1)What DID the fall do to mankind. The Bible certainly talks as though it indeed has had an effect upon us.





2)If God can not transfer sins/guilt then did Christ bear our sins?

Again, the result of sin was a curse on humankind. We see that curse in the beginning of Genesis.

The LORD God said to the serpent,


"Because you have done this,


Cursed are you more than all cattle,


And more than every beast of the field;


On your belly you will go,


And dust you will eat


All the days of your life;


And I will put enmity


Between you and the woman,


And between your seed and her seed;


He shall bruise you on the head,


And you shall bruise him on the heel."





To the woman He said,


"I will greatly multiply


Your pain in childbirth,


In pain you will bring forth children;


Yet your desire will be for your husband,


And he will rule over you."





Then to Adam He said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat from it';


Cursed is the ground because of you;


In toil you will eat of it


All the days of your life.


"Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you;


And you will eat the plants of the field;


By the sweat of your face


You will eat bread,


Till you return to the ground,


Because from it you were taken;


For you are dust,


And to dust you shall return."





Now the man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all the living.





When you talk about the transferability of sin, I would like to hear your case for how you think it transfers.

Thank you Bev, for raising an interesting point which

has bothered, no 'haunted' me for years.


That statement about Adam & Eve not having a sin nature.





As Adam was created by God, in God's image & after God's


likeness, including having God's Holy Spirit indwelling


him, so that Adam is called a "Living Soul" NOT dead,


(and that further proved when God informs him that on that


day when he eats of the fruit... he will surely die - of


course one cannot die unless one is alive) then this Adam


would have only a purely Spiritual, wisdom-filled, living


soul and NONE of the motivators from which operates our


sin-choosing hearts & minds.





Being Omnipotent, Omnipresent and Omnicient, God knew,


well prior to creating, just what His creation would choose.





There is nothing existent which was not created, and all


created was created through Jesus the Christ.





Now, about OS, what would possibly motivate the choice


of a sinless Adam, (indwelt with God's Spirit of wisdom,


truth and life,) to choose DEATH?


I have heard some say, "The lust of the eyes, the lust


of the flesh, and the pride of life" but these all sound


like sinful qualities, Adam was not created in the image


of sin, but in the image of God, and I cannot understand


wherein could lie sin within a perfect, purely loving God-Creator,


or


therefore, in His LIVING image.





What would motivate a Porsche to choose to become a Fiat?


Or a world-class marathoner who is happily bringing joy


to his family and village by winning every marathon he


enters, to go running, knowledgeably, through a live


minefield so he loses his legs?





I apologize for the weak analogies but it's late & I'm


tired but I cannot get past this apparent logical impass.





Where in God's image & likeness lies this sin-desiring motivator?





- Not like that which indwells you & I, mind you, don't


fall prey to that easy mistake of viewing Adam's character


through that dark & dirty lens of what we know ourselves


to be.





WE are born in sin, but Adam, the original sinner, who not


only didn't have a sin nature, but had the best of


everything which was sin's ANTITHESIS: God's Spirit, God's


image, God's likeness, and most of all: LIFE,


was somehow, somewhere, supposedly indwelt with a desire for sin & death?





WOW! My beloved just said "Yes" to marrying me!


&


I just won the lotto!! -I believe I'll celebrate by stepping in front of a moving semi-truck! ...Ludicrous.


Where is logic & reason in this so-called 'choice' of Adam's,


because I'm not seeing it if there is.





- And that's just the BEGINNING of the book... !!! ???





It has always seemed to me:


Too much religion, not enough reason.





"...Having for every man, a reason for the Faith..."





I like your thoughts, Bev.





In the end, and after all the Calvinism, Arminism, and


all that around & between, isn't it simply about God


making a platform wherein he could create friends?





Not just limited, fleshly robotic beings, but real


friends on HIS plane of existence, 'Spiritual' friends...? -A method by which free-willed beings of flash will become trancendent Spiritual beings through the substitutionary life of Jesus the Christ.





I HAVE to hold on to something reasonable, without which


life would be no more than a big pointless Godly mistake


filled with pain, injustice, horror & death.





