How human was Jesus/how much like Jesus are we

[Winman]

Jacob and Esau had done no evil before they were born.

Correct.

That's simple. Neither did any of us though each of us are born with the capacity to sin just as each of them.

Correct.

Babies die, often before they have committed an act of sin (like smack your brother).

Correct.

If people who don't sin don't die then babies who have't sinned shouldn't die.

Incorrect. We know from scripture that Jacob and Esau had done no evil in their mother's womb. Babies die in their mother's womb all the time, so you do not have to sin to physically die. You do have to sin to spiritually die.

I believe (unless he has changed) Winman believes if we never sin we won't die.

False. All persons will physically die, even babies who died before they could sin.

Yet babies die everyday who have no practical sins. Why?

Because of the curse. The curse said man would return to the dust from which he came, and God removed man from the garden and access to the tree of life.

Winman (if I remember correctly) falls back on the reason that animals who don't sin die. But animals are not the offspring of Adam like human babies.

I don't fall back on anything, animals die because all of creation was cursed. Even non living things wear out and fade away. This is the curse. Animals and non living things do not sin.

Again I believe (but not 100% sure) that Winman also believes that Jesus could have sinned but didn't.

I believe Jesus implied he could sin in John 8:55;

Jhn 8:55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.

Jesus said IF he denied he knew his Father, he would be a liar. The word IF denotes possibility. In addition, it does not make sense that the Holy Spirit would drive Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted if he could not sin. What would be the point?

Is this correct Winman?

Not completely, but close.

But unlike Him, none of us were born of a virgin.Why?

Being born of a virgin was a SIGN. That tells us Jesus was God's son. If Jesus was born to a non-virgin, no one would believe he is God's son.

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Jesus Christ indeed came in the flesh - The Logos came as a mortal human being born of a woman, subject to death because of our sin which was imputed to Him.

I don't believe Jesus was imputed a sinner, he was made sin for us. He never became a sinner.

2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

This does not mean Jesus became a sinner, he became a substitute for us. He took the place of sin which deserved to die, but he had no sin and did not deserve to die. So, we disagree here.

Here is the problem with the impeccability of Christ (which, I agree, has everything to do with His humanity):

If we say He couldn't sin then it would seem to some that we have denied His humanity.

Correct.

If we say He could have sinned then it would seem to others that we have denied His deity.

Yes, but God cannot die and Jesus died. God cannot be tempted and Jesus was tempted. God does not get tired or hungry, Jesus got both tired and hungry. Yet Jesus IS God.

So, I do not believe Jesus's humanity denies that he is God.

Either way there are those on the other side who would say the others are lost (either directly or by innuendo).

When you can't debate with facts, the easiest thing is to try to discredit your opponent.

The aorist tense of "all sinned" proves that we inherited at least the capacity and ability to sin because it does not say:

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all will sin.


HankD

It simply says death has passed on all men because all men have sinned. It doesn't say all men sinned with Adam in the garden.

And Romans 9:11 refutes that Jacob and Esau sinned with Adam in the garden, Paul said they had done no evil.

This is not rocket science, if Jacob and Esau sinned with Adam as you and Iconoclast claim, then Romans 9:11 is a lie.

 

[HankD]

Correct.

Correct.

Correct.

Incorrect. We know from scripture that Jacob and Esau had done no evil in their mother's womb. Babies die in their mother's womb all the time, so you do not have to sin to physically die. You do have to sin to spiritually die.

False. All persons will physically die, even babies who died before they could sin.

Because of the curse. The curse said man would return to the dust from which he came, and God removed man from the garden and access to the tree of life.

I don't fall back on anything, animals die because all of creation was cursed. Even non living things wear out and fade away. This is the curse. Animals and non living things do not sin.


I believe Jesus implied he could sin in John 8:55;

Jhn 8:55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.

Jesus said IF he denied he knew his Father, he would be a liar. The word IF denotes possibility. In addition, it does not make sense that the Holy Spirit would drive Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted if he could not sin. What would be the point?

Not completely, but close.

Being born of a virgin was a SIGN. That tells us Jesus was God's son. If Jesus was born to a non-virgin, no one would believe he is God's son.

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.


I don't believe Jesus was imputed a sinner, he was made sin for us. He never became a sinner.


This does not mean Jesus became a sinner, he became a substitute for us. He took the place of sin which deserved to die, but he had no sin and did not deserve to die. So, we disagree here.

Correct.



Yes, but God cannot die and Jesus died. God cannot be tempted and Jesus was tempted. God does not get tired or hungry, Jesus got both tired and hungry. Yet Jesus IS God.

So, I do not believe Jesus's humanity denies that he is God.


When you can't debate with facts, the easiest thing is to try to discredit your opponent.



It simply says death has passed on all men because all men have sinned. It doesn't say all men sinned with Adam in the garden.

And Romans 9:11 refutes that Jacob and Esau sinned with Adam in the garden, Paul said they had done no evil.

