainly no reasonable way to develop or establish theology.

I certainly am not going to enter into a slanging match with you. I was never rude to you and I would appreciated it if you would afford me the same decency "mate". My enquiry was an honest and an open one that desired scriptural support from another member concerning the virgin Mary and why it was necessary for her to be a virgin? Perhaps you too could support your statements with scriptural proof? (I of course am relatively new here and confess probably because of this have not seen you quote any so far and I have read through all your posts un this discussion. All I have seen you write is just unsupported conjecture.Forgive me if through my lack of observation I have missed any scriptural quotes from you proving your doctrinal position? For you continually ask scriptural proof from others. Where is yours?) For Muslims (with whom I am in discussion) also believe in the virgin birth of Christ.

Do you believe the same as the Muslims here? For they too believe that every man does not inherit Adam's sinful nature but is born a Muslim. Also I have yet to find one person in the world who hasn't sinned. If you have indeed found one who hasn't sinned, for if all are born without this inclination to sin then surely there must be at least one in the whole of history besides Christ who has not sinned, given the laws of chance and the billions who have lived and died? If man is a blank page as you seem to say, when he is born then surely we all have an even chance? Yet history clearly demonstrates that man has an inbred bias towards sin? Surely if you are able to show us just ONE sinless individual in all of history besides our Lord then this in itself would establish your doctine once and for all and silence the rest of us sinners in our "unsupported conjecture"?

 

[JSM17]

I must say that this is one of the best discussions I have read on this board in a long time. What a study thank you all for these stimulating conversations, they really have gotten me to think about this topic a lot!!!!!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Grahame: I certainly am not going to enter into a slanging match with you. I was never rude to you and I would appreciated it if you would afford me the same decency "mate".

HP: Possibly being from the States I have a wrong idea of how the word is really meant to be used in England? I certainly did not intend to be rude. I thought the word ‘mate’ was simply a word for ‘friend’ ‘co-worker’ or something like that. Is it honestly a rude comment? If so, I sincerely apologize. I will not use it again.

If it was a rude remark in your opinion, were you being rude to me in response? Remember, I can honestly say I did not know it to be a rude comment, so no sin or intentional rudeness on my part. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[ccrobinson]

Seriously CCR, why make such an ambiguous statement pointing to some mysterious post I ‘supposedly’ ignored? Why not simply point directly to the post I ignored, if in fact I did? Then we can properly and fairly ascertain the validity, or the lack thereof, of your comment? Fair enough?

You asked for Scripture to support my position and when I offered it, you responded to a certain statement within that post that you disagreed with and ignored the rest of it. I was wrong in saying you ignored the post. You ignored most of the post, choosing just to focus on one part of it. Since you responded to only a portion of it, I'm not sure what other conclusion should be drawn other than you ignored most of the post.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

CCRobinson, can you point me to the post specifically by post number? I will try again.

Sometimes responding to several individuals, I will not address parts of posts if I feel I have covered it well enough to someone else etc. That may or may not be the case with the post you are talking about. At other times I am simply short on time and do not cover every post in detail. I also miss posts from time to time. (Not intentionally, but sometimes I simply do.)I wish I had more time that I do but I have other obligations as well. Give me another shot at answering the post you are speaking of and I will try this evening to address it better. Fair enough?

 

[DHK]

CCRobinson, can you point me to the post specifically by post number? I will try again.

Sometimes responding to several individuals, I will not address parts of posts if I feel I have covered it well enough to someone else etc. That may or may not be the case with the post you are talking about. At other times I am simply short on time and do not cover every post in detail. I also miss posts from time to time. (Not intentionally, but sometimes I simply do.)I wish I had more time that I do but I have other obligations as well. Give me another shot at answering the post you are speaking of and I will try this evening to address it better. Fair enough?

