the baby Jesus

First, we need to stop referring to the sin nature as something that is passed like a genetic trait.

Original sin is not about what we receive from Adam, but what we don't receive. We do not receive life from Adam. Because of sin, Adam died and became incapable of transferring life. We are all spiritually stillborn children of dead Adam.

That's the reason for the need of the virgin birth of Christ, and the reason we need to be born again.

Second, no one is slamming Helen. It is no more a slam to say Helen needs to relearn the first principles of our faith than it is for her to imply that the Calvinists who have replied to her are proud and arrogant.

I personally know Calvinist mothers of seven, nine and ten children who say just the opposite of infants that Helen says. My Calvinist wife is number 5 of the 6 from her Calvinist mother. I do wish that you would cease invoking your motherhood as a kind of trump card in this discussion.

Now, to the topic at hand.

He would be quiet, contented and patient. He would shed no tears for His own griefs.

The cattle are lowing the baby awakes,
but little Lord Jesus no crying He makes.

You only regard that as romanticized because in all your experience as a mother, you have never been around a sinless infant. You merely think them incapable of sin, therefore you transfer their traits to the sinless Christ.

 

OK I'm going to stick my neck out again and say a few things that probably are going to seem controversial to some of you.

To me, the virgin birth was not about avoiding the taint of sin that would otherwise come of the sperm from the man. As if sin were encoded in physical genes! It is about establishing that God is His Father.

To me, the sin nature is, instead, something we all "catch" from our parents and our society. We come into the world defenseless and helpless and pick it up with our mother's milk. We are born innocent, but part of Adam's guilt is, his children are born without defense against acquiring sin as we grow. So, Helen, you see I think you're right to say infants do not sin.

Jesus, on the other hand, came into the world with a righteous character fully established. It is by this that He avoided "catching" our sinful condition.

 

Why was Jesus in the desert being "tempted" by Satan if He would not have had a choice? What then is the purpose of Him doing it and what is God trying to tell us? Hmmmmmmmmmmm?
Love in Christ Angie

 

This wasn't to you specifically, but to the several folks who have expressed it that way in this debate. You express it that way because you see sin as an object. You see the sin nature as something invading an otherwise pure nature and defiling it.

But sin is not something, it is a lack of something. What is death but the absence of life?

Why did Paul cry out "Wretched man that I am!" Was it not that he found no power to do good? Again an impotence, an emptiness, an absence of life. "The body of this death," he said meaning sin.

PTW already explained to you the proper sense of Paul's affirmation that he was alive once before the commandment came. He's not saying that he was really alive, but in his own mind he was alive. But once the commandment (which was ordained to life) came, sin "revived" and he died.

The Law cannot kill one who is spiritually alive, and we see that very clearly in the Captain of our salvation who, because He was alive, fulfilled the Law.

And no, we cannot after we are saved pass life onto our children, because our salvation has a future fulfillment. Our spirits are truly saved, but our bodies are still bodies of death, and children are still the stillborn fruit of our dead bodies.

I will remind you that both Adam's body and spirit were alive before the Fall.

The root problem with those who hold the views that you have been defending is that you don't see yourselves as needing to be reborn, but as basically good, living souls that merely need a little repair work here and there. You think you inherited some kind of "disease" that you need an injection for.

That is not the testimony of the Scriptures.

Concerning Eve: That was the name given to her after the prophecy that from her would issue the Redeemer of mankind. You do violence to the Scriptures to suppose that this means we are all spiritually alive until some moment of conscious rebellion.

Now, please cite the Scripture that says all the little children belong to Christ. You will see that you are leaning heavily upon your own predispositions in the interpretations of certain often misunderstood Scriptures.

But it wasn't an arbitrary choice. God will not share His glory with another. There will be no man that could claim to be the biological father of Christ, but if there were a man on earth at the time who could impart life, then there would have been no need for Christ to come. Christ had to be virgin born.

Should I dignify this with a response? No. Not for the convenience of the parents. Where did Christ ever do anything for convenience?

For the glory of His Father!

Your topic concerns how Jesus would behave as a baby, and though the iniquity of selling doves and changing money was well-established at the time, Christ didn't judge it when He was a boy of twelve.

Don't think that He had any thought for Himself when He cleansed the Temple. It was always for the glory of His Father.

The intimation that Christ was somehow impatient and discontented only shows that you really don't understand what the sin nature is and how it is manifest.

His crying at the tomb of Lazarus was not for Himself, as the tears we shed at the deaths of our loved ones.

"Blessed are they that mourn..." Mourn for what? Mourn at the death of a loved one? Hardly. His is certainly not a natural mourning, which would not be present in the knowledge that the loved one would soon be raised from the dead. His sorrow was a godly sorrow. A sorrow for the sins that wrought the death in the first place.

