Featured sinners by nature

Go back to the first page and supply the quote of what you claim, that I was accusing "you were saying things you did not say". Lets see who is dishonest.

 

I am sorry, but I am not following you. Jesus was made of the SEED of David according to the flesh, and David was made of the SEED of Adam according to the flesh. If the sin nature is inherited from your father through the flesh, I find it impossible to understand how Jesus did not inherit a sin nature through the seed of David.

Please explain carefully how that works.

 

For anyone to suggest that Jesus could sin, or had a sinful nature is horrible blasphemy.


Could Jesus Have Sinned?

Sam Storms
Nov 6, 2006
Series: Controversial Issues

This issue may best be illustrated by the use of four Latin phrases:

· non posse non peccare - "not able not to sin" (this describes unregenerate people and the fallen angels)

· posse peccare – “able to sin”, and posse non peccare - "able not to sin" (these describe Adam before the fall, regenerate people, and Jesus, if one denies his impeccability)

· non posse peccare - "not able to sin" (this describes God, the saints in heaven and Jesus, if one affirms his impeccability); we could also include here posse non peccare, because if Jesus is unable to sin he is obviously also able not to sin

That Jesus did not sin is undeniable. The NT is clear concerning his sinlessness (see Luke 4:34; John 6:69; 8:46; 9:16; Acts 3:14; 4:27-30; Rom. 8:3; 2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15; 7:26; 1 Peter 1:19; 2:22; 3:18; 1 John 3:5). But was his sinlessness because he could not sin or because he would not sin? Was he constitutionally incapable of sinning or merely volitionally unwilling to sin? To say that Jesus could have sinned, even though he did not, is to say he was peccable. To say that Jesus could not have sinned, and therefore didn’t, is to say he was impeccable.

When he was tempted by Satan in the wilderness, could he have succumbed? Was it possible for him not to have resisted? Those who deny impeccability answer yes to both questions. They base their argument on three points, only two of which, I believe, are valid:

First, if he could not sin, he was not truly human. After all, “to err is human.” This argument is weak, for it is not necessary to human nature that one be capable of sinning. In heaven, having been glorified, the saints will be incapable of sinning, but they will not for that reason be inhuman.

Second, if Jesus could not have sinned, he was not genuinely tempted. True temptation requires the possibility of sinning. That he refused to yield to Satan’s temptations no one denies. But yielding must have been possible or the encounter was a sham.

Third, the doctrine of impeccability is based on the assumption that Jesus resisted the devil from the strength of his divine nature. But this is highly questionable. I believe Jesus lived and ministered as a human dependent on the power of the Holy Spirit. As a human, the possibility existed that he could have sinned, but by virtue of his unceasing reliance on the power of the Holy Spirit he did not sin.

It would appear, then, that Jesus is to be conceived as having lived in much the condition of Adam prior to the latter’s fall.

 

Human Nature in Its Fourfold State
Thoughts on Augustine's View on the Will

In his famous book, Human Nature in Its Fourfold State, the Scottish Puritan, Thomas Boston (1676–1732) tells us that the four states of human nature are: (a) Primitive Integrity; (b) Entire Depravity; (c) Begun Recovery; and (d) Consummate Happiness or Misery.

These four states, which are derived from the Scripture, correspond to the four states of man in relation to sin enumerated by Augustine of Hippo: (a) able to sin, able not to sin (posse peccare, posse non peccare); (b) not able not to sin (non posse non peccare); (c) able not to sin (posse non peccare); and (d) unable to sin (non posse peccare). The first state corresponds to the state of man in innocency, before the Fall; the second the state of the natural man after the Fall; the third the state of the regenerate man; and the fourth the glorified man.

It must be noted that in all four states, man is free to choose what to do or not to do according to his will. His will is free because it is not forced or compelled from without. However, his will is determined by his own moral inclinations. This means that while the glorified man will always choose to do good because his heart’s inclination is always to glorify God; the natural fallen man will always do what is evil (in God’s eyes), because his motives are never pure, and never to glorify God.

Before the Fall, man was able to choose to do either good or evil, his heart, and so his inclination and disposition, being innocent and not tainted by sin. But Adam’s state was mutable and when Satan tempted Eve, and then through Eve, tempted him, he chose to sin against God by eating the forbidden fruit and so fell from the estate of innocency.

- Quoted from Pilgrim Covenant Church

Pre-Fall Man


Post-Fall Man


Reborn Man


Glorified Man

able to sin


able to sin


able to sin


able to not sin

able to not sin


unable to not sin


able to not sin


unable to sin

Here is some of what Augustine himself had to say about this.