It's a habit of yours HP, I'll give you a preponderance of Scriptural evidence--half a dozen to a dozen Scriptural references, and then you will take one reference (usually the weakest) and focus on that one only and ignore the rest of the evidence presented.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Grahame: Also I have yet to find one person in the world who hasn't sinned. If you have indeed found one who hasn't sinned, for if all are born without this inclination to sin then surely there must be at least one in the whole of history besides Christ who has not sinned, given the laws of chance and the billions who have lived and died?

HP: Scripture is clear. All in our dispensation have sinned and came short of the glory of God. Reason, first truths of reason and truths of immutable justice clearly testify that if sin was necessitated by my nature, God would be to blame for He is the one that created me. If sin was necessitated by my nature, blame for sin would be absurd, and punishment by a Just God would be wickedness. God nowhere blames man for the nature he is born with, but everywhere condemns man for the choice of sin he chooses. Sin is blameworthy which testifies clearly to sin as NOT being necessitated, but rather willful disobedience to a known commandment of God.

Grahame: If man is a blank page as you seem to say, when he is born then surely we all have an even chance?

HP: If man has no other choice than to sin due to his nature, we are right back to the absurdity of holding man accountable for his actions. Morality is a misnomer if in fact it is necessitated, and punishment for failure to do the impossible (in this case something other than to act according to our nature , i.e., to sin and that continually) not only absurd, but absurdly wicked.

Grahame: Yet history clearly demonstrates that man has an inbred bias towards sin?

HP: Reason and experience tells us that we are born physically depraved, and as such have a clear propensity to sin.

Grahame: Surely if you are able to show us just ONE sinless individual in all of history besides our Lord then this in itself would establish your doctrine once and for all and silence the rest of us sinners in our "unsupported conjecture"?

HP: Funny you ask, but there are at least two individuals that have not seen death as we know it and were translated into glory, i.e., Enoch and Elijah. I would maintain that it is certainly within the realm of possibility that they, from first light of moral agency, lived in accordance to all the light they had and as such God simply translated them. I would not by any means make doctrine concerning these two exceptions, but the possibility does in fact exist in my mind and in the mind of many other reasonable individuals as well.

Jesus proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that one born with the nature of men can in fact live obedient, if he wills. His obedient life serves also to justify God in His condemnation of sinful men in that Gods laws are not impossible to live by, and no man is a necessitated sinner from birth, but rather man has every ability to live according to God's law if we only would have chosen to, just as Christ proved could be done.

 

[ccrobinson]

Post #43 on page 5. I'm specifically referring to the Scripture reference of Romans 5:12.

BTW, I feel compelled to remind everybody that HP has stated that he doesn't believe that Jesus had a sinful nature. We've been debating this topic for several days and when I went back to find the post in question, I found in a different post where HP stated that he doesn't believe Jesus had a sinful nature. Maybe I shouldn't have been surprised, but I was, probably because this debate has been going on for several days and I had forgotten where HP stands on the question.

I just wanted to remind everybody of this in case they had forgotten, as I did.

 

[DHK]

Most of this thread has taken a turn to refuting the odd beliefs of HP's theology summed up in post #39 here:

HP: Can you support your ideas from Scripture? Where does Scripture even mention a sin nature 'from birth?' Who said the sin nature comes from 'man' in any sense that is separating 'man' as opposed to a woman? Who said the virgin birth was necessary to keep Christ from some inherited contagion? Where do Scriptures ever represent sin as some contagion anyway? If a sin nature causes me to sin and that by necessity, tell us how Christ could take upon Himself that very nature as Scripture states He did without inheriting the same sin we do? Abraham was a man was he not?
Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

What right to the throne of David as the Messiah did Christ have if in fact He was not of the physical lineage of David, yet another 'man?'

If my nature necessitates me to sin, what purpose is temptation anyway? If all I can do is sin due to my nature, temptation is necessitated by my nature. If Christ is tempted in all points as we are, and we are tempted by our natures driven by necessity, the same would have to apply to Christ as well if tempted as we are, is that not correct?