This is not rocket science, if Jacob and Esau sinned with Adam as you and Iconoclast claim, then Romans 9:11 is a lie.

Winman - Romans 9 is not about the difference between inherited or imputed sin but it is about the purpose of God and his election which has to do with His decisions independent from the works of the individual.

On the other hand Romans 5:12 is all about why we sin - because of Adam's sin.

You can't have it both ways, the wages of sin is death. Babies die.

Apparently sin and death mutated his spiritual gnome and he passed it on to all of us which is why we all die, it's in our genes no exception "all sinned".

Actually in the Greek its only two words "all sinned" - aorist tense -completed action in time past.

It was a done deal then and now because we are the children of Adam.

I would rather say that we are the victims of Adam's sin in the garden rather than we sinned with Adam in the garden.

Take this example

Hebrews 7

9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.
10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.​

In this sense we sinned because we were in the loins of Adam when he sinned.

Jesus never sinned neither could He (in my opinion) because His conception did not require a human father (another way He is/was different from us).

IMO, your statement that He had to be born of a virgin to prove He is the Son of God holds no water. They still didn't believe. In effect He told them that He was God Himself in John 8:58 and they tried to kill Him.

As to imputed sin, He bore our sins in His body.
I never said Jesus was made a sinner but our sins were imputed to Him (or laid upon Him).

Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

1 Peter 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.​

Jesus mortal body (the flesh - sarx) died - He (the Logos) did not die being eternal God but He commended His spirit to God the Father and returned to the Father.​

In the same way when we die our spirit goes consciously to God awaiting the resurrection.​

His spirit returned to His body upon His resurrection.​

But He also took part in His own resurrection:​

John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.​

Scripture shows that the three persons of the Trinity took part in His resurrection.

Jesus humanity does not deny that He is God but many believe that to say that He could sin does deny His deity.

This subject leads down the proverbial rabbit-hole of questions.

HankD​

 

[Inspector Javert]

Winman - Romans 9 is not about the difference between inherited or imputed sin but it is about the purpose of God and his election which has to do with His decisions independent from the works of the individual.

Correct.
Throwing oneself upon the mercy of Jesus Christ is not a "work"...
It's a man pleading for grace.
A man who humbles himself and cries for mercy receives grace.

Grace isn't a work.
Neither is faith.

On the other hand Romans 5:12 is all about why we sin - because of Adam's sin.

No it is not.

It's about DEATH...

All men die because of sin, and DEATH came because of Adam.

Adam's sin caused the DEATH of the entire Universe....

Every Plant.
Every Animal.
Every Human.
Even the physical Universe itself is actually slowing down and will in fact die a slow "heat-death" as it loses energy...

Everything is DYING....

The Sun itself will die (given about a billion years or maybe less)...

The entire physical Universe is in fact DYING.
That's what the verse says just read it:
Wherefore, 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:

You can't have it both ways, the wages of sin is death. Babies die.

He doesn't want it "both" ways:
He knows that PHYSICAL DEATH was passed from Adam to all of the creation...

He also knows that SPIRITUAL DEATH occurs when one knowingly and willfully sins.

That's not "both ways"...
It's understanding the difference between physical death and Spiritual Death.

Adam's sin ensured that you die...
It actually ensured that all of the physical Universe dies..
Here's some Scripture for it:
Rom 8:20
For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
Rom 8:21
Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
Rom 8:22
For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

Apparently sin and death mutated his spiritual gnome and he passed it on to all of us which is why we all die, it's in our genes no exception "all sinned".

Apparently....No such thing is true:

The Scriptures state that the entire CREATION DIES because of Adam's sin (that includes the babies)...

It say absolutely NOTHING about a special GENETIC GENOME.
That is pure fantasy:

Frankly it's Medieval Mystical Phantasmagoria at best, or, at worst:
It's sheer Manichean Paganism.

Where is it, exactly, in the Scriptures, that Adam's ribonucleic acid genetically imparts a Spiritual "sin-gene" which which renders all men Spiritually dead because of physical R.N.A?

What verse teaches that??

That's Augustinian Manicheanism, and it's heresy.

Actually in the Greek its only two words "all sinned" - aorist tense -completed action in time past.

Yes....you sinned.

Hank sinned.
It's a done deal....
It happened in the past, at a point in time, and he remembers it.

I did too:
I stole a pencil from Amber Counts in the third grade.

I did so willingly, and I knew better.
I am a sinner, and I'll never forget that sin.
"for all HAVE SINNED".....not "inherited a sin gene from Adam's loins".

It was a done deal then and now because we are the children of Adam.

It's a done deal because all "have sinned". Read the passage without presupposition:
Rom 5:12
Wherefore, 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:
BECAUSE all have sinned.

I would rather say that we are the victims of Adam's sin in the garden rather than we sinned with Adam in the garden.

That's quite correct.

IMO, your statement that He had to be born of a virgin to prove He is the Son of God holds no water. They still didn't believe.

Then the Scripture "holds no water" because God clearly demonstrated that this was a "SIGN"...

