What Constitutes a Depraved Nature?

[ray Marshall]

HP:
On what basis do infants go to heaven?
If Christ never died for our sins, would infants go to heaven anyway?

I don't know if this will answer your question, but read, JOB 3:16 to 19.

 

[Marcia]

HP: Here is a clear example from the mouth of God. Ge 4:6 ¶ And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? 7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

This is not God telling Cain he can live and never sin. He's talking about one specific act - killing Abel. I do believe we can restrain ourselves from certain sins but not all sins. We cannot not sin.

HP: If the possibility does not exist that one can do something other than what he does under the same set of circumstances, he is under the laws of necessity and as such cannot be blamed or praised. Morality is absolutely impossible for any reasonable mind to conceive of. Sin can only exist where there sin freedom of choice. You deny that choice exists and then try and distance yourself from original sin? Good luck. The system of necessity is precisely the system original sin imbibes.

I think choice exists but man chooses to sin. Even if one argues that the sin nature is why man sins, man is still accountable. Otherwise, one would say that no one deserves hell because we have a sin nature and therefore have no choice in sinning. Is this what you think?

HP: That is why I do not attach morality at all prior to the age of accountability. When you say that they are not morally neutral, then tell me whether or not they are morally sinful or morally holy? They have to be morally neutral or you are indeed attaching sin and guilt, for to be born sinful, (the only other possibility for one that is moral at birth can be possibly be other than holy,) is indeed to attach moral blame, a notion that you agree is simply not the case.

They are not morally neutral but I believe because infants and young children cannot understand the gospel and/or do not understand consequences of sin, they are saved by God's grace. Everyone is born in sin, separated from God at birth. Only God's grace through Christ crosses mends this separation.

HP: It is impossible to have moral responsibility if ones actions are necessitated. Morality can only be predicated where choice is a possibility.

So do you think man has a sin nature? If so, are you saying man is not accountable for his sin?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Marcia: This is not God telling Cain he can live and never sin. He's talking about one specific act - killing Abel.

HP: That is mere conjecture without the slightest hint that such is the case. God speaks in general terms to Cain, not sin specific. Cain is told that he should be able to rule over sinful desires, not fall prey to them.

Marcia: I do believe we can restrain ourselves from certain sins but not all sins. We cannot not sin.

HP: What sin, with the help of the Lord subsequent to salvation, is His proffered help unable to keep us from? If sin is necessitated, i.e., man cannot help but sin, sin cannot be blameworthy. A first principle of morals is the absolute necessity of choice, being able to do something other than what one does under the very same set of circumstances. You cannot repent apart from remorse, and remorse can only be incurred as one sees that there was something else one could have did if only they would have. Remorse is impossible to conceive of under the system of necessity you seem to be advocating.

Marcia: I think choice exists but man chooses to sin.

HP: Not according to what you have indicated so far. You said that man could not ‘not sin.’ If it is impossible not to sin, choice is not involved. You said that we could not refrain from all sin, and if that is true, some sin would be imposed by necessity, and choice is impossible to conceive of in any moral sense if ones intents and actions are under necessity. You again eliminate choice. You seem to try to have it both ways. You indicate we are bound by necessity to sin and then you speak of choice. You cannot have it both ways. Choice involves the possibility of two or more possible consequents for any given antecedent. You need to decide what you believe. You cannot have it both ways.

Marcia: Even if one argues that the sin nature is why man sins, man is still accountable.

HP: If the sin nature is so strong that there is only one consequent (sin) for any given antecedent (temptation) accountability is a chimera, for one would be under necessity and not freedom. Accountability can only exist if there is more than one possible consequent for a given antecedent and that one is fully able to do something other than what one does under the same set of circumstances. Any talk of accountability under the system of necessity I see you as holding to, is shear nonsense. Even a child understands that if the will was not able to do any other than what it does, it is an accident or the results of fate and as such cannot be justly held accountable. Have we not heard, “I did not mean to!” and see that IF in fact that is in reality true, the child cannot be blamed for their action?

Marcia: Otherwise, one would say that no one deserves hell because we have a sin nature and therefore have no choice in sinning. Is this what you think?