As you can see this post actually is an attack on

the virgin birth of Christ,
The sin nature of man,
The nature of the temptation of Christ,
The right for Christ to inherit the throne of David,

All of these are very important doctrines in the Bible. All are being attacked in this one post.

 

[drfuss]

Post #43 on page 5. I'm specifically referring to the Scripture reference of Romans 5:12.

BTW, I feel compelled to remind everybody that HP has stated that he doesn't believe that Jesus had a sinful nature. We've been debating this topic for several days and when I went back to find the post in question, I found in a different post where HP stated that he doesn't believe Jesus had a sinful nature. Maybe I shouldn't have been surprised, but I was, probably because this debate has been going on for several days and I had forgotten where HP stands on the question.

I just wanted to remind everybody of this in case they had forgotten, as I did.

drfuss: I am still leaning and haven't made up my mind. However, I really don't get your point on Romans 5:12. The last part of Romans 5:12 says: "and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned." It does not say "because all were born in sin." It seems to me this supports HP's position. Maybe I am missing something.
.

 

[drfuss]

Most of this thread has taken a turn to refuting the odd beliefs of HP's theology summed up in post #39 here:

As you can see this post actually is an attack on

the virgin birth of Christ,
The sin nature of man,
The nature of the temptation of Christ,
The right for Christ to inherit the throne of David,

All of these are very important doctrines in the Bible. All are being attacked in this one post.

drfuss: I don"t see the HP post as an attack on those doctrines. It appears to me HP is questioning some of the assumptons some people use to support these very important doctrines. I don't think HP is attacking the doctrines themselves, only questioning the way some interpret or apply them.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Drfuss, you are very astute with your observation.:thumbsup: I absolutely believe in the virgin birth. I have never said one thing that would in any way detract from that Biblical truth. I absolutely believe man has a sin nature, I just do not believe the nature we are born with is sin, but rather provides a proclivity to sin. The actual ‘sin’ in our natures as sinners is derived from sinful intents formed in the will, many of which have become habit. Our sinful nature is a result of our choices to sin, not some inherited contagion from birth. Sin is blameworthy, and nothing necessitated is blameworthy.

I believe the Scriptures concerning the temptations of Christ. He was tempted in ALL points as we are, yet without sin. We are tempted when we are drawn away of our own lusts and enticed, and if that is the way we are tempted Christ was tempted in the same manner, yet without sin. The temptation is not sin, but yielding to it is. Christ could have had many desires via the sensibilities of the flesh, but Scriptures state that He never yielded to those desires.

Christ had every, I say EVERY, right to the throne of David. He was the both the legal heir as well as a biological heir to the throne. The genealogies in Scripture substantiate this without question.

So you are indeed correct in that I in no way attack these doctrines. DHK’s post just reiterates the manner in which he operates, falsely accusing anyone that refutes his positions, attacking them as heretics, blasphemers, or whatever notion suits his purposes to defame and personally attack his detractors. Certainly nothing new. That is simply his well known M.O.

 

[DHK]

Drfuss, you are very astute with your observation.:thumbsup: I absolutely believe in the virgin birth.

Your attack is not on the virgin birth per se, but on its necessity. For example the Mormons in all their deception and naivete may say that Jesus Christ is God. Correct? Yes, and no. Yes, but he is one of many gods according to their theology, and thus heresy.
Why the virgin birth? Why was it necessary in God's plan of redemption?

I have never said one thing that would in any way detract from that Biblical truth. I absolutely believe man has a sin nature, I just do not believe the nature we are born with is sin, but rather provides a proclivity to sin.