And here's the Scripture for you:

Isa 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

One way or another...
The virgin birth was a "sign".....and it "holds water".

But, no, the Jews didn't believe at the time, and here's why:
He intentionally judicially blinded them to the truth....
That's absolutely in the Scripture.

Luk 8:10
And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

Mat 13:34
All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:

Mar 4:11
And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

In effect He told them that He was God Himself in John 8:58 and they tried to kill Him

.
Yes. See above....
He didn't open their eyes to the parables on purpose for at least two reasons:
1.) The Jews had to kill him so that he could pay for our sin
2.) He wanted to provoke the Jews to jealousy so that they would realize the salvation granted to the gentiles and cause them to hunger for it.

As to imputed sin, He bore our sins in His body.
I never said Jesus was made a sinner but our sins were imputed to Him (or laid upon Him).

Yes....now read the very verses you quote:
Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
That's not teaching genetic sin from Adam...
It's teaching that all men have GONE ASTRAY...they have "turned" every man to his own way....
That's not genetics.............
It's all men CHOOSING to go astray and TURN AWAY, and they do so willfully...

And they do so in the "aorist tense"...
at a real point in time....
and it's absolute...

They "sin", "go astray", "turn every one to his own way"......

And it happens in time.

 

[plain_n_simple]

Sometimes it is hard to relate to Jesus when dealing with our relationship with sin because He is God. I think we want to believe that being God gave Him some special ability to make it impossible for Him to sin and since we are not God we do not have that and so we have an excuse even if we do not admit that we use it as such. I think we forget that He was also human and was tempted even as we, yet without sin.

Often times we hear how no one can keep the commandments. I believe this is nothing but an excuse to justify our sin. Jesus was human even as we and if Jesus obeyed all God wanted I believe we also can do the same. I do not believe it is an issue of impossibility, but of personal choice which reveals the sinfulness of our hearts.

While we know that the Lord never sinned, Heb 4:15, was He super human or do you think that He was just as vulnerable to temptation as we are yet He overcame it? We are admonished to be as Christ in all our living and unless that is possible the command is a cruel calling. I hold that if we are honest, instead of pious, and do a real evaluation of our hearts we do not want to be as holy as Jesus, thus we choose sin.
I do not believe that His being God gave Him some special edge or helped Him in rejecting the temptation of sin above what He does in us once we are saved.
What are your thoughts?

"Sometimes it is hard to relate to Jesus when dealing with our relationship with sin because He is God."

He already dealt with sin. He paid for all sin, once. Sin is not an issue. Reckon yourself dead to sin. Born again into Jesus' life.

Romans says there is now NO MORE CONDEMNATION because we are in Christ.

Hebrews says we are now NO LONGER SIN CONSCIENCE.

The Holy Ghost is leading us in paths of righteousness, not the pathway of the 10.The Bride will marry Jesus, not Moses.

Luke says the Law and Prophets were until John, NOW the Kingdom is preached. Seek the Kingdom and His righteousness.

The Law is not made for the righteous. God looks at us as righteous. When God looks at us, He sees Jesus. We abide in Him.
.
You will find that when Jesus was tested, He walked by the Spirit. It had just descended on Him.

Galatians says we walk by the Spirit to avoid sin, not by following the law.

Revelation says "they overcame by the blood of the Lamb, their testimonies, and they did not love their lives unto death." No law mentioned.

The Spirit is always about love. When we follow love, we never break a command.

 

[HankD]

I believe all that can be said has been said.

Yes Inspector, everyone dies because of Adam.

It was passed on to all of us by one man...

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, 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:

Both words, "passed" and "sinned" are in a past tense form (aorist) Not future and it happened to "all men".

It does not say that "all will sin" but that "all sinned".
That we do it willingly in the time continuum does not erase this scripture but fulfills it.


HankD

 

[Winman]

I believe all that can be said has been said.

Yes Inspector, everyone dies because of Adam.

It was passed on to all of us by one man...

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, 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:

Both words, "passed" and "sinned" are in a past tense form (aorist) Not future and it happened to "all men".

It does not say that "all will sin" but that "all sinned".
That we do it willingly in the time continuum does not erase this scripture but fulfills it.


HankD

It also does not say all sinned in Adam, so it is presumptuous for you to interpret it to say that.

You still must deal with the fact that this same Paul who you insist taught that all men sinned with Adam in the garden contradicts himself and says that Jacob and Esau had done no evil in their mother's womb.

You can't have it both ways, either Jacob and Esau sinned with Adam in the garden or they did not.

Iconoclast also argues that Romans 3:23 uses this aorist form of "sinned" that you are so fond of, yet Paul does not mention Adam in this chapter whatsoever.

Paul also says men without law perish without law in chapter 2. Why? Does he say they die because of Adam? NOPE. He says they die because they have broken the law written on their hearts.

That itself is a contradiction of your view. In your view, no man is without law, as all men were present in the garden with Adam and were held to his single law.