HP: Sorry I cannot follow you here. If we have no choice, we cannot be held morally accountable or be morally blameworthy or praiseworthy. Choice is a prerequisite for any denotation of moral intent and or subsequent action.

Marcia: They are not morally neutral but I believe because infants and young children cannot understand the gospel and/or do not understand consequences of sin, they are saved by God's grace.

HP: There is not even the hint that infants or those prior to the age of accountability are in need or must experience salvation by grace. That is unsupported conjecture.

Marcia: Everyone is born in sin, separated from God at birth. Only God's grace through Christ crosses mends this separation.

HP: Again, that is pure unsupported conjecture. No where does Scripture state men are born in sin or separated from God at birth. Nowhere is man ever condemned for the state he is born in but rather everywhere is condemned for the sins he commits subsequent to moral agency. If sin was unavoidable, there would not be the least morality to it and as such impossible to conceive of it as blameworthy or heinous or rebellion against God. Due to the fact that sin is avoidable, and that it is willful rebellion against God as opposed to the necessity you paint it as, sin is blameworthy, it is rebellion, it is heinous and it will rightfully incur God’s wrath and penalty, i.e., eternal separation from God.

HP: It is impossible to have moral responsibility if ones actions are necessitated. Morality can only be predicated where choice is a possibility.

Marcia: So do you think man has a sin nature?

HP: Man is born with a proclivity to sin, and influence to sin via the depraved sensibilities, but is not born a sinner. Only as one reaches the age of accountability, and willingly violates a known commandment of God is sin conceived. The apostle James instructs us to pay close attention to when sin is conceived and warns us not to err in this matter. Sin is not conceived until the will knows and understands the intrinsic nature of the command and then willingly chooses to form intents of selfishness as opposed to benevolence. Sin is not nor can it be a state one finds themselves in at birth. To believe such is to fall prey to the false notion that indeed sin does lie in the flesh and not in the will, just as the father of the doctrine of original sin, Augustine, taught.


Sin is the results of moral intents that are only found subsequent to the age of accountability. Our ‘sin nature,’ the nature that actually involves sinful choices, is developed subsequent to the age of accountability, although greatly influenced by selfish, but not morally selfish, acts and formed habits that indeed most likely existed prior to the age of accountability, including but not limited to one proclivity to sin from birth via the depraved sensibilities.

Marcia: If so, are you saying man is not accountable for his sin?

HP: Man is indeed accountable for his sins. Only when one makes sin the product of necessity, and that from birth as you have indicated, is the justness of accountability for sin brought into question. The wages of sin is death, eternal separation from God, a penalty no infant has nor justly could incur.

 

[DHK]

HP: Here is a clear example from the mouth of God. Ge 4:6 ¶ And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? 7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

This is your original post.
Marcia answers saying that it refers to a specific event.
You respond saying:

HP: That is mere conjecture without the slightest hint that such is the case. God speaks in general terms to Cain, not sin specific. Cain is told that he should be able to rule over sinful desires, not fall prey to them.

Now look back at your original post. The Lord said to Cain, "Why art thou wroth."
1. Cain had brought the wrong offering. He had sinned.
2. God had corrected him, and Cain had refused that correction. Cain had sinned.
3. Cain got angry at God. Cain had sinned.

Now God asks him (trying once again to bring him to a place of repentance), why are you angry? If you do right, you will be accepted, If not then sin (even greater sin--with greater consequences) is imminent.

Genesis 4:7 If you do well, will it not be lifted up? If you don't do well, sin crouches at the door. Its desire is for you, but you are to rule over it." (WEB)
--Sin's desire was to rule over Cain, but Cain was to rule over it. What happened?

Genesis 4:8 Cain said to Abel, his brother, "Let's go into the field." It happened, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel, his brother, and killed him.
--Cain allowed sin to rule over him, and he killed his brother.
He did exactly what the Lord told him not to do, and now would face the consequences of sin, that which the Lord warned him.
Remember he had already sinned previous to this. The Lord was speaking of this one particular event that was to take place.

