No Cross? No problem!

[webdog]

I have my own thread for this, that ironically not to many people participated in, so I won't take up your time further on this one. Skandelon is waiting.

Dr. Randy Alcorn did a wonderful job addressing creation and redemption in chapters 12 and 13 in Heaven

 

[webdog]

Death was appointed to all born in the likeness of the first man Adam and it was appointed before he sinned. Adam was created a living soul so he could die.
Not only was death appointed before he sinned it was appointed before he was created that the Word made flesh after the likeness of Adam the Lamb of God would be slain.

The Word made flesh: God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh:
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. but Jesus was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin. 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.

Based on the above bolded, I don't think we are on the same page.

 

[Winman]

If he had not defeated death by being raised from the dead where would he be today being he was the Word made flesh lower than the angels for the suffering of death and died? What does Paul say in 1 Cor. 15?

Would not his soul still be in hell and his body would have seen corruption?

If the wages of sin is death which leads to corruption is there any life shown to be given outside the resurrection from the dead in the word of God?

Jesus had to rise from the dead and ascend to heaven to offer his blood on the mercy seat. If Jesus did not rise, then neither could we, and all the creation would remain under the curse.

 

[HankD]

We are getting closer now. You agree that the scriptures show Jesus's flesh exactly like ours. Only because he suffered the same infirmities as us could he relate and feel mercy toward us.
But you must still decide if this is what is called "sin nature". I do not like this term, as I cannot conceive of Jesus having a sin nature. I prefer the term used by scripture itself, "flesh". Jesus was born flesh. The flesh cannot be sin because it has no will, it cannot make decisions, it has only lusts and desires. The flesh can draw or pull at the soul of man (James 1:12-15), but only the soul with it's will and intellect can make a choice or decision to sin.
If you agree with this, then you must agree we are not born sinners, but only born flesh with a propensity to sin.

Augustine (and Calvin) taught that sin itself was passed through the flesh. This is not possible, as sin is a moral entity, not physical.

The scriptures also teach that we receive our soul and spirit from God, not our parents. We are made upright, our souls and spirit are pure until they allow themselves to be drawn away and enticed, seduced by the lusts and desires of the flesh. It is only when the soul allows itself to be seduced by the flesh that lust conceives and brings forth sin (James 1:15), which brings forth death.
Jesus did not obey the lust of his flesh, and therefore never sinned.

I believe the root of the problem is the word "flesh - sarx".

sarx in koine has a wider scope than simply the tissue covering the bones.
When applied to humanity it includes the propensity to sin and passed on to us by Adam. This is the explicit teaching of Romans 5:12.

Applying human logic to this passage will not negate it. e.g. "sin is not a moral entity". Whatever "it" is Romans 5:12 clearly points back to Adam as transmitting "it" to all of us.

This is why Jesus had to be born of a virgin and overshadowed by the Holy Ghost at His human conception. In this He is unlike any of us in that He was made flesh apart from sin.

No other human being on earth had or ever will have such a conception and birth.

The tissue covering his body was the same as ours but he did not have the adamic sin nature because He was not the natural son of Joseph.

He could not be our Savior if He were the natural son of Joseph.

Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.​

"that holy thing" is translated as "that Holy One" in the NKJV.​

Someone said that this means He was separated unto God, but the original language clearly indicates that Jesus even as a human being retained the intrinsic attribute of the holiness of God though indeed He was separated unto God.​

John 14:30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.​

Personally I don't see the distinction between would not/could not sin.​

He "would not" sin because He was/is the Son of man wholly separated unto God. perfect without spot or blemish.​

He "could not" sin because He was/is the Son of God, God incarnate in whom there is no shadow of turning.​

HankD​

 

[Iconoclast]

It's also pretty presumptuous of you to think just because I deny your understanding of Romans 5 and your soteriology I haven't studied it. That's mighty haughty.

It is not "my understanding".......it is the truth of the scripture.It is close to the heart of the gospel......Federal headship......there is no room for novelty,or being cute with the verses.

I am just speaking flat out direct to you. Most of your posts that are wrong are wrong because of this point.You just cannot see it.....yet.
WD , you are not obligated to heed what I say, but I am saying that you need to continue to study this passage.
I think you would be hard pressed to find any reputable person or church that deviated from this teaching in church history.
the same way you do not get romans 5...leads to the same error being repeated in 2pet 3:

 

[Thinkingstuff]

So babies are sinners and are not saved and go to Heaven anyway?

Or babies are not sinners and do not need to be saved which means they do not need the cross since the cross was for sinners?

OR... babies are sinners in need of a Savior and God Almighty can apply the merit of Christ's blood without them having to believe?

Those are your real options.

Christ did not die for trees.

Christ is going to burn up ALL the trees one day.

Babies are not affected by sin in the same fashion as TREES are affected by sin.

false senario.

there are other options which you don't inlcude. Such as
Babies have a sin nature which is cleansed by Christ attoning sacrifice. In which case their are niether a sinner nor are they in a position they don't need Jesus Christ. They have no personal guilt and their sin nature can be cleansed.

You seem to be saying all infants whom are never born automatically go to hell. But yet we don't see this delemma with David when he talks about his child lost with Bathsheba. David says I will go to him. Either David is assured of his ultimate fate is Hell and separation from God or that his destination it to God in which he'll meet his unborn son.

 

[Luke2427]

false senario.

there are other options which you don't inlcude. Such as
Babies have a sin nature which is cleansed by Christ attoning sacrifice. In which case their are niether a sinner nor are they in a position they don't need Jesus Christ. They have no personal guilt and their sin nature can be cleansed.

No, no- that IS one of the options stated differently. Please reread the post.

God applies the merit of Christ to babies without their having to believe. That is one of the options.

You seem to be saying all infants whom are never born automatically go to hell.

No. Obviously you have not been following these posts. I do not believe that nor have I even indicated such.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No, no- that IS one of the options stated differently. Please reread the post.

Ok.

God applies the merit of Christ to babies without their having to believe. That is one of the options.

I don't think its quite the same. By how you phrase the subject sentence it seems to assume that infants not yet born have the capability of believing. In point of fact they do not. However, Not believing is not a willful act on their part. Thus the suggestion or the implication that we are saying without faith you can be saved is not accurate.

No. Obviously you have not been following these posts. I do not believe that nor have I even indicated such.

I'm glad to hear it. I do not believe having a sin nature equates to sinning. A propensity or better yet the concupiscence towards sin, yes. But not sinning.

 

[percho]

What cleans anyone from sin that we may be given the gift of life?

A. Is it the atoning sacrifice and resurrection to life of Jesus because the word of God says this is how we are cleansed and given life.

B. Is it our belief/faith that this is how we are cleaned and given life that cleans us and gives us life?

Rom. 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

Does that verse describe the grace of God or not?

Reconciled to God by the death (cleansed by his blood)
Shall be saved by his life (be given life by his resurrected/regenerated life)

Titus 3:5 says the exact same thing.

His death and resurrection is the faith that saves us.
His death and resurrection is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

For by grace are ye saved through faith. (the death and resurrection) not something we believe.

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men

Death is the wages paid to all living souls. It does not matter what the baby knows or has done, he will die in Adam. We are saved from death, the gate into hell (hades) the estate/state of death.

From the word of God is it about heaven or hell or is it about life or death?