the baby Jesus

[Music Man]

PTW, I'm just curious, but would you say that Christ was unable to sin, or had the ability to not sin? I know that He never would have sinned, but does that necessarily mean He was unable to sin?

I guess this also gets to the nature of the unity between the deity of Christ and the humanity of Christ. Is it right to make any distinction between the two. In other words, could you say, his deity could not have sinned, but his humanity could have? I don't know, I'm just asking what you think.

Thanks,
Chris

[ October 23, 2002, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: Music Man ]

 

[Daniel David]

Christ had no ability to sin.

We have the ability to not sin (once redeemed).

 

[hrhema]

Show me in the Bible where it says Jesus did not have a sin nature. The Bible plainly says he became as one of us. He could not have became as one of us and had came without a sin nature.

No where in the Bible does it say the sin nature comes from the Father only. Mary had the sin nature in her and the fact that she was a sinner would have stained Jesus with the sin nature unless you are going to teach Catholicism which says she had no sin nature. That Mary was sinless herself.

The Bible calls Jesus, "Sinless>" Which means he did not sin. It says he was tempted and had the same passions like we do. Again this reverts back to faulty theology. Many of those during the reformation did not completely come out of Catholicism but kept some of what Catholicism taught in their own teachings including John Calvin.

Jesus having the sin nature did not keep him from being an acceptable sacrifice. It was the fact that he did not sin. When he was dying he took the sins of us all. HE BECAME SIN. HE BECAME THE COMPLETE SIN NATURE.

So many people cannot accept Jesus in the true light of what he was. Pictures show him as this effeminate looking, Long haired sissy but the Bible says he was a Carpenter. He was a muscular man. He had rough hands not the milk white hands artists have painted. He was loving and gentle but on the other hand he could drive out the money changers. He could verbally flail the Pharisees.

The BIble tells us we are to strive to overcome sin. How could we overcome sin if we did not have an example of such.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

A few thought experiments to clarify the idea of transmitting sin nature.

(a) A woman goes to a woman doctor and they conspire to unethically clone one of her cells and she gives birth to a viable (tho imperfect) clone of herself. Is that clone, having no earthly father, able to escape the Adamic sin nature? This could happen today! It is not science fiction!

(b) Would it make a difference if the doctor was a man? What would account for that difference

(c) Now into the realms of science fiction. A man programs a computer at last with artificial intelligence. He does this in a pristine laboratory in a straightfoward, purely logical manner. Is the artificial intelligence a partaker in the sin nature of Adam?

(d) Would it make a difference if the programmer were a woman?

INQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW!

 

[Scott_Bushey]

Inquiring Minds:
The passing down, the imputation, the hereditarial trait of the Adamic sin situation, is both at a literal level as well as spiritual.
Scripture often speaks of "life" being in the blood (Lev 17:11).

The only doctor capable of identifying these special characteristics, those things spoken of that are Adamic traits, is "The Great Physician".
The identifiers are not measured by human tools (per se), except for possibly secondary symptomology, i.e. disease, aging, etc.

 

[Abiyah]

Rev. G --

Jesus was born without a sin nature
because He was not born of a father who
passed on the sin nature to him.[/qb

So are you saying that the female does not
contribute to this "sin nature"? She contributes
to the personality of the child, the physical
features, the nutrition, etc., and carries the
child for nine months, but she does not pass
on this 'sin nature"? All the father does, then,
is pass on his genes and a "sin nature"? Shame
on men then! Every child would then be
evidence of a horrific act of the male--to do
such a thing to a child with no choice in the
matter. 8o)

But no, our God told people to go forth and
multiply; He did not give them permission to
go forth and sin by multiplying.

If, indeed, a "sin nature" is passed on, it is
passed on in the humanity of both parents to
the humanity of the child. While I cannot say
that I believe any child, including our Lord,
inheritsa "sin nature," I believe that every child,
other than our Lord, makes the choice to "fall
short of the glory of God." He rose above it;
we do not.

- - - - - - - - -

Preach --

Tthe Scripture declares that Jesus
could not have sinned. Where does
temptation come from? Within . . . .His
temptation were from without and not from
within.

. . . . God cannot lie.

Numbers 23:19 "God is not a man, that He
should lie, Nor the son of man, that he should
repent." Who is this speaking of? YHVH.
Who was made a man that He would be
tempted in all points just as we are?

Titus and Hebrews both repeat that ou God
cannot lie, and in both circumstances, the
Scriptures are after a risen, glorified
Messiah who cannot be tempted at all any-
more.

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? . . .
Jesus never entertained the thought
of sinning.[/qb

Again, this was not only written after our Lord
was risen and glorified, but just as in Titus 1:2,
this Scripture is about YHVH and irrelevant to
this discussion.