 

[Marcia]

HP: What sin, with the help of the Lord subsequent to salvation, is His proffered help unable to keep us from? If sin is necessitated, i.e., man cannot help but sin, sin cannot be blameworthy. A first principle of morals is the absolute necessity of choice, being able to do something other than what one does under the very same set of circumstances. You cannot repent apart from remorse, and remorse can only be incurred as one sees that there was something else one could have did if only they would have. Remorse is impossible to conceive of under the system of necessity you seem to be advocating.





HP: Not according to what you have indicated so far. You said that man could not ‘not sin.’ If it is impossible not to sin, choice is not involved. You said that we could not refrain from all sin, and if that is true, some sin would be imposed by necessity, and choice is impossible to conceive of in any moral sense if ones intents and actions are under necessity. You again eliminate choice. You seem to try to have it both ways. You indicate we are bound by necessity to sin and then you speak of choice. You cannot have it both ways. Choice involves the possibility of two or more possible consequents for any given antecedent. You need to decide what you believe. You cannot have it both ways.

HP: If the sin nature is so strong that there is only one consequent (sin) for any given antecedent (temptation) accountability is a chimera, for one would be under necessity and not freedom. Accountability can only exist if there is more than one possible consequent for a given antecedent and that one is fully able to do something other than what one does under the same set of circumstances.


HP: Sorry I cannot follow you here. If we have no choice, we cannot be held morally accountable or be morally blameworthy or praiseworthy. Choice is a prerequisite for any denotation of moral intent and or subsequent action.





HP: There is not even the hint that infants or those prior to the age of accountability are in need or must experience salvation by grace. That is unsupported conjecture.


HP: Again, that is pure unsupported conjecture. No where does Scripture state men are born in sin or separated from God at birth. Nowhere is man ever condemned for the state he is born in but rather everywhere is condemned for the sins he commits subsequent to moral agency. If sin was unavoidable, there would not be the least morality to it and as such impossible to conceive of it as blameworthy or heinous or rebellion against God. Due to the fact that sin is avoidable, and that it is willful rebellion against God as opposed to the necessity you paint it as, sin is blameworthy, it is rebellion, it is heinous and it will rightfully incur God’s wrath and penalty, i.e., eternal separation from God.





HP: Man is born with a proclivity to sin, and influence to sin via the depraved sensibilities, but is not born a sinner. Only as one reaches the age of accountability, and willingly violates a known commandment of God is sin conceived. <snipped>

Sin is the results of moral intents that are only found subsequent to the age of accountability. Our ‘sin nature,’ the nature that actually involves sinful choices, is developed subsequent to the age of accountability, although greatly influenced by selfish, but not morally selfish, acts and formed habits that indeed most likely existed prior to the age of accountability, including but not limited to one proclivity to sin from birth via the depraved sensibilities.

I just spent about 15 min. answering this and then lost it, as often happens on the BB for some reason. I had to wait about 5 min. just to get back to the BB website. <sigh>

I bolded something you said above.

So I will just summarize what I said:
Romans 5 and 6 and numerous Bible passages are clear that all men are born into sin, yet you say we are not born into sin. This means we are born with no sin and no need of redemption? This is what Pelagius taught and Pelagianism was denounced as a heresy centuries ago.

The word "flesh" in the NT often means the sin nature, not the actual flesh of the body.

Also, even unbelievers choose not to sin, so people do have a choice.

So to clarify, HP, you say that men are not born in sin and are not born with a sin nature?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Marcia: I just spent about 15 min...

HP: Happens to us all. I have started either making a copy of the post before I hit send, or if I forget and see it is starting to take too long I mark the text quickly and then again, save it. That way if it does not go through, I still have it to resend. I am certain you have though of this and I am preaching to the choir.

Marcia: Romans 5 and 6 and numerous Bible passages are clear that all men are born into sin, yet you say we are not born into sin. This means we are born with no sin and no need of redemption? This is what Pelagius taught and Pelagianism was denounced as a heresy centuries ago.

