the baby Jesus

[Helen]

I'm wondering if it is not that Christ did not have the ability to sin as much as, unlike us, He had the ability NOT to sin...

 

[Aaron]

First, we need to stop referring to the sin nature as something that is passed like a genetic trait.

Original sin is not about what we receive from Adam, but what we don't receive. We do not receive life from Adam. Because of sin, Adam died and became incapable of transferring life. We are all spiritually stillborn children of dead Adam.

That's the reason for the need of the virgin birth of Christ, and the reason we need to be born again.

Second, no one is slamming Helen. It is no more a slam to say Helen needs to relearn the first principles of our faith than it is for her to imply that the Calvinists who have replied to her are proud and arrogant.

I personally know Calvinist mothers of seven, nine and ten children who say just the opposite of infants that Helen says. My Calvinist wife is number 5 of the 6 from her Calvinist mother. I do wish that you would cease invoking your motherhood as a kind of trump card in this discussion.

Now, to the topic at hand.

He would be quiet, contented and patient. He would shed no tears for His own griefs.

The cattle are lowing the baby awakes,
but little Lord Jesus no crying He makes.

You only regard that as romanticized because in all your experience as a mother, you have never been around a sinless infant. You merely think them incapable of sin, therefore you transfer their traits to the sinless Christ.

 

[Helen]

Originally posted by Aaron:
First, we need to stop referring to the sin nature as something that is passed like a genetic trait.

except that that is the most accurate picture I know of to describe it...

Original sin is not about what we receive from Adam, but what we don't receive. We do not receive life from Adam.

Even if Adam had never sinned we could not receive life from him. Life is from Christ and Christ alone. He is the Creator and Redeemer.

However it is interesting that AFTER sin Adam declared Eve the mother of all the living...{Gen. 3:20). I'm sure no one else was the father!

Because of sin, Adam died and became incapable of transferring life. We are all spiritually stillborn children of dead Adam.

If that were true then Jesus would never have been right to say that the little ones belonged to him, that such was the kingdom of heaven, etc. Nor would Paul have been able to say that once he was alive but when sin sprang to life he died. Nor would John have been filled with the Holy Spirit from the womb. Nor would David have gone where his son went after death.

In addition, you do not know that Adam was not saved at the end and spiritually alive, do you? We do not know if he repented and believed in the same way the others of the OT did. We are not told. If he repented and believed on the Promise before his children were born, were they born spiritually alive from a spiritually alive father, or still spiritually dead (according to what you believe)?

That's the reason for the need of the virgin birth of Christ, and the reason we need to be born again.

The virgin birth of Christ was God's choice. He could have come into the world any way He wanted and still been our Savior.

Second, no one is slamming Helen. It is no more a slam to say Helen needs to relearn the first principles of our faith than it is for her to imply that the Calvinists who have replied to her are proud and arrogant.

I didn't imply it. I said it. One of the things that I have noticed about several of the Calvinist apologists is their arrogance. If you consider that a slam, then that's what it is. It is also my observation. However that does not mean you did not insult me, whether in return or not. As my dad used to tell me, if you have to make an excuse for what you did, then what you did was wrong.

I personally know Calvinist mothers of seven, nine and ten children who say just the opposite of infants that Helen says. My Calvinist wife is number 5 of the 6 from her Calvinist mother. I do wish that you would cease invoking your motherhood as a kind of trump card in this discussion.

And I personally know Mormon mothers of a lot more than that who are very convinced what they believe is true, too. All I could do, however, was speak from my own experience and observation. That is normally considered acceptable.

Now, to the topic at hand.

He would be quiet, contented and patient. He would shed no tears for His own griefs.

Why? Because that would be more convenient to the parents?

He cried at Lazarus' tomb. He was not quiet, contented, and patient in the Temple courts or with the Pharisees.

The cattle are lowing the baby awakes,
but little Lord Jesus no crying He makes.