- Oh, and lots of religious debates, arguments and wars.








====================================================








Tashina Feb.15, is 45 now.

Why does Bev use all caps on EVE the whole time. My questions again to you OS deniers are:




1)What DID the fall do to mankind. The Bible certainly talks as though it indeed has had an effect upon us.





2)If God can not transfer sins/guilt then did Christ bear our sins?

Interesting hypothesis Bev.




So, God is the author of Sin? He is the willful originator of evil?





So God is not wholly good?

we are not born with orginal sin or a sin nature.

God does not put sin or a nature to sin in us and then condemn us


for sinning.


ADam and EVE had no sin in them nor a sin nature yet they sinned.


they did not need sin in them or a sin nature to do that.


they sinned when GOD allowed Satan to tempt them. HE put the tree


of good and evil in the garden for a purpose. To give them the


the abilty to make a choice. This is all about choice.


God had the love of Adam and EVE , now he wanted them to obey him.


HE wants us all to reverence him and obey him for who he is.


THATS why he gives us all the power to chose right from wrong.


HE also used the devil so that we as Adam and EVE were would be


tempted and he knew we would sin.


that sin drives us closer to him, otherwise we do not need him.


Adam and EVE were programmed to love the LORD, but what they did


not yet at that time have was the power to use the ability to


chose to obey him freely.


they would have been just robots who would go along doing whatever


GOD told them to do.


THEY then would NOT understand who GOD really was.


As today people do not understand who he is.


They think that they are in control of their own lifes, forgetting


they cant breathe without him.


GODis to be respected. HE DEMANDS It.


I can have a child and I can make him LOVE me, but I cant make him


respect me. I can do things that make him love me, which is not


real love,


He should respect me and revere me, but he may not.


GOD is the potter and we are the clay, we have nothing to say, and


when we think we do we become our own GODS>


We are not born with sin or a sin nature, we aquire one like Adam


and Eve did.


All men will sin, as they did when tempted, GOD knew this, that


was the reason he allowed the devil to live.


It was all part of his plan.


God never puts sin in anyone, that is not his character.


no where in the bible does it say that GOD put sin in man, it


does tho say that because of ones man sin, SIN entered the


world. IT never says it entered into man.


and the question why do we die. and did Adam and EVE have the


abilty to die before the fall , of course.


but not when they chose to disobey him, then sin ENTERED into this


world and everything in this world NOW dies.


they would not have died if they did NOT bring sin INTO the world.


But again GOD is soverign and he knew they would to fulfill his


plan of redemption.


Sin was always part of GODS plan from day one.


Thats why from day one HE had a SAVIOR in mind.


Jesus didnt become a SAVIOR he was the SAVIOR from the beginning.


from the story of Adam and EVE it is pure logic to know that we


dont need a sin nature to sin, Adam and EVE did it without one.


we acquire a NATURE, after we sin, NOT before.


NATURE does not mean born with to begin with.


No one says its his nature to be crabby. or a perfectionist.


we acquire a nature. we are NOT born with one.


thank you and GOD BLESS

I said that I would come back to this I so here I am.




I like your argument that you make here. Christ's sacrifice is greater than Adam's sin. I agree and support that totally, 100%. The cross cancels out the results of Adam's sin. I don't know if the text warrants the use of the term "completely" or not. But at least we can come into agreement, I think, on the fact that it undoes the spiritual and legal standing effects of Adam.





Would you agree that Paul is saying that all must be in Adam to be affected by death? Would agree that Paul is arguing that all must be in Christ to receive the grace and justification? Otherwise, if we do not have to be in Christ, then justification comes to all men and it does not depend upon faith. That would counter everything Paul has argued thus far in the epistle. I would say that for the sin of Adam and the consequences of that sin are only conceled, to whatever degree you might argue, occur only when we are in a saving relationship with Christ.





I think that is the flaw of your argument. To be be in death is to be in sin which is to be in Adam. To be in life is to be in righteousness is to be in Christ. We must be either of Christ or of Adam. Adam in this text is sin and death. Therefore we stand in Adam, who is a condemned sinner. We stand condemned in Adam. Respond if you like. As I said in the other post, I do enjoy debating these issues.