HP: If I was a betting man, the only thing you know about Pelagius or what he believed comes by way of the mouth of the man responsible for destroying his actual words, and in their place gives his own ‘Augustinian tilt’ to what he believed. Let me burn all your writings and let me and only me tell the world what you believe and see if you think I am completely fair, honest and unbiased. Now that is a thought. Maybe I could do that to DHK or he to me. Would the world get a real fair opinion of our thoughts and feelings? I am certain they would from me, but I am uncertain if it would at the hand of DHK.:smilewinkgrin:

Enough of that guilt by the association of what Pelagius’s detractor Augustine had to say about his beliefs.

Marcia: The word "flesh" in the NT often means the sin nature, not the actual flesh of the body.

HP: Again, I agree in principle but what does that have to do with the discussion? The question is, does the word ‘nature’ necessitate one as a sinner from birth? Every time the word ‘nature’ is used must we read in ‘and that from birth?’ No. Besides, Scripture does not even use the words ‘sinful nature’ or ‘sin nature.’

Marcia: Also, even unbelievers choose not to sin, so people do have a choice.

HP: They might choose not to act in a selfish sinful manner, that is true, but once they have sinned they cannot please God until the stain of sin via salvation is removed. Nothing they do an be considered as righteous in the sense of pleasing to God and as such be expectant of receiving a reward for it. The sinner has but one hope, i.e., to be separated for eternity from God.

Marcia: So to clarify, HP, you say that men are not born in sin and are not born with a sin nature?

HP: I believe men are not born sinners, and are not born righteous or holy. The are created with the potential of morality, but are not moral agents at birth. I believe that they are born with a natural proclivity to sin via depraved physical sensibilities, but that is not sin in and of itself. It serves as a formidable influence but does not constitute sin. IF I was to say that men are born with a ‘nature to sin’ (which I as a general rule refrain from due to misunderstandings) I would be referring again NOT to actual sin, but rather a proclivity to sin via ones nature, the natural physical propensities we all are born with that are from birth depraved.

 

[Marcia]

HP: Again, I agree in principle but what does that have to do with the discussion? The question is, does the word ‘nature’ necessitate one as a sinner from birth? Every time the word ‘nature’ is used must we read in ‘and that from birth?’ No. Besides, Scripture does not even use the words ‘sinful nature’ or ‘sin nature.’

Yes, having a sin nature necessitates that one has sin from birth. Even if the Bible does not use the term "sin nature," that does not mean one cannot deduce it from scripture. The word "Trinity" is not the in the Bible, but it is certainly deduced from the Bible.

HP: They might choose not to act in a selfish sinful manner, that is true, but once they have sinned they cannot please God until the stain of sin via salvation is removed. Nothing they do an be considered as righteous in the sense of pleasing to God and as such be expectant of receiving a reward for it. The sinner has but one hope, i.e., to be separated for eternity from God.

This is a non-sequiter to what I was saying in response to what you said. You were saying there is no accountability without moral choice. I was making the point that even though man is born with a sin nature, he can choose not to sin. You were implying that if one has a sin nature and cannot not sin, then there is no moral accoutability. I think I proved my case - one is born with a sin nature but can still choose in some cases not to sin.

HP: I believe men are not born sinners, and are not born righteous or holy. The are created with the potential of morality, but are not moral agents at birth. I believe that they are born with a natural proclivity to sin via depraved physical sensibilities, but that is not sin in and of itself. It serves as a formidable influence but does not constitute sin. IF I was to say that men are born with a ‘nature to sin’ (which I as a general rule refrain from due to misunderstandings) I would be referring again NOT to actual sin, but rather a proclivity to sin via ones nature, the natural physical propensities we all are born with that are from birth depraved.

Being born with a natural proclivity to sin is the sin nature. But having a sin nature is an offense to God because one is not born holy. Therefore, being born with a sin nature does mean that one is born separated from God.

 

[Amy.G]

Therefore, being born with a sin nature does mean that one is born separated from God.

How then are infants saved?
Isn't separation from God spiritual death?


Paul says:
Rom 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

I think Paul is saying that we die spiritually when we transgress the law. And this is a willful transgression against God knowing full well the consequences. We usually call it the age of accountability.