You only regard that as romanticized because in all your experience as a mother, you have never been around a sinless infant. You merely think them incapable of sin, therefore you transfer their traits to the sinless Christ.

Most of our Christmas traditions, I'm afraid, are not based on reality. We don't know if He cried or not! Nor is crying a sin, for if it is, then our Lord sinned at Lazarus' tomb.

Here are a couple more that are not based on the Bible:

the angels did NOT sing
"Hark, the Herald Angels Sing"

there were not 'three kings' -- there were three gifts or types of gifts. There was a contingent of Magoi, the upper house of Persia and their armed guards. Why else would ALL Jerusalem and Herod, too, be frightened?
"We Three Kings of Orient Are"

And, as one last note, as a friend who is watching this thread emailed me this afternoon, if Jesus was incapable of sinning, how could He have been tempted in every way, just as we are? Temptation is not temptation if one cannot sin -- what is there then to tempt?

He could have sinned. That is the whole point of it. It is just that He had the ability NOT to sin, and He didn't.

[ October 22, 2002, 07:48 PM: Message edited by: Helen ]

 

[Paul of Eugene]

OK I'm going to stick my neck out again and say a few things that probably are going to seem controversial to some of you.

To me, the virgin birth was not about avoiding the taint of sin that would otherwise come of the sperm from the man. As if sin were encoded in physical genes! It is about establishing that God is His Father.

To me, the sin nature is, instead, something we all "catch" from our parents and our society. We come into the world defenseless and helpless and pick it up with our mother's milk. We are born innocent, but part of Adam's guilt is, his children are born without defense against acquiring sin as we grow. So, Helen, you see I think you're right to say infants do not sin.

Jesus, on the other hand, came into the world with a righteous character fully established. It is by this that He avoided "catching" our sinful condition.

 

[Angie Miller]

Why was Jesus in the desert being "tempted" by Satan if He would not have had a choice? What then is the purpose of Him doing it and what is God trying to tell us? Hmmmmmmmmmmm?

Love in Christ Angie

 

[Aaron]

Aaron said: First, we need to stop referring to the sin nature as something that is passed like a genetic trait.

To which Helen replied: except that that is the most accurate picture I know of to describe it...

This wasn't to you specifically, but to the several folks who have expressed it that way in this debate. You express it that way because you see sin as an object. You see the sin nature as something invading an otherwise pure nature and defiling it.

But sin is not something, it is a lack of something. What is death but the absence of life?

Why did Paul cry out "Wretched man that I am!" Was it not that he found no power to do good? Again an impotence, an emptiness, an absence of life. "The body of this death," he said meaning sin.

PTW already explained to you the proper sense of Paul's affirmation that he was alive once before the commandment came. He's not saying that he was really alive, but in his own mind he was alive. But once the commandment (which was ordained to life) came, sin "revived" and he died.

The Law cannot kill one who is spiritually alive, and we see that very clearly in the Captain of our salvation who, because He was alive, fulfilled the Law.

And no, we cannot after we are saved pass life onto our children, because our salvation has a future fulfillment. Our spirits are truly saved, but our bodies are still bodies of death, and children are still the stillborn fruit of our dead bodies.

I will remind you that both Adam's body and spirit were alive before the Fall.

The root problem with those who hold the views that you have been defending is that you don't see yourselves as needing to be reborn, but as basically good, living souls that merely need a little repair work here and there. You think you inherited some kind of "disease" that you need an injection for.

That is not the testimony of the Scriptures.

Concerning Eve: That was the name given to her after the prophecy that from her would issue the Redeemer of mankind. You do violence to the Scriptures to suppose that this means we are all spiritually alive until some moment of conscious rebellion.

Now, please cite the Scripture that says all the little children belong to Christ. You will see that you are leaning heavily upon your own predispositions in the interpretations of certain often misunderstood Scriptures.

Helen said:
The virgin birth of Christ was God's choice. He could have come into the world any way He wanted and still been our Savior.

