King of the North and King of the South.

[RandyPNW]

OK, Jesus then.  Post Adam.  Adam is in his genealogy.

Born of a woman, a human with, in your view, a "sin nature."

Jesus was 100% human, I hope you agree with this.

In your Christology, does Jesus have a "sin nature" as a human that default from birth made him a sinner?

Easy question.

Your statements seem to be predicated on some kind of strawman argument. Nobody is saying Jesus wasn't 100% sinless. We all agree with that. His not having a Sin Nature does not make him less than human. Those people who have a Sin Nature, ie the rest of us, aren't less than human either.

Whether having a Sin Nature or not, we all remain human. Those who have a Sin Nature are *corrupted human beings,* but not corrupted humans in the sense of losing some of their humanity.

[IMINXTC]

"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment." Heb 9:27
Two distinct actions:
Death.
Judgment.

I'm sure you recognize that there is a different between temporal judgments and eternal judgment?

No need. Death has become the destiny of all men, thanks to Adam.

Judgment for sin is a seperate issue.

Perhaps then I failed to recognize what you were inferring by your statement? If so, I apologize.

You're right--the consequence of death and judgment for sin can be dealt with separately. But I continue to insist that death blends with judgment when it is viewed as a punishment for sin.

Rom 6.23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Rom 5.12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned.

Sin was a punishment visited upon us all for *our own sins,* just as death was a punishment visited upon Adam for *his own sin.*

Sin is a punishment, and not just a consequence. Therefore, judgment and death are related. Would anyone dare to claim  that death is not a punishment when the Law of Moses specifically assigned death as a punishment for people who willfully and completely committed themselves to certain, specific sins?

My points are that death(1) is coming for all men, yet each man will account for his personal sin at the judgement(2). Death, for the unredeemed, is irreversible, certain and set in motion from the day of birth. Judgement for sin, however, is based upon choices the individual deliberately makes in his short lifetime. He is not judged for something he has no control over - God is just.


While there are myriads of circumstances, processes and motives leading men to sin, and by which they will be judged, a so-called "sin-nature" implies that men are inherently determined to sin no matter what the circumstances as if that were all they are capable of doing.


Furthermore, a man compelled by such a nature cannot be considered free-willed in any sense of the term, and can not be held completely responsible for all his actions, which are his natural inclinations.


The end result of much of what you argue for here in these forums is a God who sets man up for failure and predetermines his actions and, thus, his damnation.

"Sin Nature" is a human construct not found in scripture and pregnant with delusive, false and confusing implications.


But you waver and run all over a theological map not supported by "contextual" scripture - not a wit.


God is just.

[Athanasius]

OK, Jesus then.  Post Adam.  Adam is in his genealogy.

Born of a woman, a human with, in your view, a "sin nature."

Jesus was 100% human, I hope you agree with this.

In your Christology, does Jesus have a "sin nature" as a human that default from birth made him a sinner?

Easy question.

Your statements seem to be predicated on some kind of strawman argument. Nobody is saying Jesus wasn't 100% sinless. We all agree with that. His not having a Sin Nature does not make him less than human. Those people who have a Sin Nature, ie the rest of us, aren't less than human either.

Whether having a Sin Nature or not, we all remain human. Those who have a Sin Nature are *corrupted human beings,* but not corrupted humans in the sense of losing some of their humanity.

His argument isn't predicated on the idea that Jesus was anything other than sinless. That's exactly the point, that Jesus was sinless, despite being born of Mary who had, according to the theology you prescribe to, a sin nature that, according to the theology you prescribe to, is the spiritual inheritance of all humanity, and thus, must also be the spiritual inheritance of Jesus as well.

Thus, the conflict: Jesus is sinless, but also born into a race of creatures who are said to be corrupted in their very nature, by inheritance, by sin. How are these two doctrinal positions reconciled?

What's the reconciliation, and where is it found in Scripture?

[Redeemed]

The virgin birth would be the answer, however, I've never seen a proper explanation of why a sin nature only passes through the father.

Does that mean that only men have this sin nature? 

I know, it's pretty much the same question Athanasius asked but it strikes right to the heart of it.

