The temptation of Christ ...

[Guest]

Yes, it is quite amazing, but before you go pestering your pastor, may I throw a little fuel on the smoldering flames. Tell me (or anyone else) what you think of this passage:

Isaiah 7:14-16

14 "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.

15 "He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good.

16 "For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken."

Excellent point Micah!

Just my own two cents but I do not think Jesus could sin before this point in His life but afterward He could but did not. This fits well with the passage in Romans 7, pointed out earlier in this thread, where Paul speaks of when the law came to him and he died.

Can a year old child sin? I do not think so. Where there is no law there is no sin (read that somewhere). At what age can a child sin? Who can say for sure? Isn't it "when the law comes to him" as in the passage in Isaiah? The youth of Israel during forty years in the desert were not held accountable, by no less than God, were they?

Another thought: can an imbecile sin? (Excuse my non-politically correct speech, but imbecile is a precise term; I do not know what "mentally challenged" means. Perhaps because it applies to me! )

[Guest]

I could give you that, but it doesn’t explain verse 19:

19 For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. [emphasis added]

Also, what would you say about Romans 3:23 –

23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

How could a baby who dies at birth be a sinner if they do not have the sinful nature?

What would you also say was the reason for the virgin birth? If we are born without a sinful nature than there shouldn’t have been a problem with Jesus being born from Joseph’s seed. It would have been miraculous as well.


Hi Micah, Between you and i we may be splitting hairs because i agree everyone does sin but the issue of "original sin" as opposed to a desire to sin has been the difference and the foundation of entire denominations like the RCC and Calvinism. As they say error begets error and out of original sin comes some kind of fatalistic outlook. Throughout the dark ages the belief in "original sin" was almost universal because of Augustine and the church was throughly corrupt and there was no evangelism ,just judgement and condemnation.
The virgin birth is a good point except that Jesus inherited Mary's DNA and Mary was not sin free so if "original sin" were true how could Jesus not have inherited Mary's DNA and not inherit her "original sin" also?

[Guest]

How old are children when they can eat curds and honey? to me this means oatmeal- or cottage cheese, or the like and one years olds (or less- i cant remember!)start eating cereal, dont they?

as far as "mentally challenged" persons go-- i would suspect that they can sin if they truly know the difference between right and wrong. there are varying degrees of mental-challengedness.

i may take a simpler view of sin than others; to me, one does not need to be able to reason out the full ramifications of one's behavior in order to be able to sin. 3 years olds are selfish because they are sinners. that's just the way i see it and also the way i have been taught. they dont need to be able to write a treatise that explains why it is sociologically disadvantageous to be selfish. they just need to say "mine!"

TK

[Guest]

Hi Micah, Between you and i we may be splitting hairs because i agree everyone does sin but the issue of "original sin" as opposed to a desire to sin has been the difference and the foundation of entire denominations like the RCC and Calvinism. As they say error begets error and out of original sin comes some kind of fatalistic outlook. Throughout the dark ages the belief in "original sin" was almost universal because of Augustine and the church was throughly corrupt and there was no evangelism ,just judgement and condemnation.
The virgin birth is a good point except that Jesus inherited Mary's DNA and Mary was not sin free so if "original sin" were true how could Jesus not have inherited Mary's DNA and not inherit her "original sin" also?

That is interesting about the history of "original sin". Thanks for that info. I don't think believing in original sin should create an atmosphere of no evangelism, it should just make you appreciate the hope you have in Jesus Christ from saving you from that sin, but I can see how it can be twisted into something else.

As far as Mary's DNA goes, I don't believe we inherit the sin nature through genetic means, but spiritual means. According to the scripture we have already mentioned in this thread, the sin nature is passed down through Adam. That is why I feel when Jesus was born from a virgin he didn't inherit spiritually the sinful nature from Adam.

[Guest]

As far as Mary's DNA goes, I don't believe we inherit the sin nature through genetic means, but spiritual means. According to the scripture we have already mentioned in this thread, the sin nature is passed down through Adam. That is why I feel when Jesus was born from a virgin he didn't inherit spiritually the sinful nature from Adam.

Well Micah it says "because of one man's transgression sin and death came into the world" but it does'nt say that only men pass it down and as far as i know it does'nt say it's inherited spiritually.
That's why the RCC claims that Mary was sinless i believe so she could'nt pass through this so called original sin.
Like i mentioned Paul said 5 times Christ's sacrifice was "more then" what Adam did.
If original sin were true it would seem that Christ's sacrifice was not more then but equal to what Adam did and that is what Jehovah's Witnesses believe, that it was a ransom or equal payment to wipe the slate clean.
Also if original sin is true and children are BORN GUILTY with someone else's sin how could Jesus say "for such as these is the kingdom of heaven." There can't be sin in heaven and you can't count them as innocent if they have original sin.

[Guest]

Well Micah it says "because of one man's transgression sin and death came into the world" but it does'nt say that only men pass it down and as far as i know it does'nt say it's inherited spiritually.

However, in Romans 5, it seems to me anyway, that Paul is using a one to one relationship between Adam and Jesus. If we receive justification through Jesus Christ spiritually than what is wrong with concluding we receive condemnation spiritually from Adam?

That's why the RCC claims that Mary was sinless i believe so she could'nt pass through this so called original sin.

I don't agree with the RCC position.

Like i mentioned Paul said 5 times Christ's sacrifice was "more then" what Adam did.
If original sin were true it would seem that Christ's sacrifice was not more then but equal to what Adam did and that is what Jehovah's Witnesses believe, that it was a ransom or equal payment to wipe the slate clean.

I believe the answer to your question is in verse 16:

16The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification.

This verse seems to state the reason why Christ's gift is much more is because it was a result of "many" transgressions, whereas sin came from just "one" transgression. I don't see where it implies that it negates being born with a sin nature.

Also if original sin is true and children are BORN GUILTY with someone else's sin how could Jesus say "for such as these is the kingdom of heaven." There can't be sin in heaven and you can't count them as innocent if they have original sin.

I believe Jesus was referring to having a child like faith. Like when a child trusts their parents unconditionally. I don't think he was actually saying that children are without sin and therefore you should be like them as stated in the following verse:

15 "Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all."

[Guest]

TK and Homer,

Thanks for the response. I agree that sin isn't recognized until one is able to resist the sin or has the wisdom to perceive it. I was curious that for one who doesn't believe in "age of accountability" how they would reconcile this passage?

[Guest]

if babies are not technically "born sinners" they are doomed to become sinners soon because "all have sinned." the terms "sin nature" and the doctrine of "original sin" are not synonymous. we sin because of our sin nature-- there is not a question about this; whether the doctrine of "original sin" is a valid doctrine can be disputed.

TK

[Guest]

if babies are not technically "born sinners" they are doomed to become sinners soon because "all have sinned." the terms "sin nature" and the doctrine of "original sin" are not synonymous. we sin because of our sin nature-- there is not a question about this; whether the doctrine of "original sin" is a valid doctrine can be disputed.

Right and practically speaking IMO it really does'nt make any difference except for people who believe that children that die and have original sin may be doomed to hell.

[Guest]

steve said:

Right and practically speaking IMO it really does'nt make any difference except for people who believe that children that die and have original sin may be doomed to hell.

unless they are baptized

TK