I will say, this is why I am not a "hyper" calvinist. I am not a calvinist who thinks he has to go and beat any and everyone over the head with his doctrine until they agree with him. But when asked about it, I will defend my convictions vigorously. I hope in this vigor I have not stepped on toes.





In His Sovereign Grace,


Henry Imler, Romans 8:28-30

Thank you casey for giving me something to understand your position with. It is very hard to understand where a person is coming from. This helps in understanding exactly where you are getting your doctrine. I'll have to think about your interpretation some and understand it better. I'll comment about it later. I've got two chapters of reading and outlining and summaraizing to do.

Wow, many comments on this subject.

I did not mean to annoy any with my "prooftext" comment. I just desire not to be the legalistic guy that points to the bible verse for everything and proves his right (not at all meaning that we should not used the bible for everything). I just don't want to be so bold about my beliefs that I miss the obvious logical mistakes in my reasoning. I try not to depend on prooftext (I am not suggesting anyone here does that-I am just explaining my earlier comment).





I already said this but I will use scripture to make others happy! Romans 5:15-19:





"But the gift is not like the trepass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin. The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, bu the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man how much mor will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteouness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for al men so also the result of one act of righteouness was justifcation that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made rightous."





Basically here is my formula:


1) Christ and his sacrifice are greater than Adam and his sin (15-17).


2) Christ's cross completely cancels the results of Adam's sin (18-19).





*this is only a portion of chapter 5 of Romans so more I can add, but this should suffice for our debate.





*If Adam gave us oringal sin, then Christ gave us "orignal grace" which cancels the sin. casey





Ps. Bob, if by chance I have annoyed you are you have felt like I have been rude to you or something, I am sorry. i never atteneded anything of the such. Just reading your post, you sounded a little upset (hopefully I am just making this up, but I do apolize if I have offended) casey

One more thing.




Henry Michael, you said that sin is in effect "nurture not nature." Ephesians 2:1-3 says by nature we are children of wrath. It is our nature. OUr nature is to incurr God's wrath. How do we do that? back up in v. 2-3 we see living according to Satan, his will, the ways of the world, and according to our flesh. Sounds like Paul is saying that these ways of incurring God's wrath is something we are born with.





If theoretically one can live sinlessly and not practically, why is that? I have reread your post and it is not making sense to me. If we are practically incapable, then how is it theoretically. There is confusion in my higher Souther Baptist (hehehehe) brain that needs some straightening out. If you could further explain that part of the comment I'd be much obliged.

sorry about all the spelling errors trying to type fast catches up to me some times.

HT said:

"I have just one question for those who do not hold to OS. If man is born neutral, and thus by his own chosing falls, can you give me a verse that explicitly states that? I have never really seen those who don't hold to OS and to self-determination for that matter give a verse to debate. I"





That's what I meant when I said citing scripture by those who deny OS, they tell us what Roman's 5 does not say or psalm 51 or the other passages HT brought up but they real need an affirmitive passage saying that we are born sinless. Now unlike HT I don't tip my hat to the argument (Non HT henry mr Imler is invalid I guess ;c) it's based upon presuppositions that are completely groundless as I pointed out it assumes that Jesus wouldn't be fully man if He was born sinless and we are not. This begs the question as to what it means to be fully man. Also if carried to the logical conclusion (Which Pelagius and Finney do) to say that sin//guilt can not be transferred from one to another (to try to deny OS) undercuts the purpose of the cross that "He mad Him who knew no sin that He might be sin for us that we may be the righteousness of God in Him" (2 Cor 5:21). If imputation of sin is an impossibility so is substitutionary atonement. (I don't know of Henry non HT carries his argument to its logical end or not, maybe he is full blown Pelagian).