Do you really believe in a sin nature--Just like a Mormon believes Christ is God?
Let's try that again. Does an infant of one week old have a sin nature? Does an infant of one month old have a sin nature? one year old? two years? four years? ten years? twenty years?
According to many God set the age of accountability at the age of twenty in the Old Testament. Only those that were twenty and older could enter the promised land after wandering in the wilderness. That generation of Joshua and Caleb were not permitted to enter in because of their unbelief. But their children were not "accountable" for that sin. They could enter into the promised land. Their age was twenty and older.
On another note we have some on this board that testify to the fact that they were saved, and can remember the circumstances of at the age of four. Did they reach the age of accountability then? Do all reach the age of accountability by four years of age? Will God send a five year old to hell, because he can understand the gospel message? According to you those that are perhaps three and under have a clean slate, no sin nature, perfectly innocent, never sinned. True? Do they have a sin nature or not? Or are you playing that "Mormon card" again?

The actual ‘sin’ in our natures as sinners is derived from sinful intents formed in the will, many of which have become habit.

Chapter and verse please. This is that New England Theology popularized by Finney who was heretical in his teaching, and ousted by those orthodox in their beliefs.

Our sinful nature is a result of our choices to sin, not some inherited contagion from birth. Sin is blameworthy, and nothing necessitated is blameworthy.

Again, where is your Scripture to back this hypothetical supposition up, that in the past was labeled as heresy. We believe the Bible. Unsubstantiated opinions remain just that--unsubstantiated, and highly opinionated.

I believe the Scriptures concerning the temptations of Christ. He was tempted in ALL points as we are, yet without sin.

Yes, just as the Mormons believe that Christ is God. It is the ramifications of your beliefs that one must be concerned about.

We are tempted when we are drawn away of our own lusts and enticed, and if that is the way we are tempted Christ was tempted in the same manner, yet without sin.

Taking Scripture out of context you accuse Christ of lust, a sin. This is heresy, as any can see. Or don't you consider lust a sin?

The temptation is not sin, but yielding to it is. Christ could have had many desires via the sensibilities of the flesh, but Scriptures state that He never yielded to those desires.

True

Christ had every, I say EVERY, right to the throne of David. He was the both the legal heir as well as a biological heir to the throne. The genealogies in Scripture substantiate this without question.

Yes they do. Then why do you question it in a previous post, here:

What right to the throne of David as the Messiah did Christ have if in fact He was not of the physical lineage of David, yet another 'man?'

Those are your words, not mine. Christ has every right, as you previously said, but you questioned that right here? You questioned that right on the basis that all mankind has a sin nature. Somehow if all mankind has a sin nature then that alters your view on Christ being the legal heir to the throne. Is this true or not?

So you are indeed correct in that I in no way attack these doctrines. DHK’s post just reiterates the manner in which he operates, falsely accusing anyone that refutes his positions, attacking them as heretics, blasphemers, or whatever notion suits his purposes to defame and personally attack his detractors. Certainly nothing new. That is simply his well known M.O.

I don't falsely accuse anyone. I question what they post when they don't have any Scripture to back up what they post, especially when it doesn't line up with Scripture.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Your attack is not on the virgin birth per se, but on its necessity.

HP: Some things never change. It must be simply beyond you to treat the arguments of another fairly. Where have I ever stated the virgin birth was not a necessity??? I simply do not believe it was a necessity for the reasons you and Augustine would believe it to be. I would see it as a necessity more in line with God needing to give of Himself in providing a Messiah, not to avoid original sin which is simply a misnomer.

You have no earthy idea why the virgin birth was necessary and neither do I. We can both only speculate. The difference is you desire to send to hell any that would disagree with your speculation and I would not.

DHK: Do you really believe in a sin nature--Just like a Mormon....

HP: I have answered that question in detail more times than I wish to reflect on at the moment. Try reading my lips DHK. IT DEPENDS ON YOUR DEFINITION OF A SIN NATURE AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU ATTACH GUILT TO IT.

DHK: According to many God set the age of accountability......

HP: The age of accountability varies, and God will be the final judge. The age is not important, but rather the fact that it must exist at some age, and age where one enters the realm of moral agency. Paul referred to it when he said he was alive once without the law. Refer once again to my read my lips comment above to ascertain the answer about a sin nature.
Quote:
HP: The actual ‘sin’ in our natures as sinners is derived from sinful intents formed in the will, many of which have become habit.