So, your view makes a mess of Romans, contradictions abound everywhere if your view is correct.

 

[Winman]

It does not say that "all will sin" but that "all sinned".
That we do it willingly in the time continuum does not erase this scripture but fulfills it.

Just another point, who talks this way? Who ever when making a point speaks of the future?

Paul's point here is to prove that all men are sinners. He is not trying to prove all men are born sinners, or else he could have easily said that. No?

No, his point is that death proves all men have sinned. Every man has died, and this proves they have sinned. He is not speaking of men who have not been born yet, there is no need, it is not necessary to prove his point.

And by the way, Romans 5 is speaking of spiritual death, not physical. Look at the terms used, they are all legal terms like "condemnation", "justification", "sin", "righteousness"...

Now, if you go to 1st Corinthians chapter 15 you see the opposite, here Paul is speaking of physical death. Here he speaks of being "raised up", he speaks of different kinds of "flesh", he speaks of different kinds of "bodies"... So here Paul is speaking of physical death, not spiritual, but in Romans 5 he is speaking only of spiritual death, being condemned to death for sin, of being justified unto life through Christ. These are legal terms, not physical.

Paul also contradicts your view in Romans 7. Here he clearly says he was spiritually alive until the law came. When the law came, sin revived and he "died". He could not possibly be saying he physically died here, so he MUST be saying he spiritually died. This also proves he did not spiritually die with Adam in the garden.

Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
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.

Paul is clearly speaking of when he learned the law as a young Jewish man in verse 7, he says he would not have known sin, except for the law, he would have not known what lust was, except the law said, Thou shalt not covet.

So, this is what Paul means when he says "the commandment came", he is speaking of learning the law as all young Jewish men do.

But note that Paul says he was ALIVE without the law once. This must be speaking of being spiritually alive, because Paul could not possibly be saying he physically died. Therefore this also refutes your view that death passed on Paul when Adam sinned.

So, Romans 7:9-11 also clearly refutes your interpretation of Romans 3:23 and Romans 5:12.

Altogether this shows overwhelming evidence against your interpretation of Romans 5:12. You have to intentionally overlook this evidence to hold to your view.

 

[HankD]

I repeat Paul is talking about two different subjects and uses different words for Jacob and Esau doing "good" or "evil"

KJV Romans 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth

Imputed sin (received from Adam) is different than actual sin ("good" or "evil" done after birth).

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, 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:

It also does not say all sinned in Adam, so it is presumptuous for you to interpret it to say that.

It's not presumptuous, The Koine verbs are all in agreement with the primary clause. It is one statement.

Sin entered the world - aorist
death passed on all - aorist
all sinned - aorist

According to Romans 5:12 it happened all at once in a moment of time in the garden.

This will go on and on Winman because we both have totally conviction of what we believe.
For every reason you give there is an answer and vice versa.

My conviction is based upon Romans 5:12 - 21.

You ask who talks this way?
The Spirit of God.

HankD

 

[Winman]

I repeat Paul is talking about two different subjects and uses different words for Jacob and Esau doing "good" or "evil"

What? Do you just make this stuff up? Romans 9:11 says Jacob and Esau had done no evil when they were in Rebecca's womb, therefore they could not have sinned with Adam in the garden.

KJV Romans 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth

Imputed sin (received from Adam) is different than actual sin ("good" or "evil" done after birth).

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, 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:

Whoa, you are changing your story now, you and Iconoclast have said that all men actually "sinned" with Adam before, now you are saying they did not sin but that sin was simply imputed them. You have completely changed your story.

It's not presumptuous, The Koine verbs are all in agreement with the primary clause. It is one statement.

Sin entered the world - aorist
death passed on all - aorist
all sinned - aorist

According to Romans 5:12 it happened all at once in a moment of time in the garden.

That is not imputed sin, that is actual sin.

Nevertheless, it's a bogus argument, if Paul were speaking of personal sin that a person committed in their life (not with Adam), he would still say "for that all have sinned". You wouldn't say it any differently, so it proves nothing.

This will go on and on Winman because we both have totally conviction of what we believe.

My conviction is based upon Romans 5:12.

You ask who talks this way?
The Spirit of God.

HankD

Yes, your conviction is based solely on Romans 5:12, but you completely ignore Romans 2:12-15, Romans 9:11, and Romans 7:9-11 which all refutes your view. That is not the proper way to interpret scripture.

Romans 2 teaches that men without law perish without law because they are a law unto themselves. But if Original Sin is true, then there is no such thing as any man without law, all men were in the garden with Adam and subject to his law not to eat the forbidden fruit. So, this passage contradicts and refutes your view.

Romans 9:11 says Jacob and Esau had done no evil in their mother's womb, but this contradicts and refutes your view that they sinned with Adam.

Romans 7:9-11 says Paul was alive until he learned the law, and then he spiritually died, but you believe Paul died with Adam when he ate the forbidden fruit.

You can't simply ignore scripture to hold to a view you like.