I have just one question for those who do not hold to OS. If man is born neutral, and thus by his own chosing falls, can you give me a verse that explicitly states that? I have never really seen those who don't hold to OS and to self-determination for that matter give a verse to debate. I think that would really help me determine exactly where you guys come from in the Bible. So far it has been Henry gave his brilliant philosophical argument (my hat is off to the good argument even thought I don't think the Bible supports your conclusions) and then Bob and I for the most part has been trying to defeat his argument. Henry did make the assertion and I would like to see where his logic is found in the Bible. Casey you are siding in with the assertion, if I am reading you correctly, that OS is unbiblical or at least not the correct biblical argument. If that is true you said, "He who asserts must also prove." So if you could post some verses for us to see your side and have a full discussion on this secondary issue, I stress that this is secondary.




In His Amazing Grace,


Henry Thomas Romans 8:28-30

Casey, because I am a Southern Baptist, I have to be right. (hehe)




I know that there are texts that show that God changes his mind. I know that there are texts that show people change their minds to draw close to God. Just like I knew that you understood the full curse resulting in Genesis. The main reason I flushed out all of it was to show my understanding and that I'm not taking anything out of their contexts.





But, it is my custom to always try to back up my position with Scripture. As you most certainly know, th key to a good defense is to show exactly where in Scripture the idea comes. Since Henry Michael began the discussion in a philosophical discussion, I feel it is important to argue biblical doctrine with the Bible, since this is where it orginate. If we are going to show the falicy of a doctrine exegeted from the Bible, the exegesis needs to be shown incorrect, not whether or not it is logical to reach that exegetical conclusion without exegetical support. Let us keep the Bible the sole source of authority on doctrine. I also feel like if we are going to debate original sin, it is key that we put all the evidences out there that would be used. That way all the evidence is on the table and we can see which view is most bilblical.





I don't see any leap that is being taken. All I see is that God says that the heart of man is "only evil continually." All I see in the Bible is that unless the heart of man is changed, there is no obedience. All I can see from the Bible is that the law was never an instrument to save but rather what shows the need for salvation. I am just trying to state what the Scripture says. I feel that there is no leap for these verses are absolutely clear on the heart. It is radically corrupted and enslaved by sin. I feel that the Scripture is declaring the heart to be sinful at its core and unable to save itself unless God changes it. I fail to see a leap here.





I am not here to debate calvinism in this post as I am to debate original sin. To do it effectively, the Bible must be brought in play at some point. I am passionate about debating the Bible, and debating it correctly.

a) I have not really responded - been busy

b) Mr. Imler is has responded. I am Mr. Imler and HT is Mr. Imler


c) Andy and Casey have cited scripture. Since when is that an automatic acknowedgement of the vadidity of a person's argument? What use is quoteing scripture if you are quoting it wrong? (Note, this is not an accusation, just a general statement.)


d)I'll respond, I promise, when I get time. It is almost hard enough follow the converstaion. I am loving it.





Anyway, I am off to get my hair cut and start to grade papers. Hopefully, I can take a break from that and put some more thoughts up here.

I mean you actually prove my point mr.Imler by bringing up animal deaths, they did not rebel like Adam yet they suffer for his sin. Just like we have not sinned in the likeness of Adam but bear the effects of his sin death/guilt.

Animals die because they were brought into the curse as well. Creation was in subjection to Adam and Eve thus when they fell all of creation was effected. Unless you want to argue that God created man (unfallen) mortal and that he would have died all along...that's a route some pelagianistic thinkers take. One which can be answered scripturally.

Kinda funny, the only people who are citing scripture are those who hold to the doctrine of original sin....as for this age of accountability stuff I do not know where that is found in God's word...just an Arminian necessity based on extrabiblical ideas of justice.




Anyway I really want to hear from Mr.Imler because his basis for rejecting OS is that sin can not be transferred, this is what Pelagius said and I want to know what Christ then did on the cross, what was that all about. You see like I said you start to pull ont this thread and it will effect our doctrines of the atonement, justification, and justice...so yes as Casey said that was a strong statement but very warranted.

Why do animals die? Have they also sinned?

HT,

I will be brief, because I have some other duties to be doing. I can share many "prooftext" of God changing his mind, and people changing their minds too (in the context of drawing close to God). My goal is not to share these prooftext, but to find the truth. I think we can get caught up in these small issues and miss the big picture.





