"all have sinned"

You just crossed the line and made we humans the grafters. Alas, t'is not true.

 

In this case, we agree. While I feel for the sentiment Tom expresses, he has made an error in the way he factors this issue. I also note that you are now backpedaling from your earlier long post confessions about the nature of sin you made toward me.

For the record, utter depravity (what we are actually arguing) means just that. We are sinners -- period. Born, actualizing sin, etc., notwithstanding, we are sinners according to God.

 

Was Christ born of a man?

Also, where is the answer to my earlier question? Why are you avoiding such an easy question like that?

Let's examine the word "dichotomy" that you are fond of using -- especially when someone disagrees with you.

Are you not doing just this?

And, you accuse me of this, but I am not presenting a false dichotomy. I am presenting ONE biblical doctrine that says that ALL HAVE SINNED. There is no "either" or a third position involved.

I am also saying that Christ did not have a sin nature. I am not bringing a dichotomy, false or otherwise to the debate. You are introducing one by attempting to refute my point.

On this issue, the Bible is clear. He was without sin -- period.

Sadly enough, you have also introduced another heretical position started by the Christadelphians. This same group dismisses Christ's deity and the Trinity. I am fairly sure that you would do neither, but in arguing the track you are arguing, you are treading in that direction, perhaps without even knowing it.

To have a sin nature means that Jesus would have to have had a fallen, defiled, and unholy nature. I fail to see how an unholy person can offer a holy sacrifice sufficient to please an infinitely holy God. Christ was completely holy, though a man.

Now, let's examine why it is that you think that in order for Christ to be fully human that you believe He needed to also have a sin nature. You are looking at Christ's humanity in context of fallen man. But, the Scriptures tell us that Christ is the "second Adam." Adam was not born with a sin nature as I expressed above. He was a free man -- the only (well, Eve also) one, and also the only man who could truly make the choice to sin or not. The rest of us are fallen creatures born into a fallen and cursed world. Christ was not born a fallen creature. He was born both fully human like Adam (not in Adam's image, Adam was in Christ's image!) and fully God, and as such, holy and perfect, without sin, just as the Scriptures express so very clearly.

When will you stop allowing your human logic to dictate your doctrines over and above the very specific revelation of God, above which we cannot argue with success?

 

Don't agree, God decided to graft believers in and cut out those who do not believe. It is Him that is the grafter and His decision, not mine.

I didn't say He is grafting in those who believe in His Son. It isn't my will to do that but Him. Who am to question God and the way He decided to do things?

 

Maybe you can point out the inconsistency, which I don't see.

My Calvinist buddies will have a field day, I'm sure. But any view which says infants do not go to heaven when they die won't fly with me.

 

Sorry, but depravity is wickedness, sin, moral coruption, not hopeless. Of course because of our depravity, we are hopeless outside of Jesus Christ.

Not even close.

 

read what I wrote again. The definition of depravity doesn't mean hopeless, though being depravity makes us hopeless. You said depravity doesn't mean sin. If man is born depraved(which I believe) then he is born with a sin nature and is also born hopeless because of his depravity.

I am following along. You're statement isn't logical. It causes no problem with "L"

 

Webdog, anything more that I might say will just re-hash the arguments already made. I leave you to hang in your own noose.

 

This discussion has gone well past the 30 page limit and must be closed.
Please feel free to start another thread.