Man's original capacities included both the power not to sin and the power to sin ( posse non peccare et posse peccare ). In Adam's original sin, man lost the posse non peccare (the power not to sin) and retained the posse peccare (the power to sin)--which he continues to exercise. In the fulfillment of grace, man will have the posse peccare taken away and receive the highest of all, the power not to be able to sin, non posse peccare . Cf. On Correction and Grace XXXIII.

Augustine's ENCHIRIDION, CHAP. 118.--THE FOUR STAGES OF THE CHRISTAIN'S LIFE, AND THE FOUR CORRESPONDING STAGES OF THE CHURCH'S HISTORY.

When, sunk in the darkest depths of ignorance, man lives according to the flesh undisturbed by any struggle of reason or conscience, this is his first state. Afterwards, when through the law has come the knowledge of sin, and the Spirit of God has not yet interposed His aid, man, striving to live according to the law, is thwarted in his efforts and falls into conscious sin, and so, being overcome of sin, becomes its slave ("for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage"(4)); and thus the effect produced by the knowledge of the commandment is this, that sin worketh in man all manner of concupiscence, and he is involved in the additional guilt of willful transgression, and that is fulfilled which is written: "The, law entered that the Offense might abound."(5) This is man's second state. But if God has regard to him, and inspires him with faith in God's help, and the Spirit of God begins to work in him, then the mightier power of love strives against the power of the flesh; and although there is still in the man's own nature a power that fights against him (for his disease is not completely cured), yet he lives the life of the just by faith, and lives in righteousness so far as he does not yield to evil lust, but conquers it by the love of holiness. This is the third state of a man of good hope; and he who by steadfast piety advances in this course, shall attain at last to peace, that peace which, after this life is over, shall be perfected in the repose of the spirit, and finally in the resurrection of the body. Of these four different stages the first is before the law, the second is under the law, the third is under grace, and the fourth is in full and perfect peace. Thus, too, has the history of God's people been ordered according to His pleasure who disposeth all things in number, and measure, and weight.(6) For the church existed at first before the law; then under the law, which was given by Moses; then under grace, which was first made manifest in the coming of the Mediator. Not, indeed, that this grace was absent previously, but, in harmony with the arrangements of the time, it was veiled and hidden. For none, even of the just men of old, could find salvation apart from the faith of Christ; nor unless He had been known to them could their ministry have been used to convey prophecies concerning Him to us, some more plain, and some more obscure.

From this we conclude, again with Augustine, that:

- the children of God are actuated by His Spirit to do whatever is to be done
- they are drawn by Him, out of an unwilling state to be made willing
- since the fall it is owing only to the grace of God that man draws near to Him
- it is owing only to the same grace that God does not withdraw or recede from him
- we know that no good thing which is our own can be found in our will
- by the magnitude of the first sin, we lost the freedom of the will to believe in God and live holy lives
- therefore “it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs”—not because we ought not to will and to run, but because God effects both the willing and the running.

- Reisinger

 

http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article/7-augustine-pelagius-part-ii/

 

It doesn't appear that way in the Bible, the Bible says Jesus was made of the seed of David according to the flesh. David was a sinner born after the fall.

Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

The Bible also says Jesus took on the nature of the seed of Abraham (not Adam) who was also a sinner born after the fall.

Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

So, I don't know where this author that Iconoclast parroted thinks Jesus should be conceived like Adam before the fall, but he didn't get this from the Bible.

 

..........

 

Therefore, like David, Jesus had a human nature, a nature prone to temptation, just like David was prone to temptation. The difference is that David sinned in giving into temptation; Jesus did not when he was tempted.

It also says that he was conceived of Mary.
He was born of a virgin.
He was tempted in all points such as we are.

In short he had the same nature that we had but did not sin.
However his nature was not a sinful nature for he was born of a virgin, conceived of the Holy Spirit. The sin nature is passed through the seed of Adam. He was born through the seed of the woman fulfilling the prophecy of Genesis 3:15. The purpose of the virgin birth was to avoid inheriting the curse of Adam, the inherited sin nature. He was sinless because he did not have a sin nature, and because he was perfect: perfect God and perfect man. Because of that he was qualified to die for our sins, as no one else was.

 

This is completely contradictory. If He didn't inherit the curse He never would have died.

 

The part of your statement I bolded is pure nonsense. Romans 1:3 absolutely refutes this superstitious teaching that Jesus was born of a virgin to avoid a sin nature. The scriptures tell us exactly why Jesus was born of a virgin, as a SIGN. You have absolutely no scripture to support Jesus was born of a virgin to escape a sin nature.