 

[Marcia]

How then are infants saved?
Isn't separation from God spiritual death?


Paul says:
Rom 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

I think Paul is saying that we die spiritually when we transgress the law. And this is a willful transgression against God knowing full well the consequences. We usually call it the age of accountability.

I think infants are saved the way anyone is - by grace. We are saved by grace through faith - infants are too young to have that faith, but they are saved by grace.

There's a really good book on this(where do babies go when they die) by Ronald Nash. Nash was a theologian and scholar who died a few years ago but he wrote many books. I am not a Calvinist and he was, but I read his book and it was good. I can't recall the title now.

People are born into spiritual death because of Adam's sin. I think this is pretty biblical - we are born into sin and therefore into spiritual death. No one is born without need of redemption!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Marcia: I think infants are saved the way anyone is - by grace. We are saved by grace through faith - infants are too young to have that faith, but they are saved by grace.

HP: Can you offer the list evidence of your ideas as to infants being saved by grace? Where is the scriptural evidence? Where is there evidence from any area of knowledge granted to us by God?

Marcia: People are born into spiritual death because of Adam's sin. I think this is pretty biblical - we are born into sin and therefore into spiritual death. No one is born without need of redemption!

HP: You 'think' it is 'pretty biblical?' Where is your biblical evidence that men are sinners from birth? Where is your biblical evidence that a baby needs redemption? Adding an exclamation mark after your conjecture does not constitute evidence, any more than beating on the pulpit does.

 

[Marcia]

HP: Can you offer the list evidence of your ideas as to infants being saved by grace? Where is the scriptural evidence? Where is there evidence from any area of knowledge granted to us by God?

The evidence is mostly deduced from various biblical passages and principles. I have not done this in a long time. I know David at one point says he will see his dead baby again - this is not solid evidence but points that way.

Nash makes a good argument for this using the Bible. There are different views on this and I don't claim to have the answer. I am merely giving my views.

Some people say that God saves those babies He knows would have accepted Jesus if they had lived. I believe this is a view called God's "middle knowledge" - knowledge of what would happen but doesn't. It's complicated and somewhat controversial. I could be wrong but I think Alvin Plantigea (sp?) might be a proponent of this view. There are several other theologians who are. Google it if interested.

HP: You 'think' it is 'pretty biblical?' Where is your biblical evidence that men are sinners from birth? Where is your biblical evidence that a baby needs redemption? Adding an exclamation mark after your conjecture does not constitute evidence, any more than beating on the pulpit does

I already gave this. Romans 5, for one.

I wanted to look others up but my laptop is not cooperating (wireless sometimes slows down and you can't do anything).

 

[Marcia]

This from http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=728 says what I am trying to say, but says it better. This is just a small exerpt:

We ate the forbidden fruit, died spiritually (something the Devil forgot [neglected?] to mention), were judged by God immediately (Gen 3:6-19), death through murder came almost instantaneously (Gen 4), and eventually we died physically (cf. “and then he died,” Gen 5). From our first parents we receive both the guilt of sin as well as a corrupt nature (Rom 5:12-21).

……………Some have argued that there is no direct connection between the sin of Adam and Eve and the sin of the each member of the human race; rather, each person, perhaps following the example of Adam, has willfully chosen, on their own, to sin and violate God’s will. But this interpretation, while perhaps agreeing, at least formally, with the idea that “all have sinned” (Rom 5:12), does not do justice to Paul’s teaching in the whole of Romans 5:12-21. For it is said there, at least five times, that sin entered the human race through one man (transgression) and that the entire race was affected—not by sinning themselves, but rather through the sin of Adam.

Thus, there is a direct connection between the sin of Adam and the falleness of the entire race. Some say this direct connection is realistic while others argue along legal lines. The first group argues that the race as a whole was present seminally in Adam and thus sinned when he sinned. This seems to do justice to the “all sinned” of Romans 5:12 and has some support from the Abraham/Levi/Melchizedek parallel in Hebrews 7:10, but the meaning of “all sinned” ought to be determined more in keeping with the primary thrust of Romans 5:12-21 where the sin of Adam seems to be the direct cause of our sin; no mediate mechanism appears to be in view in Romans 5:12-21.