But it wasn't an arbitrary choice. God will not share His glory with another. There will be no man that could claim to be the biological father of Christ, but if there were a man on earth at the time who could impart life, then there would have been no need for Christ to come. Christ had to be virgin born.

Helen:
Why? Because that would be more convenient to the parents?

Should I dignify this with a response? No. Not for the convenience of the parents. Where did Christ ever do anything for convenience?

For the glory of His Father!

He cried at Lazarus' tomb. He was not quiet, contented, and patient in the Temple courts or with the Pharisees.

Your topic concerns how Jesus would behave as a baby, and though the iniquity of selling doves and changing money was well-established at the time, Christ didn't judge it when He was a boy of twelve.

Don't think that He had any thought for Himself when He cleansed the Temple. It was always for the glory of His Father.

The intimation that Christ was somehow impatient and discontented only shows that you really don't understand what the sin nature is and how it is manifest.

His crying at the tomb of Lazarus was not for Himself, as the tears we shed at the deaths of our loved ones.

"Blessed are they that mourn..." Mourn for what? Mourn at the death of a loved one? Hardly. His is certainly not a natural mourning, which would not be present in the knowledge that the loved one would soon be raised from the dead. His sorrow was a godly sorrow. A sorrow for the sins that wrought the death in the first place.

And finally, what is all this garbage about Christmas traditions? It was a discussion about this very verse in the Music Forum that started this debate.

Those who understand sin and know Christ will affirm that the verse from Away in a Manger is an accurate description of a sinless babe.

 

[Aaron]

Originally posted by Angie Miller:
Why was Jesus in the desert being "tempted" by Satan if He would not have had a choice? What then is the purpose of Him doing it and what is God trying to tell us? Hmmmmmmmmmmm?

Love in Christ Angie

Is it possible for God to lie?

 

[Abiyah]

To Music Man and Rev G --

Originally posted by Music Man:

Sorry to step in, but that is certainly not what he is saying. I believe he is saying that the sin nature is passed down through the father, which is why he could not have an earthly father. (At least I hope that is what you are saying, Rev. G.

).

Can you give me chapter and verse which says
that the male only, not the female, passes on this
"sin nature"?

I am sure he would say that no, intercourse within the bounds set forth by God in His Word, is not sin. Anything outside of that, is.

Chris

With this statement, I agree fully.

[ October 23, 2002, 12:38 AM: Message edited by: Abiyah ]

 

[Abiyah]

Originally posted by Preach the Word:

Abiyah, by taking his humanity seriously, the Scripture declares that Jesus could not have sinned.

Can you give me chapter and verse where the
Bible says that it was impossible for our Lord
to sin?

Where does temptation come from? Within. Jesus had no sin nature. There was nothing to appeal to. His temptation were from without and not from within.

Why, then, was He tempted? The Bible clearly
states that He was tempted IN ALL THINGS just
as we are. Why does the Bible make a big
deal of His temptation in the desert, when He
at one of His frailest moments, only to inform
us that He did not sin? How could He be tempted
"like we are" tempted if it was impossible for Him
to make the choice to sin? Why did it bother to
tell us that if it was not significant that He made
a choice to remain sinless for us? The Bible does
not say that satan tried to tempt Him but that it
tempted Him.

Crying has nothing to do with sin.

Thank you.

The only exception is if you are a Gator fan. Then it is sin. They are under judgment.

8oD !!

I am not a football fan, and i am not familiar with
football terms, nor do I give two hoots about
them, but my grandson has started playing on a
junior high team, and I go for all the games.
Today, Ii had to think twice when a man on a cell
phone walked behind me and said, "Well, he's
a center--that puts him at a disadvantage." I
thought he said, "Well, he's a sinner--that puts
him at a disadvantage."

[ October 23, 2002, 12:57 AM: Message edited by: Abiyah ]

 

[Helen]

A few corrections here, Aaron!

Originally posted by Aaron:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Aaron said: ... you see sin as an object. You see the sin nature as something invading an otherwise pure nature and defiling it.