I am not a calvinist, so using prooftext that support calvism is difficult to trust (because I can support just as much in the other view). Our discussion is on orinigal sin, since I do not believe man is Totally Depriaved then you can see how we can easily be confused with each other. (He who asserts must also prove...so if you assert this help me to understand...and it is not my job to give a defense here)





Your conclusions from Genesis is mostly correct. The fall did start there and the reprocussion effect us today. But what does that mean? I know that birth pains and tilling the soil and death are "punishments" but the phrase "orignial sin" does not appear there. The text is Genesis does not say anything (at less, that I see off hand) about orignal sin being passed on to the next generation. All I am trying to say is that there is space between what you are trying to proof and what is actually said (at less, right now I see us taking a leap from what the bible actually says to what you said).





casey

ht (lowercase cause your a baptist!!!),

I do not want this to sound wrong or like I am trying to dodge your arguement, but I read and reread your first paragraph and I really just did not follow your thinking. So If my comments are a little off, it is probably because I did not really grasp your thought.





Your first paragraph you claim, "Christ did not undo everything that Adam did." Reread Romans 5-8, yes Christ did undo everything. He is the second Adam, a greater Adam then Adam was. Just because we do not see the full ramifacations of what took be on the cross, does not mean Christ stopped whatever Adam caused. We live in a fallen world and it will always be fallen, but we will live in a world where the sting of death and tears of sorrow will not be. If Adam did pass anything to us Christ canceled it. But just because we live in a fallen world does not mean we have to be sinful at birth (this is the part of your paragraph that I was confused).





As far as your question, "why did Jesus say we need to be reborn?" I understand your question, but there is an easy answer. In theory, one could be sinless (sounds like heresry, but hold on). One could live life wihtout sin. Living in the OT, one could obey all the laws and be sinless. But practically...that is impossible. That is the difference bewteen law and grace which is the point of Romans. If we try to live by the law (many people still do today just like the pharisees of the past) we fall short. We need grace upoon us to make it into heaven. For the last 6000 years not one person (outside of Jesus) has been righteous enough to follow the whole law, and nobody will. We all need a savior. casey

Casey,

I think that if Christ's death did cancel everything that Adam did, then we would not be in a fallen world. It is appropriate to say that Christ's death removed our sin. His return is when John says in Revelation that the curse is removed. Sin has been dealt with for those who will believe, but we have not been cured of sin. Sin still remains, otherwise how is this world fallen? Why is there still death? Christ did not undo everything that Adam did. Christ has ransomed his church (Ephesians 5:25) from the grips of sin. We are no long enslaved too it. However, as you have pointed out, we still live in a world of sin. Thus because sin has not been removed from all of Adam's seed, we are still in sin at birth. For we are in the likeness of fallen Adam, not the Adam before the fall. We must be born of Christ by the Spirit inorder to have that taint removed. Regeneration removes the taint of original sin, justification gives us our right standing before a holy and righteous and all glorious God.





I do have a question for point three. If we can resist sin, why did Jesus say we need to be reborn? Once we sin, we need the death of Jesus to atone for that sin. However, doesn't this undermind Jesus in John 14:6? Its just a question that I have always had with those who don't ascribe to original sin.

puritanbob,

I do not think I have actually hit on your whole arguement, in fact I probably am missing a couple of things. but with that said let me say three things:





1) I want to start with Psalm 51. I believe this Psalm is a beautiful song and I really enjoy reading it, but I have noticed that many people start with this psalm to proof a point. Not just with our discussion of sin, but many doctrinal debates. I do not think that is wise to use this chapter. The hebrew word that David uses to describe "the sex" part of the chapter is indeed very graphic, making reference to animals "humping" each other instead of the typical hebrew word for sex. I do not believe David is trying to give a theory on where sin came from but on his personal feelings of guilt, expressed in this psalm.His language dictates that more then him expresses where sin comes from. I do not think this is a proof text for our discussion.