Perhaps the best view is to understand Adam as the federal head of the race and as such his sin was imputed (i.e., charged to our account) to us with the result that we too are legally guilty. This seems to make the most sense out of the direct connections expressed in Romans 5:12-21. Again, over five times the phrase (or something similar) “for just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners,” appears in the paragraph.

After all, HP, some babies die. This shows they carry spiritual and physical death. Man died physically (obtained the seeds of decay and death, as nature did) and spiritually due to sin. No man that is born does not have this.

I don't see how one could argue that babies have physical death due to sin but not spiritual death in their nature.

 

[Marcia]

A couple of more paragraphs from the same article:

Now, some have objected to this doctrine on the grounds that we are blamed for something we did not do. This can be responded to in several ways, but in the end it must be realized that all men, including you and me, are sinners and will be judged for our willful and personal rebellion. Was it fair that Christ died for us so that we might escape God’s wrath? Is it fair that God imputes the righteousness of Christ to us when we simply believe in His Son? If the issue were really one of fairness, viewed humanly, who of us could stand in His presence?

But not only are we in a state of guilt before God, we also received at birth a sinful nature and so we are polluted by sin as well—hence our willful and personal rebellion. And it isn’t that some parts of us are fallen, but rather that our whole person, every part of us, is fallen and enslaved to sin. This also is a result of Adam’s sin. We prove the fact that we have a sinful nature each and every day (cf. Gal 5:19-21). Denial of sin, neurosis, estrangement from loved ones, enemies in the work force, inability to love and receive love from others, lying, stealing, cheating, as well as a host of other sins beset us daily. We were born, i.e., we are by nature children of wrath (cf. Eph 2:1-3 ).

 

[DHK]

The "It's not fair" attitude is prevalent in our society. There is the concept of one man's sin affecting the sin of the whole, or corporate judgment. Taken to the ultimate that is what happened with Adam. His one sin affected the entire race. But look at some others on a smaller scale.
First, why did God institute the Day of Atonement? Why did one man (one high priest), one day out of each year, have to make an atonement for all the sins of one nation. He alone atoned for the collective sins of a corporate body.

A far better and easier example to understand is Joshua and the Battle of Jericho. God's command was not to take anything of the spoils of the city. It would be accursed to them. It was the firstfruits to God. But Achan disobeyed and took some things and hid them underneath his tent. The Lord revealed this to Joshua, but not until the nation had gone up and tried to defeat AI. 36 men died there, needlessly, for there was sin in the camp. One sin, of one man, caused the death of the 36 men and the defeat of a whole nation. "But that's not fair!" you say. Why should Achan's sin affect me (the other Israelite)? It did. One sin affected the entire nation. Thus Joshua had to take care of the consequence of the sin--the death of Achan and his family. And then pray for the entire nation. Then and only then, could they go up against Ai.

Often it is one sin of one man that affects all or many. It may be one sin of one member in one church that prevents God from blessing it.

However, for by one man sin entered into this world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men for that all have sinned.
--It is quite clear.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK:
A far better and easier example to understand is Joshua and the Battle of Jericho...

HP: No one that I know refutes for a minute that lives can be lost or that sin can indeed affect whole nations or even the world for that matter. Adam’s sin indeed has affected the whole world. Just the same, physical consequences and influencing effects from sin are NOT the issue at stake at all. You are derailing the real issue at stake by such suggestions. The real issue at stake is whether or not one is to be JUDGED ETERNALLY by God, morally BLAMED by God, or found GUILTY by God, for the sins of another? That is the issue at stake, NOT merely the issue of the effects of sin on others.

Scripture is clear. God holds no man morally accountable for the sins of another, and one is not held accountable for the sins of ones father. You cannot inherit the sins of another according to Scripture.

Eze 18:19 Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live.
20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Marcia: After all, HP, some babies die. This shows they carry spiritual and physical death. Man died physically (obtained the seeds of decay and death, as nature did) and spiritually due to sin. No man that is born does not have this.