No I don't! You are reading something into my posts that I never said. I have NEVER said a baby has a pure nature. I have said just the opposite! I have agreed that all children are born with a sin nature! Where are you getting this other idea of what I have said?

In fact, that is the very reason I have used the picture of genetics -- they are there from the moment of conception and you are what you are genetically at that moment.

But sin is not something, it is a lack of something. What is death but the absence of life?

Oh sin absolutely IS something in and of itself! It is rebellious disobedience toward God. It is not simply 'lack of obedience'. There is nothing neutral about sin. It is active disobedience born in a rebellious heart.

As for death, it is separation. Jesus said in John 17:3 that life was knowing the Father and the Son. The knowing here is the intimate knowing, not the intellectual awareness. If life is intimate knowing, or a relationship of that sort with God Himself, then death is a separation from God and everything He is. It is not a lack of awareness.

Why did Paul cry out "Wretched man that I am!" Was it not that he found no power to do good? Again an impotence, an emptiness, an absence of life. "The body of this death," he said meaning sin.

I have never argued with that! But how on earth could he have cried out for help if spiritual death was unconsciousness?

PTW already explained to you the proper sense of Paul's affirmation that he was alive once before the commandment came. He's not saying that he was really alive, but in his own mind he was alive. But once the commandment (which was ordained to life) came, sin "revived" and he died.

Except that is not the way Paul put it. He did not say he was alive 'in his own mind.' He said he was alive, period. However, even going with your argument above, it holds no water, for as a Pharisee, he knew the commandments. He knew them from childhood, so the only possible thing he can be saying is that it was in childhood that he was alive! Nor did sin "revive". It was dead and it came to life. That is what he clearly says.

The Law cannot kill one who is spiritually alive, and we see that very clearly in the Captain of our salvation who, because He was alive, fulfilled the Law.

Paul disagrees with you again. Romans 7:10 -- I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.

And no, we cannot after we are saved pass life onto our children, because our salvation has a future fulfillment. Our spirits are truly saved, but our bodies are still bodies of death, and children are still the stillborn fruit of our dead bodies.

My body is doomed to death, and it is falling apart rather too rapidly, but I am afraid that the last time I took a shower -- a couple of hours ago -- I found it to be very much alive right now. Nor was my son stillborn. He was born very much alive, in both body and spirit.

You think Jesus wants us to become as the stillborn in order to enter the kingdom of Heaven?

I will remind you that both Adam's body and spirit were alive before the Fall.

thank you, but I hadn't forgotten.

The root problem with those who hold the views that you have been defending is that you don't see yourselves as needing to be reborn, but as basically good, living souls that merely need a little repair work here and there. You think you inherited some kind of "disease" that you need an injection for.

I don't know where you got that nonsense, but it was not from anything I said! No one is born basically good. We are all born doomed because we will grow according to our sin natures, bent and twisted, and all need desperately to be born again! I have never said anything different! Again, I am clueless as to where you are getting this idea of what those of us who disagree with Calvinism believe! One of the things I spent enormous hours on CARM fighting was the idea that anyone is born basically good or that anyone is, at the core, naturally good. I know better! The Bible is clear, and so is life!

Concerning Eve: That was the name given to her after the prophecy that from her would issue the Redeemer of mankind. You do violence to the Scriptures to suppose that this means we are all spiritually alive until some moment of conscious rebellion.

The word "all" is in the Hebrew, in the Greek, and in the English. Eve would be the mother of all the living. One does not use the word "all" when only talking about one person.

Now, please cite the Scripture that says all the little children belong to Christ. You will see that you are leaning heavily upon your own predispositions in the interpretations of certain often misunderstood Scriptures.

OK, so glad you asked:

Matt. 11:25-26 -- At that time Jesus said, "I praise you Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these tings from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure."

Matt. 18:2-4 -- He called a little child and had him stand among them. And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven."

Matt. 18:5 -- "And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me."

Matt. 18:10 -- "See that you do not look down on one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven."