 

[Benjamin]

I’d put it that we’ve all inherited a nature through Adam that is in sin (missing the mark of perfection, IOWs no longer having the original nature man was created with that was made to be very good, - and no less than that is acceptable to God and there is none that is more than the nature that was given them through Adam so in that sense all are in sin, fall short of perfection, period.) so we inherited a nature that will sin, fall short of the very good nature that God created man to have in the beginning due to all men “gaining” the (sinful) nature of knowing good and evil.

God doesn’t/didn’t place us in the situation to die, Adam did, God knew he would and provided for the way of life for all His creatures. Where Determinists go wrong is that they figure the elect are the ones God pre-chose (specially created) beforehand to repent of the actions of Adam. If true, then they would logically have God creating the rest to remain evil, but God NEVER created anything to be evil. God created all men with true hope knowing they would inherit the nature of Adam. That was God’s loving plan and that plan was “very good”.

Where some non-determinists go wrong is to think they are so free within the nature they received in Adam to have the ability to be perfectly good, or acceptable to God – not so, all are below that needed perfect original nature and ARE in sin because of inherited new nature. Only God could live as a man, through Adam, and not sin – and He did it because He is God. Man is not God (Gen 3:22) and cannot do it, not with the nature of Adam which all men have. Essentially, all men made that choice in Adam and all men must now repent of it:

(Gen 3:22) And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and NOW, lest he put forth his hand, and take ALSO of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

We did not lose the nature that God gave man, which included the free will to reason and choose, but we gained a nature that cannot choose perfectly, a nature that will miss the mark of perfection, a nature that is in sin, less that given in creation. To deny that has serious implications…it takes one right back to the fall and resembles where Adam and Eve wanted to be as God. It seems to me to repeat the mistake and to miss the message of the need to die to those desires of having the self-will to be a perfect judge between good and evil and be as God. There is but One God, and only who can do this.

You guys seem to be arguing over ambiguity and semantics as far as I’m concerned…

Personally, as a card carrying LFWer and Non-C I would never resort to making the claim one could go through life and never sin or deny we have a nature that is in sin from birth - in the sense I noted above. I don’t need such to logically defeat the false doctrines of deterministic election and to uphold the truths of God’s Goodness and genuinely available offer of grace to all men from creation on…

 

[Winman]

None of that is the point Benjamin.

The point or question is, are we born "dead in sin"? I do not believe we are, and I believe scripture such as Romans 7:9-11 proves that. Paul clearly tells us that until he learned the law he was "alive", but when the commandment came, sin revived and he "died". This MUST be speaking of spiritual death, Paul could hardly be saying he physically died.

How does this relate to the OP? Jesus was 100% human. He did not come in the "likeness" of flesh, he came in "the same" flesh (Heb 2:14)

Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

The problem with saying we are born with sinful flesh is that you must now deny that Jesus came in "the same" flesh as scripture says. We are warned that this is the spirit of antichrist.

1 Jhn 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

I don't believe people intentionally deny that Jesus came in the flesh, but because of the false doctrine of Original Sin they do so. No where do the scriptures ever say man's nature was cursed when Adam sinned. The very first man born after the "fall", Cain, had the ability to do well and would have been accepted if he did so.

People seem to be hung up on the idea that because all men sin, they must have a sin nature, but scripture easily refutes this, Satan and the fallen angels were created perfect, yet they sinned, Adam and Eve were created very good, yet they sinned.

All that is required to sin is a free will and lack of faith in God. This is why all men sin, and why all men spiritually die. They are not born that way.

 

[Benjamin]

None of that is the point Benjamin.

The point or question is, are we born "dead in sin"? I do not believe we are,…
…How does this relate to the OP?...

I fully understand where you’re going with this and addressed the very point (the ambiguity and semantics) on the use of “dead to sin” by clarifying the differences in the type of nature, or the change of nature and specifying what our new nature is and is capable of and not capable of.

You’ve merely missed my point where I cut to the chase and went right back into the endless ambiguous and semantics with "dead in sin".

How does this relate to the OP? Jesus was 100% human. He did not come in the "likeness" of flesh, he came in "the same" flesh (Heb 2:14)

Read my post again and you should see that I related to that Jesus came in the flesh, I specifically said “through Adam” and noted that He did defeat sin, but also note that I said He was/is the only One that do this this because He is God. It is just as wrong to deny 100% deity as it is to deny the 100% man, both must be maintained as truth.

The problem with saying we are born with sinful flesh is that you must now deny that Jesus came in "the same" flesh as scripture says. We are warned that this is the spirit of antichrist.

Again, I clearly addressed and defined the nature we are born in and also clarified our abilities. I’m going to ignore the antichrist comment. I don’t have time to cut through and nail down all these semantics. But, I will give you a few examples of the problem with ambiguity and semantics and where you have obviously missed that I did indeed address these issues:

No where do the scriptures ever say man's nature was cursed when Adam sinned.