And finally, what is all this garbage about Christmas traditions? It was a discussion about this very verse in the Music Forum that started this debate.

Those who understand sin and know Christ will affirm that the verse from Away in a Manger is an accurate description of a sinless babe.

 

Is it possible for God to lie?

 

To Music Man and Rev G --

Originally posted by Music Man:

Can you give me chapter and verse which says
that the male only, not the female, passes on this
"sin nature"?

With this statement, I agree fully.

[ October 23, 2002, 12:38 AM: Message edited by: Abiyah ]

 

Originally posted by Preach the Word:

Can you give me chapter and verse where the
Bible says that it was impossible for our Lord
to sin?

Why, then, was He tempted? The Bible clearly
states that He was tempted IN ALL THINGS just
as we are. Why does the Bible make a big
deal of His temptation in the desert, when He
at one of His frailest moments, only to inform
us that He did not sin? How could He be tempted
"like we are" tempted if it was impossible for Him
to make the choice to sin? Why did it bother to
tell us that if it was not significant that He made
a choice to remain sinless for us? The Bible does
not say that satan tried to tempt Him but that it
tempted Him.

Thank you.

8oD !!

I am not a football fan, and i am not familiar with
football terms, nor do I give two hoots about
them, but my grandson has started playing on a
junior high team, and I go for all the games.
Today, Ii had to think twice when a man on a cell
phone walked behind me and said, "Well, he's
a center--that puts him at a disadvantage." I
thought he said, "Well, he's a sinner--that puts
him at a disadvantage."

[ October 23, 2002, 12:57 AM: Message edited by: Abiyah ]

 

Amein!!

And for that, He will always be my Hero. What
a Man! What a God! He was not a puppet on a
string with some Ultimate Being jerking the
strings.

 

I believe that a virgin female was chosen
because
a. This shows the mighty power of our God--to
create in human form a child within the womb of
a human being who had never biblically known a
man.
b. Men don't usually give birth.
c. This was promised in the garden--that the
seed of a woman would bring forth Messiah!
Seed of the woman--amazing terminology!

 

Helen,

I didn't see one Scripture in which Christ says that the little children as His. You merely interpret them to mean that.

Christ also held up sparrows and lillies as examples to us, but that doesn't mean they're His. They will be burned up. He would not have said, "Suffer the little children to come unto me," if they were already His.

It's late, that will have to suffice for now.

Be back later. To answer the other points.

 

Helen,

I have no problems with you, but I am all over this discussion because I think your answers to questions like this lead people astray.

So...though I am very weary of discussing these issues over and over, I must answer your points.

First, you oppose yourself in your reasoning. It is impossible to hold that the sin nature is something that is "passed down" from Adam and at the same time assert that we are basically evil. These notions are antithetical to one another.

No one has to come right out and say it. That's just the problem inherent in your reasoning.

How is saying that death is a separation any different from saying that death is the absence of life? There is no difference.

But it is not separation as we think of it. Those in hell are not separated from God. They will for all eternity be tormented by His divine wrath and fiery indignation.

Also, the Scriptures no where indicate the death of the spirit as a state of unconsciousness, and neither do I. One thing is certain, none of us cry out to God without first the quickening of the spirit.

When compared to the Scriptural testimony of the state of sinners all through the Bible, and Paul's own words on the subject, "alive in his own mind" is the only way to take it. He may have been a Pharisee, but he did not have an understanding of the law. The law did not "come to him" in the sense that it opened his eyes to his own sinfulness. He saw the law as something that justified him. It wasn't until he was quickened by the Spirit that the law "came" and he cried out for salvation. That is the clear sense of the passage, and the consensus of eminent commentators. (See Matthew Henry's comments and John Gill's comments.)

Far from a defacto salvation being in effect before the knowledge of sin, one cannot be saved without first coming to the knowledge of sin through the law.

I have already in another thread posted the comments of renowned teachers on the verses you cite to support the fallacy that the children are Christ's by default. There simply is no support for such a notion.

Any tears for our own griefs and any discontent are absolutely sins.

2 Corinthians 7:10 For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.

Romans 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Colossians 3:15 And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful.

2 Timothy 3:2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

A common mistake is to see the passages where Christ exhibited any kind of emotion and justify our carnal emotions by them. "The wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God." In that passage wrath is condemned not because of its context or object, but because of its origin. It springs from the natural man. When Christ expressed anger, it was not natural anger like we often feel. It was godly anger. If Christ expressed sorrow, it was godly sorrow. But no where at all can we find Christ exhibiting anything like discontent, and certainly not Matthew 17:14-17.

Again, John Gill:

Far from being impatient with us, he was for our own good reminding us that God's offer of grace will not be forever.