[Athanasius]

The virgin birth would be the answer, however, I've never seen a proper explanation of why a sin nature only passes through the father.

Does that mean that only men have this sin nature? 

I know, it's pretty much the same question Athanasius asked but it strikes right to the heart of it.

There's no reason to think that sin nature passes through only the father except perhaps bad metaphysics or ancient misogyny (or would that be misandry I wonder, ha, who am I kidding!). Well, it could be a more modern kind of misogyny and bad metaphysic too https://carm.org/about-jesus/why-wasnt-jesus-born-with-original-sin/:

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.

Every time I read this line of thinking I nearly spill my drink. The problem is that the Scriptural argument is filtered through the lens of Augustine (at times vigorously denied). Assume an Augustinian sin nature, then import a bit of concupiscence, et voila. This is problematic for a doctrine that is significantly philosophical in expression. What's also problematic, in the case of Carm, is the confusing inclusion of federal headship and lack of connection between this and the corruption of human nature. In other words, sin nature is assumed on the basis of federal headship, when federal headship necessitates no such thing.

What Randy's answer will be, in keeping with his earlier posts, is that God withheld humanity's inherited sin nature - a spiritual inheritance - from Jesus, and this doesn't really matter insofar as it differentiates Jesus' earthly experience from ours because it doesn't constitute a meaningful ontological difference between prelapsarian and postlapsarian humanity.

However, the metaphysical gymnastics both views require is something I find entirely uncompelling.

A more serious answer would be the Catholic answer, which is Mary's Immaculate Conception. At least the Catholic's understood Aristotle well enough to know how to talk about nature.

[Redeemed]

I agree. I'm hoping Randy seriously considers the question and how he can possibly explain it in accordance with scriptures in context.

As I wrote, I've never seen a proper explanation of the doctrine. 

[RandyPNW]

His argument isn't predicated on the idea that Jesus was anything other than sinless.

RK is perfectly competent to argue for himself. I know what he said and what he meant.

That's exactly the point, that Jesus was sinless, despite being born of Mary who had, according to the theology you prescribe to, a sin nature that, according to the theology you prescribe to, is the spiritual inheritance of all humanity, and thus, must also be the spiritual inheritance of Jesus as well.

No, I obviously don't subscribe to a theology like that. As I said, both sinless Jesus and sinful humanity are equally *human.* Having a Sin Nature or not having a Sin Nature does not make one less human. Acquiring a Sin Nature does, however, remove humanity from one class of being and move us into a new class of being. I do understand the argument, brother.

What's the reconciliation, and where is it found in Scripture?

I utilize the Scriptures I've already referrred to in Romans. Adam sinned and suffered the consequence, and punishment, of death. In the same way, all of humanity sins and dies. We have all inherited not just the consequence of death, but also the punishment of death for our own sins.

It is the absolute declaration of Scriptures that this is so without exception--every human being will die for his own sin. The implication is clear to me that we are therefore born with a sin nature--not that we are coerced to sin by repeated external attempts to get us to fail.

The redemptive ceremonies under the Law confirm this, that all Israel had to be ceremonially cleansed, including women giving birth. The lesson does appear to be a matter of interpreting symbolism and reading between the lines.

So I then revert to personal experience to understand it. And I do see sin latent and potent within me, and in everybody else. I see an inborn pride and resistance to those who cross us, and direct us against our will.

I see hostility erupt, almost irrationally. We are flawed and sinful, and require redemption--even at a very young age, and, I think, including birth. I deal with sin in myself every day. It confirms for me what I think Scriptures are saying.

[RandyPNW]

The virgin birth would be the answer, however, I've never seen a proper explanation of why a sin nature only passes through the father.

Does that mean that only men have this sin nature? 

I know, it's pretty much the same question Athanasius asked but it strikes right to the heart of it.

I also heard that Jesus bypassed the Sin Infection by avoiding having a human father. But as I've been saying, I don't believe this "Sin Infection" is DNA, physical, or "ontological," except in the sense that Humanity became "Sinful Humanity."