2)"How can infants die without sin." That is an easy answer. You are correct in using Romans 5 but I believe chapter 6 needs to be in this discussion too. Adam opened the can of death, but Christ's death conquers that. Whatever Adam brought was canceled by Christ's death. But we still live in a fallen world where Katrina devastates, and Saddam kills innocent, and where babies die from SIDS.





3)"Why do all people end up in the sinner's boat?" That is easy too. Because we all sin. The "age of accountablity" when we recognize what good and bad is comes into play for kids who die (but I will stay with our orgainal disscussion). We all sin. I think that is an easy truth about scripture that does not need to be backed up with evidence. But even with that statement, the idea of "perfectionism" is possible and yet impossible at the same time. I have the ablitiy to resist sin and say no. I can always say no, I have the ablitiy to not sin, but I still give in to the dark side of my soul. Theoritcally, someone could always say no to sin, but practically that will never happen.





Ps. pulling on the threads of the garmet and having it unwravel is a strong statement to make. I think there is as much evidence against what you believe then what you hold too. casey

Mr. Imler you stated:

"So, he was not fully human. Isn't saying that Jesus was not fully human a heresy? In order to fully be tempted I would venture to say that Christ's nature had to be like ours. Otherwise there was no reason for him to be incarnate at all. He could have never become man and still sacrificed himself."





See your hung up on some notion you have of what it means to be human. I argues already that being tainted with sin is NOT a necessary condition to being human (Under your definition of "human" pre-fallen Adam and Eve were not human!) And yes I do think it is a heresy to cut off one of Christ's 2 nautures. However, the problem seems to be on your end of the table with extra-biblical notions of what it means to be human. I have to ask you what does it mean that Christ was the "second Adam"? Seems to me in the context of Romans 5 that He like the first Adam is a federal head and all in Him share in His standing before God...there are two humanities those in Christ and those in Adam that's what Romans 5 is all about.





You also ask:


"How can guilt transfer spiritually? I would counter that it cannot. Adam did bring sin into the world and since then we have all followed his example and chosen to individually fall from grace."





Well I thought I answered this already, the same way our guilt is transferred to Christ and His righteousness is tranferred to us. You do believe in substitutionary atonement right? If guilt can not be transferred then Christ didn't die in the place of anybody (this is impossible in your definition Henry).





"What was the result of Adam and Eve's sin? That sin came into the world and as a result, spiritual death. Why did death spread to all man? Because all sinned."





No not just spiritual death but also physical. Thus, you have a problem, How can infants die if they are without sin? If death came through sin then it logically follows infants are somehow born sinful because infants die.





"It is precisely the potential perfect principle that allowed Christ to be fully human and resist temptation. I do not say that anyone else has done it. The scriptures prophesy that none will."





So Christ was just an elevated man who made all the right choices...gosh it's like one error after another right now...this is what happens when you begin to pull on the threads of the doctrines you don't like the whole garment begins to unravel. My question I posed originally is why? Why do all end up in the sinner boat if they are born perfect? Why do all end up needing Jesus? As for this prophecy I don't know what you're talking about, but it certainly seems that being born without a sin nature leaves the door open for a works perfectionism. This is what Pelagius taught (because he denied OS) and Charles Finney. Christ could potentially serve as nothing more than an example (because after all sin can't be transferred and how could He "bear sins" then? He must be an example)--This is the Pelagian heresy.





"Hopefully once I am done with that I can post in a rational line."





I hope so too Henry, what you have said thus far is pretty bad, I am not trying to be mean just honest (both philosophically and biblically).





Lastly you said of psalm 51:





"Lack of evidence is no reason to suspect that he was not born from a immoral relationship."





Actually there is evidence that David was not born of adultry. In 1 Samuel 16 Samuel is sent to the house of Jesse on of his children is to be anointed king. Note that all of Davids brothers were fathered by Jesse, and in all the geneologies Jesse is David's father. Nowhere do we get the hint that David was born of adultry. So dear sir the burden of proof rests on your shoulders, you infer that psalm 51 is referring to some sin of David's mother involving his conception. You do this because you must to deny the doctrine of original sin.

Amen Brad. Amen.