DHK: Chapter and verse please. This is that New England Theology popularized by Finney who was heretical in his teaching, and ousted by those orthodox in their beliefs.

HP: If you want to start a discussion on Finney, may I kindly suggest that you start a new thread? Scripture does not testify directly one way or the other DHK. Such notions, for or against are either stated or implied by your philosophy as to what sin entails. If sin is blameworthy, reason attest to me via immutable truths of justice that it cannot be necessitated. You believe it can be, and I could demand of you the very same demand. Chapter and verse please. I will even go as far as to accept truths from any realm as evidence from you to establish your position that sin can be necessitated. See how reasonable I am? Fire away. I will be so kind as not to judge you to hell, as you have me, by calling your views heretical or say that your beliefs constitute blasphemy, again as you have mine in the past. [/QUOTE]
HP: Our sinful nature is a result of our choices to sin, not some inherited contagion from birth. Sin is blameworthy, and nothing necessitated is blameworthy.

DHK: Again, where is your Scripture to back this hypothetical supposition up, that in the past was labeled as heresy. We believe the Bible. Unsubstantiated opinions remain just that--unsubstantiated, and highly opinionated.

HP: You believe in the Augustinian theory of sin and its origin. Hardly the Scriptures DHK. If God blames me for my sin, I know by the immutable principles of justice God instilled within the breast of every reasonable person that I was not coerced or forced into sinning by anything, including my nature. If I am to blame, it is because I have willing yielded my will to selfishness as opposed to obedience and benevolence to a known commandment of God. The heathen without the law know that much DHK. Original sin makes a mockery of any semblance of justice, let alone Infinite Divine justice.

HP: I believe the Scriptures concerning the temptations of Christ. He was tempted in ALL points as we are, yet without sin.

DHK: Yes, just as the Mormons believe that Christ is God. It is the ramifications of your beliefs that one must be concerned about.

HP: There is absolutely no connection between my beliefs and that of a Mormon, and your comments are nothing more than another attempt to use the absurd connection or labels possible to do nothing but perform character assassination. The strength of your arguments are certainly showing, and so is your spirit.
Quote:
HP: are tempted when we are drawn away of our own lusts and enticed, and if that is the way we are tempted Christ was tempted in the same manner, yet without sin.

DHK: Taking Scripture out of context you accuse Christ of lust, a sin. This is heresy, as any can see. Or don't you consider lust a sin?

HP: Lust can or cannot be sin. Strong desire (lust as strong temptation) is not in and of itself sin. It must be yielded to for sin to be conceived. Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
16 DO NOT ERR, MY BELOVED BRETREN.


Quote:
HP: What right to the throne of David as the Messiah did Christ have if in fact He was not of the physical lineage of David, yet another 'man?'

DHK: HP I ask that question due to the fact you try to make a third race out of Christ, and deny that he was of the seed (physical lineage by the way, in the flesh that is) of Abraham due to original sin.

HP: I DO NOT question that due to man having a nature to sin, (or what I would rather call a proclivity to sin via the depraved natural sensibilities of the flesh,) but rather I question that in light of your belief in original sin and the notion that Christ could not be ‘completely human’ with male chromosomes (God forbid) from David lest He be unable to escape original sin and being defiled, again in your opinion, not mine. Your problem is in understanding that sin does not lie in the constitution of the flesh, neither can one gain inherited sin from another, but rather sin takes its impetus from the will of man. Our flesh is not moral, neither was Christ’s. Flesh and blood merely house the soul of man. It is the soul via the choices of the will that defile a man, not the flesh he is housed in.

DHK: I don't falsely accuse anyone. I question what they post when they don't have any Scripture to back up what they post, especially when it doesn't line up with Scripture.