The scriptures clearly indicate that man received a new nature and I addressed the capabilities and incapability’s of that new nature. I'm looking through the ambiguity of the phrases "cursed nature" and “dead in sin” and arguments endlessly about it that neglect defining as I did. You make the claim that my point had nothing to do with it, the Op, but I defined the nature and capabilities we had and have which you “merely” refer to with these ambiguous phrases.

People seem to be hung up on the idea that because all men sin, they must have a sin nature, but scripture easily refutes this, Satan and the fallen angels were created perfect, yet they sinned, Adam and Eve were created very good, yet they sinned.

Winman, I fully understand the opposition tries to bootstrap on total inability, etc., with original sin. I agree with you that this is foolishness and would take that further and claim that it denies the true nature that man has. In my post I addressed that we still have free will, the ability to choose, and God’s plan that this is all good and that it was divinely prepared for in my post. I defined the changes in our nature and the “state” of sin we all are in – … I don’t know what else to say except that maybe you should think a little more about what I was getting at and said rather than simply writing it off as not applying.

I’ve watched you arguing about this issue for months and really don’t have time or desire to try to break it all down here, although I think my post should give you a hint of where you guys are simply talking past each other if you read it more closely.

 

[percho]

And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Rev 13:9
but with precious blood, (DEATH) as of a lamb unblemished and unspotted -- Christ's --foreknown, indeed, before the foundation of the world, and manifested in the last times because of you, 1 Peter 1:19,20 YLT

Before the first man, Adam, was created in the image of his creator God it was determined for the Christ, to be manifested, as a sinless lamb, something mortal, something which could be slain, subject to something called death.

For the Christ to be subject to such he had to be manifested in the image of such. Something had to be created subject to DEATH for the manifestation of the Christ, the Son of God, because:

He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. 1 John 3:8

What are the works of the devil. The ability to cause sin that results in DEATH.

Adam the figure of him to come, the Christ, the Son of God was created to bring forth death which could bring forth the destruction of Satan the devil who had the power of death BEFORE Adam was created. Redemption from death was planned for before death came to the man to be created.

He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;1 John 3:8 and Heb 2:14

Man was created as the means to destroy something that existed before he was created.

IMHO

 

[percho]

None of that is the point Benjamin.

The point or question is, are we born "dead in sin"? I do not believe we are, and I believe scripture such as Romans 7:9-11 proves that. Paul clearly tells us that until he learned the law he was "alive", but when the commandment came, sin revived and he "died". This MUST be speaking of spiritual death, Paul could hardly be saying he physically died.

How does this relate to the OP? Jesus was 100% human. He did not come in the "likeness" of flesh, he came in "the same" flesh (Heb 2:14)

Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

The problem with saying we are born with sinful flesh is that you must now deny that Jesus came in "the same" flesh as scripture says. We are warned that this is the spirit of antichrist.

1 Jhn 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

I don't believe people intentionally deny that Jesus came in the flesh, but because of the false doctrine of Original Sin they do so. No where do the scriptures ever say man's nature was cursed when Adam sinned. The very first man born after the "fall", Cain, had the ability to do well and would have been accepted if he did so.

People seem to be hung up on the idea that because all men sin, they must have a sin nature, but scripture easily refutes this, Satan and the fallen angels were created perfect, yet they sinned, Adam and Eve were created very good, yet they sinned.

All that is required to sin is a free will and lack of faith in God. This is why all men sin, and why all men spiritually die. They are not born that way.

WINMAN don't you think just by sheer luck at least one man would have not sinned out of all the billions that have lived? I am speaking of one other than Jesus. Just one?

Satan tempts and deceives and man sins. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

Satan, that old serpent the devil was in the garden when God pput the man in the garden he, God had planted eastward in Eden.

If there be fifty righteous.
40
30
10

I do not believe God would have destroyed even if there had been one.

Lot who had the imputation of the righteousness of God was taken out and you know how that turned out. He showed his righteousness.

 

[Winman]

WINMAN don't you think just by sheer luck at least one man would have not sinned out of all the billions that have lived? I am speaking of one other than Jesus. Just one?

Not at all. What amazes me is that Jesus could live 33 years as a man and never sin. This is incredible. That all men choose to sin is not incredible at all. Adam and Eve were placed in a perfect world and sinned the very first time they were tempted, we are born in a world with many thousands of constant temptations. Adam and Eve had it easy compared to us.

Satan tempts and deceives and man sins. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

Not just Satan, our very flesh tempts us as Jesus flesh tempted him. Jesus was very hungry in the wilderness, that is why Satan tempted him to turn stones into bread.

Satan, that old serpent the devil was in the garden when God pput the man in the garden he, God had planted eastward in Eden.

Ok, not really sure what point you are trying to make here.

If there be fifty righteous.
40
30
10

I do not believe God would have destroyed even if there had been one.

You are wrong, Lot was righteous, we are directly told that in scripture (2 Pet 2:7-8)

Lot who had the imputation of the righteousness of God was taken out and you know how that turned out. He showed his righteousness.

Nevertheless, the scriptures say Lot was just and righteous.