In fact, Romans 1:3 clearly tells us Jesus was made of the MALE SEED OF DAVID. Jesus inherited David's seed through his mother, he could not possibly have inherited David's seed from his heavenly Father, as his Father is not a descendant of David.

So, your nonsense is utterly refuted by scripture. You can continue to spread this false doctrine, but that is exactly what it is.

 

Jesus was NOT exactly same as all of us are, for he was God incarnate, Virgin Born, NEVER had a sin nature, for all of us have such!

he was able to be tempted as we all are/experiencing that yet never sinned, and that was due to Him being GOD!

NONE only human could ever or have ever kept the Law as God requires!

 

First, God didn't die. Christ was deity.
Second, you are claiming that Christ was a sinner, and that is heresy.

 

I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said.

William F. Buckley, Jr.

 

You haven't refuted anything. Jesus wasn't born of David and his wife. Jesus wasn't begotten of David, so to speak. He came many generations later. David lives ca. 1000 B.C. There is a gap of 1000 years between the two.
Romans 1:3 speak of the ancestors of Christ, David being one of them, and refer to his lineage to the throne. He is rightful heir to the throne of David, and will one day sit on that throne in the millennial kingdom. That is what the reference is.

Genesis 3:15 tells us plainly that he was born of the seed of a woman.
Are you really going to deny that?

Galatians 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
--In this statement Paul refers back to Genesis 3:15 by using the word "made."

Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

He had the same flesh the author says. However he was born of a virgin and conceived of the Holy Spirit that he might not have a sin nature.

 

Baloney, the scriptures say Jesus came from the fruit of David's loins.

Acts 2:29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.
30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

Now that makes two verses of scriptures that says Jesus was made of the SEED OF DAVID and that he was the FRUIT OF HIS LOINS (David) according to the flesh. If a sin nature is inherited, then Jesus would have inherited a sin nature from David who was the seed of Adam.

Your belief is nothing but pure superstition and clearly refuted by scripture. Jesus had the seed of his fathers according to the flesh all the way back to Adam.

 

I am not the one being superstitious here Winman. You are suggesting that David and his wife (his wife in particular), was in labor for one thousand years. That is not only superstitious, it is in the realm of mythology, and I might say a lot worse. You are not making sense. It is not speaking of giving birth, but rather ancestry. Christ is heir to the throne of David.

Remember these verses:
"Jesus, son of David, have mercy on us!"
Do you think, in crying out to Jesus like that, that they thought he was the actual son of David who they knew lived a thousand years earlier. They knew better Winman. They weren't superstitious.

 

Blah, blah, blah, I have suggested no such thing. I have simply shown you scripture that says Jesus was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, and that Jesus came from the fruit of David's loins.

You believe a person inherits a sin nature from only their father that is a sinner, but scripture shows Jesus inherited his father's seed on his mother's side. It is undeniable, but I know you will NEVER admit you are wrong.

There is more scripture that shows this.

2 Tim 2:8 Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:

Honest readers can see who is presenting truth from the scriptures, and who is not.

 

Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

And accordingly you are wrong. You make the Scripture to contradict itself, and are unable to reconcile the two Scriptures.

 

You don't understand the hypostatic union. None of us do for that matter, but it is error to separate His humanity from His deity. This is what the first century gnostics tried doing. Just accept the tension that is there by faith.

That is a lie, I have NEVER said Christ was a sinner, and I have gone out of my way to specifically state just that! Do not make things up, DHK.

 

I understand it and accept it. But I don't accept many of the things that are being posted here.

Basically you have. You won't admit it because of your denial of Original Sin, or the sin nature of man. We are born with a sin nature that we inherit from Adam. That is what David had. Thus if Christ has David's nature then Christ has a sinful nature and therefore is a sinner. That is the only logical conclusion that one can come to.
But thankfully, those passages are not speaking of the "nature" of Christ, they are speaking of lineage and his right to be the heir of the throne of David. The "seed of David" simply means "offspring" in respect to "descendants," of which Christ was one. He was in the lineage of David and therefore a rightful heir.

But he was born of Mary, conceived of the Holy Spirit. He was not of the seed of Joseph. Why? Because he would have inherited the Adamic nature, the sin nature that is passed on through the seed of a man. Christ is born of the "seed of a woman," conceived of the Holy Spirit, and thus evading the Adamic sin nature. This is the primary purpose of the virgin birth.