Matt. 19:13-15 -- Then little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them.
Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

Matt. 21:14-16 -- The blind and the lame came to him at the temple and he healed them. But when the chief priests and the teachers of the law saw the wonderful things he did and the children shouting in the temple area, "Hosannah to the Son of David," they were indignant.
"Do yo hear what these children are saying?" they asked him.
"Yes," replied Jesus, "have you never read,
'From the lips of children and infants
you have ordained praise.'?"

There are parallel verses in Mark and Luke, as you probably know.

But it is remarkable that Jesus pointed consistently to children as our role models! This, if they were NOT His and NOT spiritually alive?

Helen said:
The virgin birth of Christ was God's choice. He could have come into the world any way He wanted and still been our Savior.

But it wasn't an arbitrary choice. God will not share His glory with another. There will be no man that could claim to be the biological father of Christ, but if there were a man on earth at the time who could impart life, then there would have been no need for Christ to come. Christ had to be virgin born.</font>

My point was not that, but that He could have descended from heaven, or just appeared, or anything! He could do what He chose to do.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Helen:
Why? Because that would be more convenient to the parents?

Should I dignify this with a response? No. Not for the convenience of the parents. Where did Christ ever do anything for convenience?</font>[/QUOTE]You missed my point again. Do WE consider something sin because WE find it inconvenient? That was my point.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />He cried at Lazarus' tomb. He was not quiet, contented, and patient in the Temple courts or with the Pharisees.

Your topic concerns how Jesus would behave as a baby, and though the iniquity of selling doves and changing money was well-established at the time, Christ didn't judge it when He was a boy of twelve.</font>[/QUOTE]That, again, was not my point. My point is that tears and discontent were not necessarily sins.

Don't think that He had any thought for Himself when He cleansed the Temple. It was always for the glory of His Father.

Did you think anyone would disagree with that?

The intimation that Christ was somehow impatient and discontented only shows that you really don't understand what the sin nature is and how it is manifest.

OK, back to Scripture:
When they came to the crowd, a man aproached Jesus and knelt before him. "Lord, have mercy on my son," he said. "He has seizures and is suffering greatly. He often falls into the fire or into the water. I brought him to your disciples, but they could not heal him."
"O unbelieving and perverse generation," Jesus replied, "how long shall I stay with you? Bring the boy here to me."
Matt. 17:14-17

His crying at the tomb of Lazarus was not for Himself, as the tears we shed at the deaths of our loved ones.

That's silly. He knew Lazarus was going to be alive in a moment. Maybe, though, His tears had something to do with the effect sin had had in general upon His creation? Why not some tears for Himself? The frustration He faced must have been past what any of us can imagine. Maybe His tears were not for Himself, but maybe they were expressions of His own sadness and frustration, too. The Bible doesn't say.

"Blessed are they that mourn..." Mourn for what? Mourn at the death of a loved one? Hardly. His is certainly not a natural mourning, which would not be present in the knowledge that the loved one would soon be raised from the dead. His sorrow was a godly sorrow. A sorrow for the sins that wrought the death in the first place.

While I agree with your conclusion, as you can see from above, I don't the the Sermon on the Mount was aimed at Himself...

And finally, what is all this garbage about Christmas traditions? It was a discussion about this very verse in the Music Forum that started this debate.

It was? I started this thread, and I did not read the music forum at all before starting it. I took it off of the 'can babies sin' thread that I also started, also without reading the music forum. You are the one who told me I was wrong about saying "Away in a Manger" was romanticized. So I brought up some other false ideas as well that are perpetuated by favorite Christmas carols. The point being that Christmas carols are not good bases for theology.

Those who understand sin and know Christ will affirm that the verse from Away in a Manger is an accurate description of a sinless babe.

Well, I already know you don't think I understand sin, and you might not think I know Christ. So it should come as no surprise to you that I disagree with you about that Christmas carol.