HP: You cannot hardly write a single post to me without a false allegation or direct personal attack. Sorry but that is the truth, and a sad truth at that.
Here is a pasage of Scripture one would do well to consider: Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

 

[DHK]

HP: Some things never change. It must be simply beyond you to treat the arguments of another fairly. Where have I ever stated the virgin birth was not a necessity??? I simply do not believe it was a necessity for the reasons you and Augustine would believe it to be. I would see it as a necessity more in line with God needing to give of Himself in providing a Messiah, not to avoid original sin which is simply a misnomer.

You have no earthy idea why the virgin birth was necessary and neither do I. We can both only speculate. The difference is you desire to send to hell any that would disagree with your speculation and I would not.

First, I don't desire to send anyone to hell. You can stop with such rhetoric.
Second, you need to know why the virgin birth is necessary. I am amazed at the paucity of the knowledge of the Bible in this generation. How important is the virgin birth? Can one be saved without believing in the virgin birth? No, I don't believe so. Thus, if you cannot see why the virgin birth was necessary your views on both Christology and Soteriology must be very weak, if not erroneous.
Consider this quote by Albert Mohler:

Can a true Christian deny the virgin birth? The answer to that question must be a decisive No. Those who deny the virgin birth deny the authority of Scripture, deny the supernatural birth of the Savior, undermine the very foundations of the gospel, and have no way of explaining the deity of Christ.
Anyone who claims the virgin birth can be discarded even as the deity of Christ is affirmed is either intellectually dishonest or theological incompetent.
--Albert Mohler

Perhaps you should read the whole article here:
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/19451018/Can-a-Christian-Deny-the-Virgin-Birth


I can give you dozens of Scriptures but you don't respond to them. So I will give you one to respond to:


Jeremiah 13:23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.


Three rhetorical questions are asked, all with the same answer.

1. Can the Ethiopian (a black man) change the color of his skin (to white)? Note, that he has his black skin from birth. He is born with it. From birth to death he has black skin and he can do nothing about it. He cannot change it. There is nothing that he can do about it.



2. Can the leopard change his spots. No, he cannot. He has his spots from birth to death. The spots will never become the stripes of a leopard. He will always have them. There is nothing that the leopard can do about it.



3. Can you (a man) being evil--from birth to death--change to one that does good? The answer is no. Just as an Ethiopian cannot change his skin, and a leopard cannot change his spots, you cannot change your nature either. It is in your nature to be and to do evil. Your nature from birth is an evil nature. At no time in your life are you considered innocent. We are all sinners from birth, guilty before God. That is what the Lord through Jeremiah is teaching us. The doctrine is taught so clearly here it cannot be denied.



Therefore, there is a necessity for the virgin birth of Christ. The sin nature that man has is passed down through Adam (Gen.3:15; Rom.5:12; Rom.5:19), and to avoid that sin nature Christ had to be born of a woman. The Holy Spirit came upon Mary so that Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit (he was divine) and born of a virgin (he was sinless man). That is why it was necessary. It was necessary so that the incarnation could take place--God in the flesh came to earth. Christ is perfect and wholly God; perfect and wholly man at the same time. Only through the virgin birth could this be accomplished.



Deny the virgin birth and it is a denial against his perfect sinless humanity, his deity, and many other essential doctrines of the Bible.
I realize you don't deny it. But the fact that you don't think to seem that it is necessary is appalling. You seem to believe it only as stated in the Bible as an historical fact and that is all.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK, you simply failed to read my remarks.

Let me ask you something DHK, will there be any heretics or blasphemers in heaven?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Jeremiah 13:23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.



1. Can the Ethiopian (a black man) change the color of his skin (to white)? Note, that he has his black skin from birth. He is born with it. From birth to death he has black skin and he can do nothing about it. He cannot change it. There is nothing that he can do about it.

HP: You are taking that verse further than was intended. It by no means implies that one is born in sin, but rather simply implies that once we sin and become guilty before God and there is nothing we can do in and of ourselves to wipe away the stain of sin.