We have the ability to not sin.

So you are telling me that you do not sin--ever?

(to Angie) Christ had no ability to sin.
It was within the authority to call for
assistance of angels. It was not part
of the Father's will though. Therefore,
Christ could not have done it. (And of
Angie's question re walking away from
the cross), Christ could not have done it.

Then again, as I asked earlier, why does the
Bible make such a big issue of His being
tempted as we are, that He understood our
infirmities because He went through them.
Again, in the desert, satan did not TRY to
tempt Him; it tempted Him.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Aaron --

Originally posted by Aaron

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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?</font>[/QUOTE]I do not see what this has to do with Angie's
question, unless you are hooking it with the
Sscriptures re our God cannot lie, which I
posted above to Preach.

Any tears for our own griefs
and any discontent are absolutely sins.
. . .Where has any anger, discontent,
impatience, or any of the other carnal
emotions [babies] so often exhibit been
for the glory of God?

The problem remains with the fact that you
continue to view a baby's desire to thrive as
"carnal" -- your word, and I am sure you
intended it. This is only in your perception.
A infant cries because the child has no ability
to speak words. If the infant could commun-
icate by saying, "This wet diaper is harsh on
my tender skin and it could lead to infection,
which could actualy lead directly to my demise"
I am sure that the infant would gladly do that,
rather than leaving the caregiver to guess
what the infant needs, thus prolonging the
application of a solution.

[ October 23, 2002, 03:42 PM: Message edited by: Abiyah ]

 

[Music Man]

Would babies still cry if this world were not fallen?

Chris

 

[Music Man]

Originally posted by Abiyah:
While I cannot say that I believe any child, including our Lord, inherits a "sin nature," I believe that every child, other than our Lord, makes the choice to "fall short of the glory of God."

Then what is is that causes that child to choose to "fall short of the glory of God"?

Chris

 

[Helen]

OK, first, Aaron, let's discuss the possible ramifications in the lives of others if one of us is wrong:

If you are wrong -- you have driven people away from Christ by causing them to think that God has condemned people to hell on what seems to us an arbitrary basis, and saved only a few select that He chose before time. This then seems like people have more compassion on each other than God does, that a mother can love her baby more than God does, that grieving parents of a newborn or stillborn have no chance of ever seeing their child in heaven, and that they must fear constantly for their other family or divorce themselves from them emotionally. The Calvinist doctrine, if wrong, has produced needless fear and conflict in the lives of these people and caused others to ridicule a God who cannot even care as much as humans care, but who created all those he is consigning to hell anyway "for his own good pleasure."

If I am wrong -- I have at least encouraged people to keep seeking God by helping them understand the depth of God's love for all human beings. I have encouraged confidence in Him and trust in His goodness.

How does this lead people astray even if I am wrong?

Aaron, you wrote, then,
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.


In Genesis 8:21, God says to Noah "...even though every inclination of his [man's] heart is evil from childhood.

That is the definition of sin nature. That is what was passed down from Adam.

Then, saying death is separation does not imply a loss of consciousness or inability to react. Saying it is a loss of life is nebulous enough to really mean total unconsciousness and inability to respond. So there is a difference.

Then you wrote that those in hell are not separated from God.

They are cast out. That is what the Bible says. That is definitely separation!

And this business about Paul not knowing the law? Oh come on! Jesus constantly refers to the Pharisees and teachers of the law that, because they know the law, they should know better than what they are doing. Paul was a Pharisee of Pharisees. He knew the law plus -- plus all the Pharisaical additions! The only possible reason you have for saying that about Romans 7 is because there is no other way for Calvinists to twist the meaning around so as to avoid what Paul is clearly saying: that one cannot first die without sinning in response to knowledge of the law.

You have also stated that tears any of us feel for ourselves are sin. Aaron, I sobbed for a year after my husband of 20 years deserted me and the children. I was overwhelmed and scared and lonely. I felt discarded by the person who knew me best on this earth, worthless, nothing, used up, thrown away. I sobbed myself to sleep literally every night, half waiting for his footsteps, still, to come down the hall. I cried for myself and what I knew the future held (and I was right -- it was so very difficult!) and for my children. I cried for a murdered marriage. If you want to tell me that my mourning was sin, I'm just really glad you aren't God. The depth of my tears and anguish was a direct reflection of the love I had had for that man, and my dedication to our marriage.

And when my daughter just had to have the ends of two already-stunted fingers amputated this last Sept. 26, and sobbed with the pain she was feeling afterward, I don't consider that a sin. But she was crying for no one but herself and the pain SHE was feeling.

You seem callous to me, Aaron, and I am hoping desperately it is just your youth.