I forgot to mention in the first paragraph of my preceding comment the verse that states that this idea of God being fully human and fully God is a mystery. It comes from 1 Tim. 3:16 which states, "Great is the mystery of Godliness, God was manifested in the flesh."

First, I concur with H.T. that the Bible explicity states that this idea is a mystery. Which in turn means that our arguments and counter-arguments on this issue will be incomplete until the day of His return.




But with that said, even though the Bible does not tell us precisely how he avoided this inheritance of original sin, the Bible tells us that Jesus did not inherit original sin (e.g. 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 John 3:5), whether you prescribe to the Federal Headship idea or not...





I believe the subtlety of this issue is that since Jesus had no biological parents [in that Mary and Joseph did not aid in the conception; i.e. immaculate conception], the sin nature was not passed down to Him.





However, since He had a human mother, he was fully human.





In other words, 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.





Could Jesus have sinned in his humanity while being God in the flesh? If his humanity was separate it could have willed to do just as Adam did.





While He had the choice to sin He did not have the ability. The humanity of Christ could never be separate from or unsupported from His deity. With Adam there was only one nature with Christ he was supported by and anointed by deity as the Son of God.





In our fallen humanity we cannot act apart from our nature. Jesus however did not have the sin nature that we have. He was free to act perfectly in all situations. He acted upon his sinless nature obeying another's will, that of his Father. He was not able to go against God's will because He did not have the nature of sin to have that possibility. He knew no sin (2 Cor.5:21) meaning He gained no knowledge of sin through experience.





Some argue that if their was no possibility for his sinning then the temptations were meaningless. The nature of the temptations were not that He could learn about faith as we do, the true purpose of the temptations was to demonstrate He could not sin and was in fact the Son of God.





He did not act independently on his own initiative even though He had all the power of God. He submitted Himself over to the Father obeying him in all things acting as a perfect man in obedience to God. He kept all of the law perfectly but this consisted more than just the outward obedience.





I believe that one cannot argue because he could not sin he was not a true human because sin in its nature was originally foreign to our humanity. Adam was not sinful when he was created, although he did have the ability to choose.





Temptability does mean one is susceptible to do that temptation.





Christ's temptations were every bit like ours yet they could not bring out any desires. He was tempted from without but not from within, there was no internal reaction to the outward temptation.





While Adam had a choice Jesus could only do what His nature would allow. He was deity and cannot sin. God by his nature is infinite, Holy, righteous, perfect always, at all times. It is impossible for him to do evil.





This is what gives us hope as believers. If Jesus was tainted with original sin, we have no hope AT ALL!





Jesus as both man and God two natures in one person was able to be the perfect mediator for both parties. Christ became our mediator by his death (Heb. 12:24).





Christ represented man by dying as a man to fulfill the requirements of the law. If He was only a man it could only have finite value and He could not be able to save today. His death would only be applied to those living at his time and would hardly be superior to the animal sacrifices.





Because he was perfect and sinless it was acceptable to God for all people of all time.





This verse says it best:





Acts 20:28, we are purchased by blood that is sinless, this is reason for the virgin birth, that God would bypass the normal means to create a man without the nature of sin. It is this blood alone he would accept,the blood of Immanuel's veins.

I like what Ezekiel 18 says. Specifically verse 20. According to that verse a fathers sins do not credited to a son and vice versa. So why is it different for Adam's sin?

Christ was not born into a fallen state because He was conceived of the Holy Spirit, thus the guilt of Adam was not transferred to Him.

So, he was not fully human. Isn't saying that Jesus was not fully human a heresy? In order to fully be tempted I would venture to say that Christ's nature had to be like ours. Otherwise there was no reason for him to be incarnate at all. He could have never become man and still sacrificed himself.

Also Christ was not born into a fallen state because He was conceived of the Holy Spirit, thus the guilt of Adam was not transferred to Him.

How can guilt transfer spiritually? I would counter that it cannot. Adam did bring sin into the world and since then we have all followed his example and chosen to individually fall from grace.





"Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned--" (Rom 5:12)





What was the result of Adam and Eve's sin? That sin came into the world and as a result, spiritual death. Why did death spread to all man? Because all sinned. They committed acts against God. Not that they were all created by God as inferior, but they each sinned.





