How to deal with Christ not inheriting Mary's sin nature

[quantumfaith]

Yes. You do it quite often when I say something you can't refute with your inside voice.



The article you outsourced your answer to doesn't say anything about the text I asked you about.



But that's not all Romans 5 says.



Wait, so now you're saying you misinterpreted those verses you just said imply that Jesus inherited a sin nature through Mary?



Your low view of scripture is duly noted.



I agree. Romans 5 is a man-made invention but the man who invented it invented it under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.



Sorry, but "nuh-uh" stopped being a valid response when I was eight years old.



Wrong again. See Ps 51:5.



I showed you verses that say "the". So what? Now, you're playing the same game the atheists play, where you demand that a verse not only support an idea, but that it do so according to your demands, and not simply according to context and grammar.

Insulting?

 

[Winman]

Psalm 51:5.

OK, lets look at Psa 51:5;

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

Does this verse say David inherited a sin nature from his father? NO, it does not even mention his father. If anything, if this verse was teaching that you inherit a sin nature, it would teach that David inherited his sin nature from his mother!

David did not have the same mother as his seven brothers. They were all tall and handsome, David was short and ruddy.

David's mother had relations with a non-Jew. David had two sisters Abigail and Zeruiah whose father was Nahash the Ammonite.

2 Sam 17:25 And Absalom made Amasa captain of the host instead of Joab: which Amasa was a man's son, whose name was Ithra an Israelite, that went in to Abigail the daughter of Nahash, sister to Zeruiah Joab's mother.

1 Sam 2:13 And Jesse begat his firstborn Eliab, and Abinadab the second, and Shimma the third,
14 Nethaneel the fourth, Raddai the fifth,
15 Ozem the sixth, David the seventh:
16 Whose sisters were Zeruiah, and Abigail. And the sons of Zeruiah; Abishai, and Joab, and Asahel, three.

David's mother, whose name is never mentioned in scripture had two daughters with Nahash the Ammonite. This was considered "unclean" to the Jews, she would have been a "polluted" woman.

David was the black sheep of his family. When Samuel came to Jesse and asked to see all his sons, twice Samuel did not bring David. Only the third time, when Samuel insisted, did he bring David forward, and Samuel annointed him as the next king of Israel.

1 Sam 16:10 Again, Jesse made seven of his sons to pass before Samuel. And Samuel said unto Jesse, The LORD hath not chosen these.
11 And Samuel said unto Jesse, Are here all thy children? And he said, There remaineth yet the youngest, and, behold, he keepeth the sheep. And Samuel said unto Jesse, Send and fetch him: for we will not sit down till he come hither.
12 And he sent, and brought him in. Now he was ruddy, and withal of a beautiful countenance, and goodly to look to. And the LORD said, Arise, anoint him: for this is he.

But nevertheless, it seems David had a poor self image because of his mother, and many scholars believe this is what David was saying in Psa 51:5.

It is also possible that David was conceived out of wedlock, but scholars are not completely sure.

But this verse in no way is teaching that all men are born sinners or that they inherit a sin nature from their father.

 

[quantumfaith]

http://ancientroadpublications.com/Studies/BiblicalStudies/Psalm51.5.html

 

[Winman]

http://ancientroadpublications.com/Studies/BiblicalStudies/Psalm51.5.html

Thanks for the link. I was not aware what versions other than the King James say.

New International Version – “Surely I have been a sinner from birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.”

Today’s English Version – “I have been evil from the time I was born; from the day of birth I have been sinful.”

Jerusalem Bible – “You know I was born guilty, a sinner from the moment of conception.”

Amplified Bible – “Behold, I was brought forth in [a state of] iniquity; my mother was sinful who conceived me [and I, too, am sinful].”

I can see now why so many believe this verse supports Original Sin.

So much for MVs teaching the same thing as the King James

 

[evangelist6589]

Thanks for the link. I was not aware what versions other than the King James say.

New International Version – “Surely I have been a sinner from birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.”

Today’s English Version – “I have been evil from the time I was born; from the day of birth I have been sinful.”

Jerusalem Bible – “You know I was born guilty, a sinner from the moment of conception.”

Amplified Bible – “Behold, I was brought forth in [a state of] iniquity; my mother was sinful who conceived me [and I, too, am sinful].”

I can see now why so many believe this verse supports Original Sin.

So much for MVs teaching the same thing as the King James

Lets not get into that debate here for it is OT, but I challenge you to start a thread in the appropriate form and say something like "The King James is the best english translation" or something of that effect. Or you can say "The MV's do not teach original sin." Many will refute you.

 

[evangelist6589]

Good for you, you get a gold star.

I am a slave, yes I am a slave of God!!!