[ October 23, 2002, 02:11 AM: Message edited by: Helen ]

 

[Abiyah]

Originally posted by Helen:
I'm wondering if it is not that Christ did not have the ability to sin as much as, unlike us, He had the ability NOT to sin...

Amein!!

And for that, He will always be my Hero. What
a Man! What a God! He was not a puppet on a
string with some Ultimate Being jerking the
strings.

 

[Abiyah]

Originally posted by Aaron:
. . . That's the reason for the need of the virgin birth of Christ, and the reason we need to be born again.

I believe that a virgin female was chosen
because
a. This shows the mighty power of our God--to
create in human form a child within the womb of
a human being who had never biblically known a
man.
b. Men don't usually give birth.
c. This was promised in the garden--that the
seed of a woman would bring forth Messiah!
Seed of the woman--amazing terminology!

by Aaron

Originally quoted by Abiyah:

The cattle are lowing the baby awakes,
but little Lord Jesus no crying He makes.

Helen, this was my attempt on the other thread
of lightening up, a weak attempt at humor. I had
come to believe that my kidding there was not
appreciated, and this was my lame attempt at
trying to lighten the atitudes there. Aaron was
merely quoting me and meant nothing by it.

You only regard that as romanticized
because in all your experience as a mother,
you have never been around a sinless infant.
You merely think them incapable of sin,
therefore you transfer their traits to the
sinless Christ.

Please, Aaron. I appreciate you and respect
you. Please, then, do not try to tell me what I
think. Okay?

Crying is necessary for healthy development.
Our Lord came to us, appearing to all to be a
normal infant. Ask any doctor what would
happen to a child who never cried.

 

[Aaron]

Helen,

I didn't see one Scripture in which Christ says that the little children as His. You merely interpret them to mean that.

Christ also held up sparrows and lillies as examples to us, but that doesn't mean they're His. They will be burned up. He would not have said, "Suffer the little children to come unto me," if they were already His.

It's late, that will have to suffice for now.

Be back later. To answer the other points.

 

[Helen]

Aaron, He said 'suffer the little children to come to Me' because the disciples were endeavoring to keep the children away from Him physically. The context is quite clear about that.

and I am pretty sure you are not going to change, but I think that others reading those verses and checking them themselves will see the clear and simple meaning: the children are His.

===========

Abiyah, I'm not worried about what you meant! What worries me is that it is these men -- fathers for the most part -- who seem to think that a baby crying is sinful! That is one of the most absurd things I have ever heard in my life. How else is a baby to communicate hunger or discomfort or even extreme tiredness when being passed around too much to admiring friends and relatives?

Never mind, I know with women here I'm pretty much preaching to the choir!

[ October 23, 2002, 02:08 AM: Message edited by: Helen ]

 

[Aaron]

Helen,

I have no problems with you, but I am all over this discussion because I think your answers to questions like this lead people astray.

So...though I am very weary of discussing these issues over and over, I must answer your points.

First, you oppose yourself in your reasoning. It is impossible to hold that the sin nature is something that is "passed down" from Adam and at the same time assert that we are basically evil. These notions are antithetical to one another.

No one has to come right out and say it. That's just the problem inherent in your reasoning.

As for death, it is separation. Jesus said in John 17:3 that life was knowing the Father and the Son. The knowing here is the intimate knowing, not the intellectual awareness. If life is intimate knowing, or a relationship of that sort with God Himself, then death is a separation from God and everything He is. It is not a lack of awareness.

How is saying that death is a separation any different from saying that death is the absence of life? There is no difference.

But it is not separation as we think of it. Those in hell are not separated from God. They will for all eternity be tormented by His divine wrath and fiery indignation.

Also, the Scriptures no where indicate the death of the spirit as a state of unconsciousness, and neither do I. One thing is certain, none of us cry out to God without first the quickening of the spirit.

He did not say he was alive 'in his own mind.' He said he was alive, period. However, even going with your argument above, it holds no water, for as a Pharisee, he knew the commandments. He knew them from childhood, so the only possible thing he can be saying is that it was in childhood that he was alive! Nor did sin "revive". It was dead and it came to life. That is what he clearly says.