Music Man -- I saw your analogy about the speeding before and maybe you did not see my response. When you, as an adult who had studied traffic laws (and other things related) took the test for a driver's license, you passed because you showed competance in understanding the laws of the road. You accepted the responsibility for knowing and obeying those laws. THAT is why ignorance is no excuse for a driver.

This does not compare in the slightest with a baby who did not take a test to be a baby and did not agree to accept any responsibilities connected with being a baby! So a baby's ignorance is in a totally different category than yours as a driver!

Nor are we condemned because of anyone else' sin! We are condemned for our own -- or would be if they were not all covered by Christ! But they are, so the point is really moot. What is still important is that we are born with sin natures -- hearts inclining always toward evil, as I quoted above that God said to Noah. With all sins atoned for, we cannot possibly be condemned even for our own sins, let alone anyone elses. And Christ DID finish the work He came to do. He did not leave any sins unatoned for.

PTW -- You know what is interesting about your Philippians 3 reference? The Greek word "law." It means 'parcelled out' actually, and is translated (and used in the Greek) as 'law' by what is called "prescriptive usage". It's usual translation is "regulation." For this reason the NIV and other more modern translations quote Paul as saying, in verse 6 (which is the verse I presume you are referring to) "as for legalistic righteousness, faultless."

He speaks later (v. 9) as not having a righteousness that comes from the law, thus validating the translation of verse 6. Understanding that his is what he was talking about, the answer is yes.

And this corresponds exactly to his meaning in Romans 7:7-11.

In the meantime, Christ was not only 100% God, but He was also 100% man, with a will different from the Father's, which He refers to several times. Thus, yes, He definitely COULD have sinned! His human nature was just as subject to temptation as Adam's was, and Adam sinned.

And if the temptation was NOT a reality for Christ, why did he say to Peter, "get thee behind me, Satan!"? Why did He sweat drops of blood in the Garden? Because He felt no conflict?

The reason He understands our temptations and conflicts is because He's "been there done that." He knows.

And contrary to your other pronouncement, I think our own lives and the message of John in his first epistle indicate clearly that none of us actually has the ability to not sin once redeemed, as long as we are in the flesh on this earth. John does not get more than seven verses finished in his first letter before he states point blank: "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us." If someone, in other words, claimed to be so advancedin their Christian maturity that they no longer sinned, John flat out called that person a liar.

Paul -- it always gets interesting once you show up! I've spent some time on this post above, so you may already have some responses. I'll be curious to see them.

 

[Abiyah]

Music Man --

[T]he sin nature is passed down
through the father.

Again, I request pleasee give us chapter and
verse.

I think Helen was actually right when she
said that Jesus was not unable to sin,
but he was able to not sin.

Thank you.

- - - - - - - - - - -

Paul --

[The] virgin birth . . . was about
establishing that God is His Father. . . .
To me, the sin nature is, instead,
something we all "catch" from our
parents and our society.

Amein.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

With all this, I want to say that I am not one
who will not listen to others and consider
their opinions. If any of you can show me
solid Scriptural proof of my being wrong
(which has not happened so far), I will
accept it, absorb it, and live by it. It would
make things much more comfortable for me
at my synagogue to believe what you are
saying, because this is was the majority
and the pastors believe. I do not see it.

 

[Daniel David]

If Jesus was merely able to not sin, he is nothing more than a supersaint.

If Jesus was not able to sin, he is God in the flesh.

Abiyah, I would suggest doing some further study on the issue by those who endorse both sides.

 

[Daniel David]

Originally posted by Helen:
OK, ...them.

Oh good, pragmatism.

 

[Daniel David]

How exactly do you drive someone further away from Christ. Is that lost person now closer to hell than before?

 

[Music Man]

Originally posted by Helen:
Music Man -- I saw your analogy about the speeding before and maybe you did not see my response. When you, as an adult who had studied traffic laws (and other things related) took the test for a driver's license, you passed because you showed competance in understanding the laws of the road. You accepted the responsibility for knowing and obeying those laws. THAT is why ignorance is no excuse for a driver.

I was still ignorant, whether I said I was or not. Why isn't that the same? Paul said he wasn't ignorant of the law before it "came to him", yet he really was. So, according to you, he should have been held accountable for all of the things he did (like persecuting Christ) before the law came to him because he claimed to know the law.

 

[Abiyah]

Originally posted by Music Man:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Abiyah:
While I cannot say that I believe any child, including our Lord, inherits a "sin nature," I believe that every child, other than our Lord, makes the choice to "fall short of the glory of God."

Then what is is that causes that child to choose to "fall short of the glory of God"?

Chris</font>[/QUOTE]Because sin permeates the world and we are not
perfect as our Lord is perfect. satan is the god
of this world and the prince of the power of the
air.

