No Cross? No problem!

But Charlie does need the blood of Christ. The curse is upon Charlie, he was born with a curse on him. The moment he was born he begins to die. We do inherit a corrupt body from our parents that goes back to Adam. This corruption was cause by Adam's sin. To remove this curse caused by sin Jesus had to shed his blood.

But read the scriptures, we do not receive our soul and spirit from our parents, they come from God.

Ecc 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

We are born with a corrupt body with lusts and desires. But this is not sin, the body cannot think or make decisions.

We receive our soul and spirit from God and they are pure when we receive them. However, the soul is affected by the desires of the flesh. The soul of man likes to please the flesh, he finds it enjoyable. As long as we stay within the boundaries set by God, this is good. It is not wrong to look on your wife and enjoy her beauty, it is not wrong to have relations with her. But when you obey the natural lusts of your body and dwell on a woman that is not your wife, or touch her, that is when you sin.

It is the soul of man, the "self" that sins, not the body. They body has desires, but it is only an instrument controlled by the heart and soul of man.

This is what Jesus explained about eating with dirty hands.

 

But Charlie does need the blood of Christ. The curse is upon Charlie, he was born with a curse on him. The moment he was born he begins to die. We do inherit a corrupt body from our parents that goes back to Adam. This corruption was caused by Adam's sin. To remove this curse caused by sin Jesus had to shed his blood.

But read the scriptures, we do not receive our soul and spirit from our parents, they come from God.

Ecc 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

We are born with a corrupt body with lusts and desires. But this is not sin, the body cannot think or make decisions.

We receive our soul and spirit from God and they are pure when we receive them. However, the soul is influenced by the desires of the flesh. The soul of man likes to please the flesh, he finds it enjoyable. As long as we stay within the boundaries set by God, this is good. It is not wrong to look on your wife and enjoy her beauty, it is not wrong to have relations with her. But when you obey the natural lusts of your body and dwell on a woman that is not your wife, or touch her, that is when you sin.

It is the soul of man, the "self" that sins, not the body. They body has desires, but it is only an instrument controlled by the heart and soul of man.

This is what Jesus explained about eating with dirty hands.

Matt 15:10 And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand:
11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

Matt 15:17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

The Pharisees believed it a sin to eat with unwashed hands. Jesus explained that the body is not sinful, it is the things that proceed out of the heart of man (the soul) that defile a man. The body is simply a shell that contains our souls and spirit.

 

It is relevant. Is he innocent of biting his finger? No. Is he guilty of sin by that act? Clearly by watching the video it is "no".

Your analogy would have death and the curse toppling with the oak, but these are results created from sin and remain, and will remain through the Millenial Kingdom even when we will be unable to sin. Christ dies to redeem the entire universe stained by sin.

He is under the curse where sin permeates his very being without being guilty of being a sinner. His nature to want to disobey God "from his youth".

 

His soul wants to please his body. Surely if you have children you know this, they stick everything in their mouth. Charlie has a soul, but is not developed, he is not even aware of himself, he cannot understand sin before God.
I don't like the term sin nature, I prefer what the scriptures call it, FLESH.
Jesus was flesh just like Charlie, but Jesus never obeyed his flesh when it would cause him to sin.
The flesh does not naturally love sin, but it can come to do so. The first time a person smokes, the flesh will reject it, most people cough and choke. But if a person continues to smoke the flesh comes to enjoy it, and even crave it. The flesh can become strong and wars against the soul and spirit. The more we feed the flesh, the stronger it becomes, and can overwhelm the soul and spirit, thus they become defiled and sinful.
Jesus overcame the flesh.

 

This has become a merry-go-round.

We are born with the nature to sin.

Psalm 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.​

It is passed on to the whole human race from Adam.​

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:​

The passage below does not negate the Romans passage, the "passing" of the sin nature to Adam's descendents but speaks of particular acts of sin not the transmission of the sin nature.

Eze 18:The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Unaccountable sin, sins of ignorance, sins of omission, sins of commission or guilt sin - the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin.​

HankD​

 

Hank, the scriptures teach that Jesus was fully man. His flesh is EXACTLY like our flesh. In fact, the scriptures say that anyone who denies Jesus came in the flesh is antiChrist.
That gives you two possibilities.
1) If we are born with a sin nature, then so was Jesus.
2) If Jesus was born without a sin nature, then neither were we.
Take your choice, it must be one or the other as Original Sin teaches sin is inherited through the flesh, and the scriptures teach Jesus's flesh was just like ours.