 

[evangelist6589]

Evidently, you need somebody to teach you both theology and manners.

Amen:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[evangelist6589]

I didn't know that I insulted you the first time, my remark was to Evangelist.

But you are correct, I was insulting, so I apologize to him. Sincerely.

When did you apologize to me??? The subject verb agreement makes no sense in that sentence if that remark was not intended for me.

 

[evangelist6589]

You are CORRECT!! And that is exactly the point. None of these verses actually say you inherited a sin nature from your mother. But... it is easy to see how a person would misinterpret these verses to say so.

Are you following me?

And that is exactly how this superstition that we inherit a sin nature from our father started, there is not one verse in all the Bible to support that. Look and see for yourself. That is a man made invention.

Are you kidding me???? Do you not believe that we came into this world born into sin???? The Bible says this.

A. Psa 58:3-The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies.
B. Rm 3:10-12-as it is written: None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands;
no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good, not even one.
C. Rm 3:23-For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God
D. 1 Jn 3:4-Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.

 

[Van]

Rebuttal

Well, if you look it up, the term "were made" ( were made sinners) is kathistēmi which means to set in place, or to appoint, as when Jesus said he would "make" a faithful servant ruler over many cities.

Mat 24:47 Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods.

It is not saying Adam's sin will cause you to be BORN a sinner. It is saying that you will be appointed, assigned, or designated as a sinner. HUGE difference.

Whenever someone sins, they are appointed or assigned as a "sinner' just as Adam was, and the like punishment of "condemnation unto death" is assigned the person.

Likewise, when one trusts on Jesus as Jesus trusted his Father, that person is appointed, assigned, or imputed righteous.

Romans 5 is showing that both Adam and Jesus set "legal precedent" for certain actions. After Adam, everyone who sinned would likewise be constituted or designated as a "sinner" and the sentence of condemnation to death passes on them.

There is not one word in Romans 5 to support that men would be BORN sinners. That is a man made invention not supported by scripture.

As you know I have refuted all your denial of scripture many times before. You simple ignore the rebuttal and post the same bogus arguments.

We were conceived in iniquity, and therefore made sinners by God. Where were we "set in place?" Iniquity!

No one said we are born sinners, we are made sinners at conception, before we are born. Every aborted baby has been conceived in iniquity, before they have done anything good or bad.

Are we believers at conception or condemned at conception for unbelief? John 3:18

When we are conceived, were we by nature children of wrath? Ephesians 2:1-3

And again, scripture does not say we were born sinners, it says we were made sinners, conceived in iniquity and by nature children of wrath, condemned already due to lack of belief.

 

[evangelist6589]

As you know I have refuted all your denial of scripture many times before. You simple ignore the rebuttal and post the same bogus arguments.

We were conceived in iniquity, and therefore made sinners by God. Where were we "set in place?" Iniquity!

No one said we are born sinners, we are made sinners at conception, before we are born. Every aborted baby has been conceived in iniquity, before they have done anything good or bad.

Are we believers at conception or condemned at conception for unbelief? John 3:18

When we are conceived, were we by nature children of wrath? Ephesians 2:1-3

And again, scripture does not say we were born sinners, it says we were made sinners, conceived in iniquity and by nature children of wrath, condemned already due to lack of belief.

Does Winman believe that babies that die in abortions are not sinners nor born into sin????

 

[padredurand]

Are you kidding me???? Do you not believe that we came into this world born into sin???? The Bible says this.

A. Psa 58:3-The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies.
B. Rm 3:10-12-as it is written: None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands;
no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good, not even one.
C. Rm 3:23-For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God
D. 1 Jn 3:4-Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.

E6589, I know I was a jerk to you on the other thread but I just have to give you a big old slap and the back and say, "You go right on and preach that! Go get 'em!"

 

[agedman]

David's mother had relations with a non-Jew. David had two sisters Abigail and Zeruiah whose father was Nahash the Ammonite.

Just so folks who casually read this thread will know.

I reject Winman's statement about David's mother being immoral.

There is really nothing in the book of Samuel or Chronicles to validate that thinking.

Nahash (other than the king of Ammon) could have been the name of Davids mother or another name for Jesse.

Rabinical writings do not clarify and neither does the word (Nahash) for it means serpent in Hebrew.

What IS a strong perhaps is that BOTH David's mother's first husband AND David's father's first wife had died.

That, typical of the brother taking to wife that of the dead brother, David's father took the brother's wife for himself - adopting the two daughters and having David as his own.

This would account for the characteristic differences, and also allow for the moral issues to be righteously resolved - unlike Winman's desire to have David's mother playing the harlot as the grandmother did (Rahab).