You asked if a child would cry in an unfallen
world. I have never been in an unfallen world,
so I know nothing about one. However, I would
guess that if the infant had the ability of
communicating needs, if there would be such
needs in an unfallen world, in another more
effective way, perhaps the infant would not.

The child would have perfect lungs at birth
in an unfalen world. There would be no hunger
or diaper rash or infection or illness or pain
or parents who did not automatically and
immediately understand and minister to the
child, no child abuseand/or neglect . . . We
could go on! 8o)

 

[Abiyah]

Originally posted by Preach the Word:
Abiyah, I would suggest doing some further study on the issue by those who endorse both sides.

Absolutely not! Short exchanges on the internet
are different from sitting down with a book, other
than the Bible, to study these things out. I will
not study some human author or creed or dogma
from some human before these things are com-
pletely settled in my mind and there are abso-
lutely no questions. Such practices are what
got me in trouble at the church I attended most
of my life.

I follow no human. If something is said in my
synagogue which causes me to question, I go
to the Book.

 

[Deekay]

How was the baby Jesus different from other infants? Well, He had a halo and was able to speak eloquently from birth. Also, He resembled a small adult more than a normal baby. And, of course, He regularly performed miracles from an early age.

Seriously, I doubt that there were any outward signs that this child was the Son of God, although my personal belief is that He always behaved and was a model child. Must have been tough for His brothers and sisters. The poster above who stated that all crying is a sin (citing 2 Corinthians 7:10) seems to be a bit off-base. In context, this passage is saying that true repentance leads to eternal life; worldly regret by itself cannot save, and it leads to death. That's my opinion, anyway.

Whether the temptations of Jesus were real or not continues to be debated. My feeling is that if Jesus could not haved sin, the temptations were mere play-acting. This does not mean that He had a sin nature. You can sin without having a sin nature. If Jesus was the second Adam, then He probably had the capacity to sin but (unlike Adam) freely chose not to. It was important that He be tested in this manner.

[ October 23, 2002, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: Deekay ]

 

[Daniel David]

So you refuse to study, but you participate on a debate forum? That makes sense. People have thought about issues that you apparently haven't in regards to the peccability/impeccability issue. Listening to a pastor and looking at a book are not that different.

 

[Music Man]

Originally posted by Abiyah:
Again, I request please give us chapter and verse.

This may not satisfy you, but it is the best I can do right now, due to time restraints.

If all people have original sin and Jesus was a human being, then didn't Jesus need to have had a sin nature?

Before we can answer this question, we need to know what the term "original sin" means. This is a term used to describe the effect of Adam's sin on his descendants (Rom. 5:12-32). Specifically, it is our inheritance of a sinful nature from Adam. The sinful nature originated with Adam and is passed down from parent to child. We are by nature children of wrath (Eph. 3:2). So, if we inherit our sinful nature from our parents, then Jesus, who had Mary as a parent, must have had a sin nature. Right? Not necessarily. I believe that the sin nature is passed down through the father. Let me explain.

Some Bible commentators, with whom I agree, hold the position that the sin nature is passed down through the father. Support for this position is found in the fact that sin entered the world through Adam, not Eve. Remember, Eve was the one who sinned first. However, sin did not enter the world through her. It entered through Adam. Rom. 5:12 says, "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned." The concept behind this is called Federal Headship. This means that a person (a father) represents his descendants. We see this concept taught in Heb. 7:9-10, "And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes, 10for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him." We see in Hebrews that Levi, a distant descendant of Abraham, is said to have paid tithes to Melchizedek when Abraham was the one offering the tithes, not Levi. What this means is that there is biblical support for the idea that the sin nature was passed down through the father. Since Jesus had not literal, biological father, the sin nature was not passed down to Him. However, since He had a human mother, he was fully human but without original sin. Jesus has two natures: God and man. Col. 2:9 says, "For in Him dwells all the fullness of deity in bodily form." Jesus received His human nature from Mary, but He received His divine nature through God the Holy Spirit. Therefore, Jesus is both God and man. He was sinless, had no original sin, and was both fully God and fully man.

http://www.carm.org/questions/Jesus_original_sin.htm

 

[Music Man]

Originally posted by Abiyah:
Because sin permeates the world and we are not perfect as our Lord is perfect. satan is the god of this world and the prince of the power of the air.

You asked if a child would cry in an unfallen
world. I have never been in an unfallen world,
so I know nothing about one. However, I would
guess that if the infant had the ability of
communicating needs, if there would be such
needs in an unfallen world, in another more
effective way, perhaps the infant would not.

The child would have perfect lungs at birth
in an unfalen world. There would be no hunger
or diaper rash or infection or illness or pain
or parents who did not automatically and
immediately understand and minister to the
child, no child abuseand/or neglect . . . We
could go on! 8o)

Then isn't sin the underlying cause?