2 Pet 2:7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:
8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds; )

 

[HankD]

Today is my day off so I wanted to get back into the fray, probably for the last time this time around,(unless provoked).

Romans 2 teaches that men without law perish without law because they are a law unto themselves. But if Original Sin is true, then there is no such thing as any man without law, all men were in the garden with Adam and subject to his law not to eat the forbidden fruit. So, this passage contradicts and refutes your view.

Romans 9:11 says Jacob and Esau had done no evil in their mother's womb, but this contradicts and refutes your view that they sinned with Adam.

Romans 7:9-11 says Paul was alive until he learned the law, and then he spiritually died, but you believe Paul died with Adam when he ate the forbidden fruit.

You can't simply ignore scripture to hold to a view you like.

RE: Romans 2
So, yes there was law, Paul is distinguishing between the law "written upon the heart" and the mosaic law. There was the law of the conscience and the spoken or verbal word of God. Take Cain for instance who said "my punishment is more that I can bear".

He understood that murder is/was wrong.
Also before the law of the pre-deluvian peoples God says:

Genesis 5

3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
...
5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.​

Also before the law of Moses :

KJV Genesis 26:5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.​

So before the mosaic codification (of which Paul speaks in Romans 2) of the Law there was law concerning bloodshed, marriage, tithing, etc...

"done no evil" again this is practical sin or sin manifested in deeds.
The important word is "done" which literally means "practised neither good or evil".

Practised sin is different that imputed sin.
Imputed sin is the possession of the means and ability to do practical sin.

Practiced sin is actual sin - evil deeds done in the body.
The baby rattle snake has the means and the ability to actually kill but perhaps has yet to do so. It is his nature to do so.

In mankind sin is both universal and unlearned.

No one has to teach their chidren to lie, steal, hit, disobey, etc... It comes naturally.

Jacob and Esau later in life both proved they had this means and ability to commit evil.

But God's choice goes beyond future deeds of the babe in the womb - Take David for instance.

As for Paul being "alive", but alive to what - this no doubt has to do with expectations. Which expectations (in verse 11) Paul says were a deception.

Until conviction of sin comes we are not completely aware of its consequence and how "great a death" He delivered us from.

I had a similar experience in my own life. As a child (even into my early teens), though I had manifested some evil, my expectation was that I wasn't bad enough to go to hell. That all changed when I was in the service and began reading the bible after which (reading the Law of Moses) I lost all hope until Christ saved me.

HankD

 

[Winman]

Imputed sin is the possession of the means and ability to do practical sin.

I completely disagree with you here and believe you are redefining what the word "imputed" means. The word imputed means to be "reckoned to" or "placed on one's account". It does not mean a change in one's constitution or being given the ability to sin as you have redefined it here.

From Easton's Bible Dictionary

Imputation

is used to designate any action or word or thing as reckoned to a person. Thus in doctrinal language (1) the sin of Adam is imputed to all his descendants, i.e., it is reckoned as theirs, and they are dealt with therefore as guilty; (2) the righteousness of Christ is imputed to them that believe in him, or so attributed to them as to be considered their own; and (3) our sins are imputed to Christ, i.e., he assumed our "law-place," undertook to answer the demands of justice for our sins. In all these cases the nature of imputation is the same ( Romans 5:12-19 ; Compare Philemon 1:18 Philemon 1:19 ).

As you see, Easton's Bible Dictionary does not define the word "imputation" as you have described it at all.

Paul said sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

What Paul is saying here is that unless there is a law, men cannot be held accountable for breaking the law. It is similar to when people were using LSD in the 60's, there were no laws against it's use, so the law was helpless to prevent it's use. Laws had to be passed against the manufacture, sale, and use of LSD to curb it's abuse.

In Romans 5:13-14, Paul says men from Adam to Moses DID NOT sin after the likeness or similitude of Adam. In fact it was IMPOSSIBLE for them to do so, as God had chased man out of the garden and put an angel to guard it. Men could not possibly eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil even if they wanted to.

So why did men from Adam to Moses spiritually die? Because they broke the laws written on their heart and conscience that Paul describes in Romans chapter 2.

It is clear that Paul is NOT teaching Original Sin, else why would he stop at Moses? Wouldn't Original Sin extend to every man ever born?

Isn't that so?

So, it is impossible Paul is teaching Original Sin in Romans 5:13-14 as many falsely teach. Adam's sin was not imputed to these persons, they DID NOT sin after the likeness of Adam, and it is proved that Original Sin is not being spoken of because Paul only spoke of men from Adam to Moses who did not have express commands from God.

But "imputed sin" does not mean the ability to sin was somehow transferred to all of Adam's descendants as you seem to argue.

Once again, no sin nature is needed to sin, Satan was created without a sin nature, yet he was able to sin, the fallen angels were created without a sin nature, yet they were able to sin, and Adam and Eve were created without a sin nature, yet they were able to sin.