DHK: 2. Can the leopard change his spots. No, he cannot. He has his spots from birth to death. The spots will never become the stripes of a leopard. He will always have them. There is nothing that the leopard can do about it.

HP: Once again the same applies. You cannot make either of these illustrations walk on all four legs for a doctrine absolutely foreign to rabbinical theology. Tell me DHK, why would an OT writer be providing fodder for a notion that had absolutely no place in their teachings?

DHK: 3. Can you (a man) being evil--from birth to death--change to one that does good? The answer is no. Just as an Ethiopian cannot change his skin, and a leopard cannot change his spots, you cannot change your nature either. It is in your nature to be and to do evil. Your nature from birth is an evil nature. At no time in your life are you considered innocent. We are all sinners from birth, guilty before God. That is what the Lord through Jeremiah is teaching us. The doctrine is taught so clearly here it cannot be denied.

HP: The point is that you add ‘from birth to death’ a notion unfounded by these illustrations period. The whole point is that once one becomes a sinner, one is stained for eternity apart from the grace of God. It does not imply that one is a sinner from birth.

How is an infant, 'accustomed' to doing evil and that from birth??? Does an infant sin in the womb? How absurd can we get??

 

[DHK]

HP: You are taking that verse further than was intended. It by no means implies that one is born in sin, but rather simply implies that once we sin and become guilty before God and there is nothing we can do in and of ourselves to wipe away the stain of sin.

HP: Once again the same applies. You cannot make either of these illustrations walk on all four legs for a doctrine absolutely foreign to rabbinical theology. Tell me DHK, why would an OT writer be providing fodder for a notion that had absolutely no place in their teachings?

HP: The point is that you add ‘from birth to death’ a notion unfounded by these illustrations period. The whole point is that once one becomes a sinner, one is stained for eternity apart from the grace of God. It does not imply that one is a sinner from birth.

How is an infant, 'accustomed' to doing evil and that from birth??? Does an infant sin in the womb? How absurd can we get??

I take Scripture just as it is. I don't question God. I am not trying to refute or agree with someone I have never read (Augustine). I don't read into the passage anything about a superficial age of "accountability," or an age of "innocence," or any other adjective you may want to put there. You are trying to read into the Bible something that is not there. A leopard is a leopard from birth to death. It doesn't change from a tiger to a leopard. The verse doesn't teach evolution. There are not deep allegorical stories here--just simple truths to be believed: once an Ethiopian always an Ethiopian; once a leopard always a leopard; once a sinner always a sinner. And the starting point of all three is birth. Birth is always the beginning.
Thus the necessity of the New Birth.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: A leopard is a leopard from birth to death. It doesn't change from a tiger to a leopard.

HP: So would it be just for a Just God to condemn a leopard to an eternal hell for being born with spots, or an Ethiopian for the color of his skin????

DHK, in the arena of morals you are exhibiting about a much moral savvy as one might expect to find in a Neanderthal.

 

[DHK]

HP: So would it be just for a Just God to condemn a leopard to an eternal hell for being born with spots, or an Ethiopian for the color of his skin????

DHK, in the arena of morals you are exhibiting about a much moral savvy as one might expect to find in a Neanderthal.

You call me names because you don't like the teachings of the Bible as opposed to your errant philosophies. Your philosophy you haven't once backed up with Scripture. It is man-made. It has as much Scriptural basis as Purgatory or the assumption of Mary. If you had a leg to stand on you would provide Scripture.

I provide Scripture. You dismiss it. That is the way that this debate goes all throughout this thread. Others attest to the same. Ask ccrobinson. Why do you dismiss Scripture and the truths that the Bible teaches? Why? Just because you don't like it! That is what the liberals did. Whether or not you like a doctrine has no bearing on whether or not the Bible teaches it. You can't explain Jeremiah 13:23 so instead you call me an Neanderthal. Now that is a real good debate tactic. Don't you think??