Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by JesusFan, Nov 3, 2011.
No Virgin Birth, would He had qualified for being Messiah still?
No. Without the divine conception and the virgin birth, Jesus would have been born with a sin nature.
No. (and all these other letters to make it long enough to post)
Some here do say though that he was as All of us, that what made Him unique was that he chose NEVER to sin, not how He was born!
NO WAY , isn't this what Arius was guilty of?
Thats essentially what Hebrews says minus how He would be born. Since it was prophecied the Messiah would be born of a virgin He must be and can't be any other way.
They're wrong, and dangerously so.
Romans 5:12 12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--
The doctrine of original sin is a biblical doctrine. Opponents on this board label it an Augustinian doctrine and reject it. That is semi-Pelagianism; the belief that man is born tabula rasa (blank slate) and is only responsible for sins committed. Semi-Pelagianism teaches that it is possible, however unlikely, that a person can live a life of sinless perfection and be justified on the basis of their obedience. That view is rank heresy.
If Jesus was born of a human father he would have inherited sin. It would have been impossible for Him to atone for our sin for He would not be able to atone for His.
Original sin is a roman catholic doctrine and denial of this does not default one to a pelagian or semi-pel view any more than the acceptance of it defaults you to being a roman catholic. Those holding to personal accountibility also hold a biblical doctrine.
I couldn't disagree with you more if my life depended on it; which, in this case, it does. Original sin is as much a biblical doctrine as God created the heavens and the earth. And yes, the rejection of original sin places one squarely in the Pelagian or semi-Pelagian camp.
I could go 15 rounds with you on this topic but I won't. I refuse to give such a diabolical denial anymore air time than it deserves.
That's fine, but it only displays your true ignorance on the doctrines in question.
And please, leave the hyperbolic grandstanding for another board. This is a debate forum.
Lets say Mary and Joseph were married and the marriage was consummated and then Joseph was killed by a mob. Whether or not a child came from this union, would that sexual act have introduced Mary to original sin negating her as the mother of the Messiah assuming the prophesy of a virgin shall bear a child had not been made?
Could not God still have begotten in her a child to be the Messiah?
My thoughts. She would have to be a virgin so there could be no question as to who the Father was.
I appreciate your "what if" but Scripture precludes it.
Isaiah 7:14 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."
Isaiah prophesied that a virgin would give birth to the Messiah. There was no other option in God's plan.
Would it be if I was simply spouting hyperbole.
I understand this is a debate forum. I suppose I've been caught off guard by the open advocating of what I consider to be such an unbiblical doctrine - the denial of original sin. Among professing Baptists of all things! IMHO your doctrinal position leads to a dangerous place. I've seen it present in Free Will Baptist Churches, but not in most mainline Baptist denominations. But then again, my time spent as a Baptist has been in the C.B.A. and now as an independent Reformed Baptist.
I know you believe the argument from Romans 5 is Augustinian in nature, and I certainly won't deny Augustine made an impressive case for original sin. But the exegesis of Romans 5 stands of its own accord, not just Augustine's. I can take the case for original sin back to Psalm 51:5, "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." Mankind is enslaved to sin at birth. His entire orientation is towards sin. Paul told the Ephesians that their pre-saved condition was "dead in your trespasses and sins"; "for all have sinned" in Romans 3:23 displays that sinful orientation. The unsaved man (aka the natural man) cannot understand the things of the Spirit of God and has no inclination towards God (1 Cor. 2:14). Man does not exist in a vacuum. There is no moral holding pen. Man is either in darkness or in the light (1 John 1:5-7). John writes that if we say we have no sin we are deceiving ourselves (1 John 1:8). Augustine is credited with first using the term original sin, but Scripture teaches its reality with or without him.
Neither Christ's office nor His righteousness is contingent upon being born of a virgin, but since a virgin birth was given as a messianic sign, then no.
The unbelieveable has happened, JF has finally run out of questions and is now recycling old ones. He asked this same question just a month or so ago.
The answer is the same, Jesus had to be born of a virgin to fulfill prophecy. It was a sign that identified him as the promised Messiah.
Adam did an intentional act of sin, first one evr commited by a Human being, and God judged that disobedience/condemning the Creation under a curse, humans receiving same as Adam, spiritual/physical death...
Born into being guilty before God...
That is biblical...
Do you hold to God seeing us "clean" by the reconciling work of Chrsit on the Cross, that all born innocent, declared to be guilty by God, same as Adam, after.when do first willful sin?
Bear in mind that before that in bold took place the Lamb was already considered slain. Why before the foundation?
BTW slain. Isa. 53:4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. smitten nakah = to strike, smite, hit, beat, slay, kill
Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
One can't nail oneself to a cross.
It doesn't matter what you consider something, it matters what the Bible says. What does baptist have to do with it? Just because a baptist holds to a roman catholic teaching does it make it right?
Personal accountability for sin is NOT dangerous, it's what the Bible teaches. I've never said men are not born with a sin nature (human nature), nor are they born spiritualy neutral able to come to God all on their own apart from any working of God in their life (what is actually pelagianism / semi - pel what you falsely label anyone you so see fit)
Agreed...and it does not supported imputed guilt anywhere rather death and the curse.
You don't think I haven't dealt with this text before? You do understand what poetic literature is, right? If you hold to this as strictly literal and not figurative, do you do so with the rest of it? Are we really cleansed by being washed with hyssop? Crushed bones rejoice? This Psalm says one is conceived a sinner, Psalm 58 says one is a sinner from birth...which is it? What lies do they tell from the womb? Where is their venom stored...I'm about to be a father again and don't want to get bit. Get the point?
Agreed...it's called the curse, what Romans 5 is really dealing with.
...one of the texts that refute your position, not support it. Ironically he told them they were dead in THEIR trespasses and sins in which THEY used to walk. Surely the Holy Spirit could have inspired Paul to say they were dead in Adam's sins and trespasses that he walked in.
Past tense. All that can sin will, and have.
Only Paul was addressing a church of believers living carnally and not making decisions by the Spirit but by their "natural man", which means this is not speaking of an unsaved man, but one living according to their flesh (the greek for "natural man" is simply "animal man"). This has nothing to do with Augustinianism and shows the amount of prooftexting needed to support your position. THAT is what's dangerous.
Never said there was.
Who was John addressing? Those who have sinned and are accountable, not fetuses and infants. In other words, if you can read what he wrote and understand what he is saying, you are a sinner.
Augustine is the one who invented the doctrine. Ironic judaism doesn't teach this doctrine as it was invented out of NT texts (and surely the Jews would have interpreted the Psalm proof texts as original sin had it been meant to teach it). Also, you cannot appeal to history as the Eastern Orthodox church has always denied Augustiniansim.