It is precisely the potential perfect principle that allowed Christ to be fully human and resist temptation. I do not say that anyone else has done it. The scriptures prophesy that none will.





According to the doctrine of original sin, it is a condition that permanently affected mankind one Adam sinned. Somehow one Adam sinned, man stopped having free will to choose to turn to God and choose to fall. Adam and Christ were the only ones with free will. How come?





I am rambling. I need to get my discussion outline done for class tomorrow. I need to sketch out Hume, introduce form, source, and redaction criticism all within a 45 min period to a class of freshmen. Hopefully once I am done with that I can post in a rational line.

"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me."

David here is repenting for his sin with Bathsheba and states basically he was born in sin. There are only two parties here David and his mother, now either his mother was committing some sexual sin when David was concieved or David is saying he has been sinful since his mother's conception of him. The obvious is the latter because there is no mention of David being born out of adultery.





Lack of evidence is no reason to suspect that he was not born from a immoral relationship.

Good questions Henry, you ask:

"My question is this, why was not Jesus tainted with this sin? Is not Jesus supposed to be fully human and fully God? If He is fully human, then He must be tainted with original sin"





Well being tainted with sin is not a necessary condition to being human, Adam was also without sin in the Garden (thus Jesus is called the second Adam in Romans 5). So Christ in one sense was the only truly human being to live on this planet since the fall. So to be clear sinfulness is not a necessary condition to being human. Also Christ was not born into a fallen state because He was concieved of the Holy Spirit, thus the guilt of Adam was not transferred to Him.





Now this is simply an invalid inference from what you stated already:


"Since it is true that He is fully human, it must not be true that all humans have original sin."





Christ again is unique from the rest of the humankind in that He was not concieved of flesh but Spirit (Now we can get bogged down in defining the incarnation and the union of Christ's two natures) but the point is that itat it is affirming the consequent I think to say that because Christ was born without sin therefore everybody has been born without sin. Again Christ is unique in this respect.





To move on to the actual issue you state:


" I know of now way that he could pass this sin along. Is there some genetic malfunction?"





Well a couple of things:


1) If Christ can take our guilt and sins upon Himself, and give us His righteousness, (2 Cor 5:21) can not the guilt of Adam our federal head be transferred to His progenny?





2) What does scripture say?


"Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned--" (Rom 5:12)





"Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.


But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many." (Rom 5:14-15)





So in some way our connection with Adam is what causes death. The fact that infants get sick and die is evidence of the effects of the fall in them...so yes part of the fall is genetic (disease, handicaps), yet there is the spiritual element of guilt being transferred. For, many die due to one man's transgression if we are born sinless and guiltless there should be no connection at all between the many and Adam. Oh and this isn't a Calvinist issue per se, most Arminians agree with this...at least the ones who aren't full blown Pelagian/open theist.





One more bone to pick:


"To sum up: there is no ontological difference between Adam and any other human being. The lack of sin in Jesus is further evidence that there is no such thing as original sin. In order to be logically consistent, one must reject the idea of original sin and replace it with an idea of free will that allows one to choose or not to choose God."





Um, well why does everyone need Jesus then? Could there not then be potentially sinless people walking around right now? Why does every person need to be covered in Christ's righteousness and atonement? Sounds like you're coming pretty close to committing the same errors of Pelagius. Do all people need Christ's atonement? I don't think you cant consistantly give a yes, because there is a potential perfectionism. If there is no potential perfectionism then why do all with their "free will" rebel and choose sin? My question then is why was Christ's death necessary? Some more scripture:





"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me."





David here is repenting for his sin with Bathsheba and states basically he was born in sin. There are only two parties here David and his mother, now either his mother was commiting some sexual sin when David was concieved or David is saying he has been sinful since his mother's conception of him. The obvious is the latter because there is no mention of David being born out of adultry.

What did you break? :)

I would agree that without O/S, there is no need for I/B.

Wasn't original sin something that was made to justify infant baptism? That is not really part of your argument, but I think it is something important to consider.