HP: Physical death does not show that babies carry spiritual death, no more than the death of His Saints prove that they are spiritually dead, nor that those caught up together with Him in the clouds one day that will not see physical death, were not in reality physical before they arose. Why is it that you seem to reel at the notion of sin lying in the physical but at every turn you clearly associate physical death with spiritual death? You seem to mirror Augustian original sin to a tee. The fact is that we are physical descendants of Adam and bear a physical likeness to him. God placed in the physical body principles of physical degeneration and we inherit those physical traits via natural physical generation.

Marcia: I don't see how one could argue that babies have physical death due to sin but not spiritual death in their nature.

HP: But you can if you will. :wavey:

Jesus had a physical body like we have. Having a physical body does not necessitate spiritual corruption, neither in Jesus, us, or in infants. The physical realm is physical, the spiritual realm is spiritual.

 

[DHK]

Jesus had a physical body like we have. Having a physical body does not necessitate spiritual corruption, neither in Jesus, us, or in infants. The physical realm is physical, the spiritual realm is spiritual.

Jesus was born of a virgin. No other man was. Every man has a sin nature but Jesus. Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit and thus did not inherit the Adamic nature or sin nature of Adam. Thus the necessity of the virgin birth.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Jesus was born of a virgin. No other man was.

HP: Agreed. :thumbs:

DHK: Every man has a sin nature but Jesus. Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit and thus did not inherit the Adamic nature or sin nature of Adam. Thus the necessity of the virgin birth.

HP: Pure conjecture at best without the slightest evidence from Scripture. Scripture represents Jesus as a man born into this world that took upon himself the seed of Abraham. Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.” Whatever that seed consisted of, so was Christ in the flesh. He was tempted in all points as we are. James states that we are tempted when we are drawn away of our own lusts and enticed…. BUT that is not sin in and of itself, as James tells us clearly.
There is not one Scripture that states that any man is born spiritually depraved or born a sinner from birth. That is pure Augustinian fallacy, a fallacy the Church would do well to abandon. Sin is the results of yielding to temptation, whether of the flesh via the sensibilities, the world, or the enemy of our souls, not the mere fact of being born with depraved sensibilities.

There is not a shred of evidence that the birth of Jesus had to be via a Virgin as a necessity to keep Him free from human nature. There is overwhelming evidence that He did in fact take on the same flesh and blood that every human being has taken on, yet He never formed a solitary sinful intent. To be human did not necessitate being a sinner, as Jesus overwhelmingly proved. He was not half human He was 100% human. He came in the likeness of sinful flesh, yet was without sin. Ro 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

 

[Marcia]

HP: Physical death does not show that babies carry spiritual death, no more than the death of His Saints prove that they are spiritually dead, nor that those caught up together with Him in the clouds one day that will not see physical death, were not in reality physical before they arose. Why is it that you seem to reel at the notion of sin lying in the physical but at every turn you clearly associate physical death with spiritual death? You seem to mirror Augustian original sin to a tee. The fact is that we are physical descendants of Adam and bear a physical likeness to him. God placed in the physical body principles of physical degeneration and we inherit those physical traits via natural physical generation.

Jesus had a physical body like we have. Having a physical body does not necessitate spiritual corruption, neither in Jesus, us, or in infants. The physical realm is physical, the spiritual realm is spiritual.

I am not saying the physical body carries sin itself; it does carry the consequence in the form of age and death. A sin nature is not attached to the body but to the whole person - the body/mind/soul unity that we are and that God made us. You can't get a microscope and locate the sin nature. It is part of our being as humans.

Jesus did have the consequence of sin in his human body in that he aged and physically died, but Jesus was also God born of a virgin and conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, so we cannot compare our state to his at all in regards to sin. He was sinless, as we know.

Physical death for all of us shows the consequence of Adam's sin, just as being born with a sin nature shows that as well in that we are separated from God. One is not born and then becomes separated from God by committing a sin. There is no scriptural support for that.

 

[Amy.G]

Hi Marcia :wavey:

This is a tough subject for me, so I would like to get your opinion.

If we didn't have a sin nature, would we sin?