So, which is it?

 

What are we saved from? Or. What are we saved for? Either answer will do.

 

Webdog.....seriously, you must study romans 5..this is where you leave the reservation on most of your posts...

All[humans] are in Adam.....dead in sin, constituted sinners

Not All[humans] are in Christ

All[the elect] are in Christ, by Spirit baptism

In Adam,all[men ever born] die...In Christ all [the sheep] are made alive.

The fact that you mention universalism shows you have missed the passage!
the only universal is death in Adam.

 

"All[humans] are in Adam.....dead in sin, constituted sinners" is connected by "so as" to what you then state is not really the case in " Not All[humans] are in Christ"

Therefore, as one trespass[e] led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness[f] leads to justification and life for(AF) all men.

If the first group is everyone ever created, so must the second group...they are connected and not separate.

Of course I deny that the first group is all people, since I'm not under condemnation now and the text states that the one act of Adam LED to condemnation for all.

It's also pretty presumptuous of you to think just because I deny your understanding of Romans 5 and your soteriology I haven't studied it. That's mighty haughty.

 

Finneyism pure & simple

 

It is not an either/or situation.

Jesus became flesh, born of a woman, He was subject to death, the result of the curse of sin.

Yes, He was truly and perfectly human. Perfectly human means someone who has no sin, totally committed to God, it does not mean that they are sinners "just like us".

His flesh is not "just like ours":

John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.​

His flesh the Scripture declares is the bread of heaven. No other man in the history of humankind could make that statement.

Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, TheHoly Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.​

No infant or mentally incompetent ever born or ever will be born can be called "holy".

He willingly became flesh (sarx - mortal, subject to death) yet apart from sin.

Jesus did willingly partake of humanity and was made flesh - sarx (a mortal human being) apart from sin.

2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.​

KJV Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.​

Here is our status :

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:​

Psalm 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.​

HankD​

 

are you suggesting that jesus was tainted with the curse of original sin?

That sounds gnostic. His flesh is just like ours.

this has to do with the nature of his person in the Trinity. Its a spiritual truth.

Which would indicate there is not the issue of the infection of original sin.

Not true. Because Holy means to be set apart. I have a holy coffee mug because its set apart just for my morning coffee. I don't drink water out of it. Or any other beverage. Nor do I drink out of it at any other time of the day. Its a holy cup Set apart for a specific purpose. Samuel the prophet was a holy child set apart from birth to serve the Lord.

Absolutely.

again absolutely

another example that his flesh was like ours. Like us he can suffer.

In otherwords we have the Concupiscence towards sin. We have that desire and unless there is direct divine intervention we will choose to sin. However, what personal guilt does a child have in the womb? They have not yet sinned but have the curse of the species to be directed sinward.

Doesn't show guilt in the womb but concupiscence towards sin. The text not only is a poetic verse but shows guilt after birth when they can sin. Silly to imagine a infant in the womb spreading lies before they can even speak. Doesn't meet the giggle test. But certianly original sin has left its mark on humanity in that we are born with concupiscence towards sin.

 

I have no answer for you apart from the passages of Scripture I quoted, the meaning of which you disagree.

But just for the record I don't like the word "original" in the doctrine of "original sin".

I choose rather to call the teaching of Romans 5:12 the "inherited sin nature" or the "transmitted sin nature" which was passed onto all of us including those of us who would come to Christ for remedy.
These words are more in keeping with the meaning of "passed upon all".

All the lexicons (liddel-scott 10014;Friberg;01397;UBS 0157; et al)) I checked agree. i.e that the word in context means both sin and death were passed onto and through the entire human race by Adam.

Jesus Christ only "untainted" though He indeed came in the flesh.

He is not like us in this respect, that He was born of a virgin having been conceived of the Holy Ghost.
None of us had that kind of conception-birth.

HankD

 

Your preference seems to convey the thought. Sin (the preferrence in our nature for it) and the consiquence of death are passed on to us I agree. My only disagreement is that an unborn child has committed wilful sin. That child is corrupt in that it wants to sin but personal guilt is not laid. The only guilt is that of having a nature for it.

Yes thus the doctrine.

again we agree

I agree with that as well. However, I don't take that to mean his flesh was different. His nature certainly is. In that he doesn't have the concupiscence toward sin.