When compared to the Scriptural testimony of the state of sinners all through the Bible, and Paul's own words on the subject, "alive in his own mind" is the only way to take it. He may have been a Pharisee, but he did not have an understanding of the law. The law did not "come to him" in the sense that it opened his eyes to his own sinfulness. He saw the law as something that justified him. It wasn't until he was quickened by the Spirit that the law "came" and he cried out for salvation. That is the clear sense of the passage, and the consensus of eminent commentators. (See Matthew Henry's comments and John Gill's comments.)

Far from a defacto salvation being in effect before the knowledge of sin, one cannot be saved without first coming to the knowledge of sin through the law.

I have already in another thread posted the comments of renowned teachers on the verses you cite to support the fallacy that the children are Christ's by default. There simply is no support for such a notion.

My point is that tears and discontent were not necessarily sins.

Any tears for our own griefs and any discontent are absolutely sins.

2 Corinthians 7:10 For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.

Romans 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Colossians 3:15 And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful.

2 Timothy 3:2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

A common mistake is to see the passages where Christ exhibited any kind of emotion and justify our carnal emotions by them. "The wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God." In that passage wrath is condemned not because of its context or object, but because of its origin. It springs from the natural man. When Christ expressed anger, it was not natural anger like we often feel. It was godly anger. If Christ expressed sorrow, it was godly sorrow. But no where at all can we find Christ exhibiting anything like discontent, and certainly not Matthew 17:14-17.

Again, John Gill:

Upbraiding them with the length of time he had been with them, in which so many wonderful works had been done among them, and yet they remained unbelieving and incorrigible; and intimating, that his patience and longsuffering would not always continue; and that in a short time, he should be gone from them, and they should no longer enjoy the benefit of his ministry and miracles, but wrath should come upon them to the uttermost: but however, whilst he was with them, notwithstanding all their unbelief and obstinacy, he should go on to do good; and therefore says, Bring the boy here to me.

Far from being impatient with us, he was for our own good reminding us that God's offer of grace will not be forever.

Now let's bring all this back into the realm of babies. Where has any anger, discontent, impatience, or any of the other carnal emotions they so often exhibit been for the glory of God? What? Are they all making intercession for us with their strong crying and tears?

Now, I quote those authorities which are generally accepted among Baptists to show that you are not arguing only with Aaron, but with eminently qualified, spiritual minds on the matter.

What worries me is that it is these men -- fathers for the most part -- who seem to think that a baby crying is sinful!

Not just babies. All natural crying. 2 Corinthians 7:10 ...but the sorrow of the world worketh death.

edited to tighten up some awkward wording.

[ October 23, 2002, 01:50 PM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

[hrhema]

I have been waiting for someone to answer the ladies questions about this belief that Jesus had a sinless nature. This is not true. You cannot tempt what has a sinless nature because that person would not even know what sin is within themselves.

The Bible does not teach that Jesus did not have the sin nature. It teaches that he did not sin.
What kind of example would he have been to man to have had a sinless nature.

The Bible said he had the same passions as we do. This mean he felt anger. Jealousy. Sexual desires. The whole ball of wax. Yet he did not sin. Satan could never have tempted a person with a sinless nature.

The problem is people look at his deity side and forget the fact that he was a real human being just like we are. If not he could have never died. His sacrifice on Calvary would have not been sufficient if he had had a sinless nature because when Jesus cried Out "My God my God why has thou Forsaken me", he became sin. A person with a sinless nature could not have become sin.

It is fine to use the term born in sin but I am glad that I cannot and will never believe Calvinism. A person has to know right from wrong to be guilty of sinning. A baby does not possess this mental capacity and I am sorry for adults to believe this is incredible. I am repeatedly amazed by people who will hold tight to a doctrine no matter how wrong it is.

I don't think Paul thought when he said All has sinned that this would become a controversy.
We forget that Christianity came from Judaism and the Jews do not believe a baby sins.