Now let's bring all this back into the realm of babies. Where has any anger, discontent, impatience, or any of the other carnal emotions they so often exhibit been for the glory of God? What? Are they all making intercession for us with their strong crying and tears?

Now, I quote those authorities which are generally accepted among Baptists to show that you are not arguing only with Aaron, but with eminently qualified, spiritual minds on the matter.

Not just babies. All natural crying. 2 Corinthians 7:10 ...but the sorrow of the world worketh death.

edited to tighten up some awkward wording.

[ October 23, 2002, 01:50 PM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

I have been waiting for someone to answer the ladies questions about this belief that Jesus had a sinless nature. This is not true. You cannot tempt what has a sinless nature because that person would not even know what sin is within themselves.

The Bible does not teach that Jesus did not have the sin nature. It teaches that he did not sin.
What kind of example would he have been to man to have had a sinless nature.

The Bible said he had the same passions as we do. This mean he felt anger. Jealousy. Sexual desires. The whole ball of wax. Yet he did not sin. Satan could never have tempted a person with a sinless nature.

The problem is people look at his deity side and forget the fact that he was a real human being just like we are. If not he could have never died. His sacrifice on Calvary would have not been sufficient if he had had a sinless nature because when Jesus cried Out "My God my God why has thou Forsaken me", he became sin. A person with a sinless nature could not have become sin.

It is fine to use the term born in sin but I am glad that I cannot and will never believe Calvinism. A person has to know right from wrong to be guilty of sinning. A baby does not possess this mental capacity and I am sorry for adults to believe this is incredible. I am repeatedly amazed by people who will hold tight to a doctrine no matter how wrong it is.

I don't think Paul thought when he said All has sinned that this would become a controversy.
We forget that Christianity came from Judaism and the Jews do not believe a baby sins.

I would never serve a God who would cast a baby into Hell who has no mental capacity to sin.

 

First of all, if he had had a sin nature as you or I do, that would have disqualified him as a suitable sacrifice for our sins.

I think Helen was actually right when she said that Jesus was not unable to sin, but he was able to not sin. Adam was like that. He had the choice/ability to not sin. You and I, because of our sin nature, do not have the ability to not sin (I know that is a double negative, but that is the only way to say it ). Christ, because he was not born of a man with a sin nature, did not inherit that sin nature.

That is not true. Adam and Eve were tempted, and they did not have a sin nature.

I am sorry, but that is just not logical. I have used this analogy before. I was driving down the road, and I did not see a speed limit sign anywhere, so I did not know what the speed limit was, but yet, I was pulled over for speeding. Was I guilty of speeding? Yes! But, I did not know what the speed limit was!! It did not matter. I still sped. Did I have to pay the consequences for speeding? Yes! Ignorance is no excuse! Believe me, I tried it!

We are condemned because of the sin of Adam (Romans 5). Mental capacity or not. It does not matter. If God chooses to show mercy to a baby, it is only out of His grace and mercy, not because the child has not sinned. BTW, I do believe He shows mercy to children, but it is because God is a gracious God, not because there is anything within (or missing, e.g. "mental ability") that child. Does that make sense?

Respectfully,
Chris

 

hrhema, you were joking right? Jesus had a sin nature??? Where did he get that sin nature?

 

Helen, let us try this for the, well, I have lost count how many times I have tried to get you to answer this one simple question.

When Paul said in Phil. 3 that he was blameless concerning the law, was he really blameless?

Please give a yes/no answer then followed by further comments if you like. NO vague answers please. You never answer this. I suspect your position would be in jeopardy if you did. We will wait and see if you do.

 

Abiyah, Angie, anyone, everyone, whoever, and you in the back, Christ could not have sinned.

1) Scripture says that God cannot lie or change (nature). Is Jesus God? Could Jesus lie or change (nature)?

Yes, he is God. No, he cannot lie (which is a sin).

2) James 1 says that God cannot be tempted with evil because temptation comes from within. Is Jesus God? Could Jesus be tempted to fall?

Yes, he is God. Yes he could be tempted to fall. This temptation was only a reality though from Satan's perspective. Jesus never entertained the thought of sinning.

Imagine a person in a rowboat with a pellet gun. He approaches a battleship. He fires every pellet he has and is literally attacking the ship. Does the ship consider this an attack though? What would happen if the ship returned fire? This picture does not even begin to illustrate the "battle" between Christ and satan.

3) Jesus was tempted in all points. Was Jesus tempted to do every sin possible? That is not the point. No one is tempted to do every sin possible. All sin comes from one of three primary areas - the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life. Christ was tempted in all three area by satan. Therefore, he could sympathize with any and everyone regarding temptation.

I could do more but chomp on that for awhile.