 

[webdog]

Are you kidding me???? Do you not believe that we came into this world born into sin???? The Bible says this.

A. Psa 58:3-The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies.
B. Rm 3:10-12-as it is written: None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands;
no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good, not even one.
C. Rm 3:23-For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God
D. 1 Jn 3:4-Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.

I've never heard a newborn speak anything.

The fact sin is lawlessness should cement the fact a newborn is not a sinner.

 

[preacher4truth]

Are you kidding me???? Do you not believe that we came into this world born into sin???? The Bible says this.

A. Psa 58:3-The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies.
B. Rm 3:10-12-as it is written: None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands;
no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good, not even one.
C. Rm 3:23-For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God
D. 1 Jn 3:4-Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.

He's not kidding. He also believes the lost seek God and are good, and denies the Romans 3 indictment.

If that were not enough he also believes some don't need to repent, using the ninety and nine illustration as proof which completely missed the context and denies other dogma (Luke 15:3-7).

Worse yet? He believes even a dog has faith 'just like us', (see how utterly ridiculous the logical conclusion of inherent faith actually is as even a dog has it?) denying it is a gift (Rom. 14:3/Php. 1:29 &c) and its supernatural aspect. This false teaching declares faith to be merely an inherent ability we must flex to get a beggin' strip (for a dog) or salvation (for a human).

 

[quantumfaith]

I've never heard a newborn speak anything.

The fact sin is lawlessness should cement the fact a newborn is not a sinner.

I don't think, in my limited theological knowledge that Psalm 58:3 belongs in this argument. From my casual reading David is addressing enemies of God and his people. Not birthing an expository position on inheriting guilt of Adam.

 

[quantumfaith]

He's not kidding. He also believes the lost seek God and are good, and denies the Romans 3 indictment.

If that were not enough he also believes some don't need to repent, using the ninety and nine illustration as proof which completely missed the context and denies other dogma (Luke 15:3-7).

Worse yet? He believes even a dog has faith 'just like us', (see how utterly ridiculous the logical conclusion of inherent faith actually is as even a dog has it?) denying it is a gift (Rom. 14:3/Php. 1:29 &c) and its supernatural aspect. This false teaching declares faith to be merely an inherent ability we must flex to get a beggin' strip (for a dog) or salvation (for a human).

There you go again (spoken in the voice of Reagan) with your INTENTIONAL inaccuracies. NNE claims "good". We are commanded to seek God, and it would not be so, if we were incapable of it, even in the midst of our sinful position.

 

[agedman]

There you go again (spoken in the voice of Reagan) with your INTENTIONAL inaccuracies. NNE claims "good". We are commanded to seek God, and it would not be so, if we were incapable of it, even in the midst of our sinful position.

I think that P4T actually summed up (using a mathematical term) quite accurately Winman's overall view as he has presented it on the BB.

I never quite got the hang of putting the "e" in the midst of mathematical.

One other small point.

God has historically demanded what humankind is incapable of - both in doing and in salvation.

For God to "command" sinful man to seek Him, knowing that man is incapable of compliance, is no more out of God's character than Him declaring that a tree was to die when it wasn't even in season to bear fruit.

God demands compliance to what humankind is incapable because then salvation is all of grace and mercy.

 

[preacher4truth]

I think that P4T actually summed up (using a mathematical term) quite accurately Winman's overall view as he has presented it on the BB.

I never quite got the hang of putting the "e" in the midst of mathematical.

One other small point.

God has historically demanded what humankind is incapable of - both in doing and in salvation.

For God to "command" sinful man to seek Him, knowing that man is incapable of compliance, is no more out of God's character than Him declaring that a tree was to die when it wasn't even in season to bear fruit.

God demands compliance to what humankind is incapable because then salvation is all of grace and mercy.

Yes, I summed it up precisely, and these are well known facts. He and others have claimed goodness, even their own goodness in direct denial of the revelation of God's Word (Romans 3&c). The balance of my post further illustrates his belief system which is nothing short of dissident theology.

One thing I do not do is lie, nor do I intentionally misrepresent in spite of all my other vast sins. That said I take the relentless stalking of another all in stride. His false accusations and unremitting walk in the flesh means nothing to me.

Thanks agedman for your objectivity and honesty. It is much appreciated. I respect the fact that you can side in one thread with a person, and in another call the same person out. That to me is great.

 

[DHK]

There you go again (spoken in the voice of Reagan) with your INTENTIONAL inaccuracies. NNE claims "good". We are commanded to seek God, and it would not be so, if we were incapable of it, even in the midst of our sinful position.

Quite true.
Preaching to the pagan Greeks in Athens, Paul said:

Acts 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

God doesn't give commands that are impossible to obey.