I believe, rather, that the "Sin Disease" is a spiritual inheritance, passed on by the word of God, from Adam to his descendants. God made it so that Man passes his traits down through his children. If Man had obeyed God, and had eaten of the Tree of Life, the children would likewise have inherited Eternal Life and Eternal Virtue.

But the story is that Satan subverted Man's gifts, and enabled Man to not only disobey but create children of Satan who inherit Satan's spiritual nature of rebellion against God's word. Some people inherit Adam's characteristic of wanting to repent and return to God, and so become children of God. Other children inherit Satan's characteristic of remaining aloof from God and stray from the path of God's word.

The "contamination" created by human sex was therefore not just a matter of DNA transmission, but more, God's curse upon the works of Man. What men and women do, sexually, is a work that cannot produce the perfect Christ. The birth of Jesus had to be the work of God apart from human sexuality.

[Athanasius]

RK is perfectly competent to argue for himself. I know what he said and what he meant.

Yes, but I've become incessantly chatty within the last six months and your assessment betrayed a misunderstanding of what was being said.

No, I obviously don't subscribe to a theology like that. As I said, both sinless Jesus and sinful humanity are equally *human.* Having a Sin Nature or not having a Sin Nature does not make one less human. Acquiring a Sin Nature does, however, remove humanity from one class of being and move us into a new class of being. I do understand the argument, brother.

It's not obvious that you don't subscribe to a theology like that I outlined, which was consistent with everything you've written at the time of writing. I'm not sure how your now stated view is different from what I outlined (this reply, and your next reply to Redeemed). Is there a difference? Maybe in the area of Augustinian human sexuality?

[Redeemed]

The virgin birth would be the answer, however, I've never seen a proper explanation of why a sin nature only passes through the father.

Does that mean that only men have this sin nature? 

I know, it's pretty much the same question Athanasius asked but it strikes right to the heart of it.

I also heard that Jesus bypassed the Sin Infection by avoiding having a human father. But as I've been saying, I don't believe this "Sin Infection" is DNA, physical, or "ontological," except in the sense that Humanity became "Sinful Humanity."

I believe, rather,

And what scriptures, in context, do have to support this belief that some are born God's children and so can repent and believe in Christ/God and some Satan's who inherently won't or can't because of Sin Nature? 

[RandyPNW]

The virgin birth would be the answer, however, I've never seen a proper explanation of why a sin nature only passes through the father.

Does that mean that only men have this sin nature? 

I know, it's pretty much the same question Athanasius asked but it strikes right to the heart of it.

I also heard that Jesus bypassed the Sin Infection by avoiding having a human father. But as I've been saying, I don't believe this "Sin Infection" is DNA, physical, or "ontological," except in the sense that Humanity became "Sinful Humanity."

I believe, rather,

And what scriptures, in context, do have to support this belief that some are born God's children and so can repent and believe in Christ/God and some Satan's who inherently won't or can't because of Sin Nature?

The classic reference for Predestination is from Romans 9.

[Redeemed]

The classic reference for Predestination is from Romans 9.

That's not what I asked. I specifically asked for scriptures detailing some being able to repent and become a child of God and some being Satan's children and so are not able to repent and become a child of God.

Just writing "Romans 9" doesn't cut it. You should be able to lay it out and show it here with clear scriptures in context. 

[RabbiKnife]

And thus we return to foreknowledge

[RandyPNW]

And thus we return to foreknowledge

Exactly. I firmly believe in Predestination. That is what the passage teaches, in my opinion.

[RandyPNW]

The classic reference for Predestination is from Romans 9.

That's not what I asked. I specifically asked for scriptures detailing some being able to repent and become a child of God and some being Satan's children and so are not able to repent and become a child of God.

Just writing "Romans 9" doesn't cut it. You should be able to lay it out and show it here with clear scriptures in context.

I have been  explaining it, though you apparently haven't heard it. One claims he hasn't heard enough, and another claims he's heard it too much! oy vey

I'll try to explain to you personally. Rom 9 indicates that God predetermined a certain number of select children who will prevail and do His  original will.

Rom 9.6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring...
12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

Jesus indicates the same...

John 8.42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. 43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me!