I would never serve a God who would cast a baby into Hell who has no mental capacity to sin.

 

[Music Man]

Originally posted by hrhema:
I have been waiting for someone to answer the ladies questions about this belief that Jesus had a sinless nature. This is not true. You cannot tempt what has a sinless nature because that person would not even know what sin is within themselves.

The Bible does not teach that Jesus did not have the sin nature. It teaches that he did not sin.
What kind of example would he have been to man to have had a sinless nature.

First of all, if he had had a sin nature as you or I do, that would have disqualified him as a suitable sacrifice for our sins.

I think Helen was actually right when she said that Jesus was not unable to sin, but he was able to not sin. Adam was like that. He had the choice/ability to not sin. You and I, because of our sin nature, do not have the ability to not sin (I know that is a double negative, but that is the only way to say it

). Christ, because he was not born of a man with a sin nature, did not inherit that sin nature.

Originally posted by hrhema:
The Bible said he had the same passions as we do. This mean he felt anger. Jealousy. Sexual desires. The whole ball of wax. Yet he did not sin. Satan could never have tempted a person with a sinless nature.

That is not true. Adam and Eve were tempted, and they did not have a sin nature.

Originally posted by hrhema:
A person has to know right from wrong to be guilty of sinning. A baby does not possess this mental capacity and I am sorry for adults to believe this is incredible. I am repeatedly amazed by people who will hold tight to a doctrine no matter how wrong it is.

I am sorry, but that is just not logical. I have used this analogy before. I was driving down the road, and I did not see a speed limit sign anywhere, so I did not know what the speed limit was, but yet, I was pulled over for speeding. Was I guilty of speeding? Yes! But, I did not know what the speed limit was!! It did not matter. I still sped. Did I have to pay the consequences for speeding? Yes! Ignorance is no excuse! Believe me, I tried it!

Originally posted by hrhema:
I would never serve a God who would cast a baby into Hell who has no mental capacity to sin.

We are condemned because of the sin of Adam (Romans 5). Mental capacity or not. It does not matter. If God chooses to show mercy to a baby, it is only out of His grace and mercy, not because the child has not sinned. BTW, I do believe He shows mercy to children, but it is because God is a gracious God, not because there is anything within (or missing, e.g. "mental ability") that child. Does that make sense?

Respectfully,
Chris

 

[Daniel David]

hrhema, you were joking right? Jesus had a sin nature??? Where did he get that sin nature?

 

[Daniel David]

Helen, let us try this for the, well, I have lost count how many times I have tried to get you to answer this one simple question.

When Paul said in Phil. 3 that he was blameless concerning the law, was he really blameless?

Please give a yes/no answer then followed by further comments if you like. NO vague answers please. You never answer this. I suspect your position would be in jeopardy if you did. We will wait and see if you do.

 

[Daniel David]

Abiyah, Angie, anyone, everyone, whoever, and you in the back, Christ could not have sinned.

1) Scripture says that God cannot lie or change (nature). Is Jesus God? Could Jesus lie or change (nature)?

Yes, he is God. No, he cannot lie (which is a sin).

2) James 1 says that God cannot be tempted with evil because temptation comes from within. Is Jesus God? Could Jesus be tempted to fall?

Yes, he is God. Yes he could be tempted to fall. This temptation was only a reality though from Satan's perspective. Jesus never entertained the thought of sinning.

Imagine a person in a rowboat with a pellet gun. He approaches a battleship. He fires every pellet he has and is literally attacking the ship. Does the ship consider this an attack though? What would happen if the ship returned fire? This picture does not even begin to illustrate the "battle" between Christ and satan.

3) Jesus was tempted in all points. Was Jesus tempted to do every sin possible? That is not the point. No one is tempted to do every sin possible. All sin comes from one of three primary areas - the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life. Christ was tempted in all three area by satan. Therefore, he could sympathize with any and everyone regarding temptation.

I could do more but chomp on that for awhile.