Man did not have to go through any sort of change to have the ability to sin, he always had this ability. Yet God called Adam and Eve "very good". The ability to sin does not make you evil, actually committing sin makes you evil.

 

[HankD]

Inherited is a better word than imputed to explain our situation, in that you are correct.

We received this ability and propensity from Adam.

We are a different case from the devil, he and all angels are an entirely different species designed for heaven, he lived in heaven with God - he had no one to tempt him. Perhaps that is why he can't be saved.

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, 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:​

Sin entered the world, all died, all sinned. Past tense.

No explanation you have given (imo) answers to the premise of this passage.
Romans chapter 5 is the primary passage concerning why we sin. It cannot be denied that at very least Adam is connected to the fact that we all sin.

I agree that babies do not have sin imputed to them for the very reason you cite they do not have the capacity (for a while and even after they begin to bear fruit and be "bad") to comprehend law and the consequence of breaking it.

When the Spirit of God brings this home to each of us, then we bear the guilt of our sin as Adam did in the garden.

Have the last word Winman.

HankD

 

[percho]

I completely disagree with you here and believe you are redefining what the word "imputed" means. The word imputed means to be "reckoned to" or "placed on one's account". It does not mean a change in one's constitution or being given the ability to sin as you have redefined it here.

From Easton's Bible Dictionary



As you see, Easton's Bible Dictionary does not define the word "imputation" as you have described it at all.

Paul said sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

What Paul is saying here is that unless there is a law, men cannot be held accountable for breaking the law. It is similar to when people were using LSD in the 60's, there were no laws against it's use, so the law was helpless to prevent it's use. Laws had to be passed against the manufacture, sale, and use of LSD to curb it's abuse.

In Romans 5:13-14, Paul says men from Adam to Moses DID NOT sin after the likeness or similitude of Adam. In fact it was IMPOSSIBLE for them to do so, as God had chased man out of the garden and put an angel to guard it. Men could not possibly eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil even if they wanted to.

So why did men from Adam to Moses spiritually die? Because they broke the laws written on their heart and conscience that Paul describes in Romans chapter 2.

It is clear that Paul is NOT teaching Original Sin, else why would he stop at Moses? Wouldn't Original Sin extend to every man ever born?

Isn't that so?

So, it is impossible Paul is teaching Original Sin in Romans 5:13-14 as many falsely teach. Adam's sin was not imputed to these persons, they DID NOT sin after the likeness of Adam, and it is proved that Original Sin is not being spoken of because Paul only spoke of men from Adam to Moses who did not have express commands from God.

But "imputed sin" does not mean the ability to sin was somehow transferred to all of Adam's descendants as you seem to argue.

Once again, no sin nature is needed to sin, Satan was created without a sin nature, yet he was able to sin, the fallen angels were created without a sin nature, yet they were able to sin, and Adam and Eve were created without a sin nature, yet they were able to sin.

Man did not have to go through any sort of change to have the ability to sin, he always had this ability. Yet God called Adam and Eve "very good". The ability to sin does not make you evil, actually committing sin makes you evil.

and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die.' Gen 2:17 YLT
For the wages of sin is death; Romans 6:23 KJV
But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. James 1:14,15 KJV

Let's say the pre born is fine until the cord wraps around his neck and he is still born. Let's say a child is born yet lives only 30 min.

But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, Gal 3:22 KJV

Were they imputed with sin?

If yes, when and through whom, themselves or another? If no, explain why death.

Another question concerning a scripture.

And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: Heb 9:27 KJV

Does that mean that, once it was appointed unto men, to die or that it was appointed unto men to die, once?

Your thoughts on that. Thanks.

 

[Winman]

and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die.' Gen 2:17 YLT
For the wages of sin is death; Romans 6:23 KJV
But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. James 1:14,15 KJV

Let's say the pre born is fine until the cord wraps around his neck and he is still born. Let's say a child is born yet lives only 30 min.

But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, Gal 3:22 KJV

Were they imputed with sin?

If yes, when and through whom, themselves or another? If no, explain why death.

Another question concerning a scripture.

And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: Heb 9:27 KJV

Does that mean that, once it was appointed unto men, to die or that it was appointed unto men to die, once?

Your thoughts on that. Thanks.

This has been addressed.

Did Paul say he was born dead in sin?

Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
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.

I've seen folks give all sorts of fantastic explanations for this passage, but it is really very simple and plain. Paul is clearly describing when he learned the law when he was a young man as all young Jewish men do. He also learned what sin is through the law, he says he would have not known what lust is, except the law had said, Thous shalt not covet.

Did Paul say he was born dead in sin? NO. Paul clearly says he was alive without the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived and he DIED. He thought obeying the law would lead to life, but instead, knowledge of the law led to death, sin taking occasion by the law and slaying him.

There it is, PLAIN AS DAY, Paul shows us people are not born dead in sin. He also shows us when folks spiritually die, when they learn right from wrong and therefore become accountable.

This scripture would be plain and simple for anyone to understand had folks not tried to explain it away because it utterly refutes their false doctrine.