It seems to me that we are all conceived without an indeelling sin nature, but under the death sentence of a limited lifespan because of Adam.
why would we have death if we have no sin?
It seems to me that we are all conceived without an indeelling sin nature, but under the death sentence of a limited lifespan because of Adam.
If this is so, then Jesus began his human life like all of us: innocent and sinless. But unlike us, He at no point yielded to sin's arguments to allow it to master him and get inside his body. Hence, the devil had nothing in Him.
Through being deceived into not trusting God, we fall inti a first misuse of our innately very good in-the-image-of-God attributes of self-awareness, other-awareness, intellect, emotions, senses and free-will, and this allows sin in, and we start to go astray from God. Once sin and distrust of God is in us, our flesh which we tend to rely on is too weak to keep sin consistently in check, and we put our reliance on God and His grace too infrequently to walk in habitual holiness.
James 1:14-15
But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.
That does not say "evil desires". It says, epithumias, Genitive singular feminine (strong desire). Jesus had epithumia (John 22:15) Was strongly desiring to eat the passover wih His disciples an evil desire? Paul had epithumia (Ph'p 2:23) Was Paul's strong desire to go and be with the Lord sinful? (And 1 Th. 2:17) Was Paul's strong desire to see he Thessalonians face to face an evil desire?
As I said, satan hijacked valid desires and used them to argue against trusting God and seeking God's will in terms of assessing how and when to fulfil valid desires. The ability to desire things is not sinful. But the ability to desire things can lead us away from faith, if we stop listening for God's wisdom regarding the objects of our desire.
Our choices to believe something other than God's truth does indeed come out of a man and defile him. The issue here is, is the first sin committed by a man caused by something corrupt within the man, or by the manipulation of some good God-given appetite and ability in the man to convince the man to trust something other than God. In the case of Eve and Adam, and the devil himself, who were made very good, iniquity was found in them only after they had redirected their good faculties away from trusting God and toward vain imaginations until they acted in rebellionnot what goes into a man, but what comes out, defiles him.
Our choices to believe something other than God's truth does indeed come out of a man and defile him. The issue here is, is the first sin committed by a man caused by something corrupt within the man, or by the manipulation of some good God-given appetite and ability in the man to convince the man to trust something other than God. In the case of Eve and Adam, and the devil himself, who were made very good, iniquity was found in them only after they had redirected their good faculties away from trusting God and toward vain imaginations until they acted in rebellion
.BTW I think you are over-extending beyond its context the statement
"not what goes into a man, but what comes out, defiles him."
The context is dealing with the Jews' concern about what goes into the mouth defiling them, not what goes into the ears, eyes, and mind.
that what defiles person is what comes from within them isn't inimical to your point of view on original sin - deception comes from. without and free will decisions come from within.
but the more difficult questions for your position include why there is death in all mankind from the day they are born if they are born without sin, why the law requires a mother unclean after childbirth, and why Christ had to be born of a virgin
that what defiles person is what comes from within them isn't inimical to your point of view on original sin - deception comes from. without and free will decisions come from within.
but the more difficult questions for your position include why there is death in all mankind from the day they are born if they are born without sin, why the law requires a mother unclean after childbirth, and why Christ had to be born of a virgin
that what defiles person is what comes from within them isn't inimical to your point of view on original sin - deception comes from. without and free will decisions come from within.
but the more difficult questions for your position include why there is death in all mankind from the day they are born if they are born without sin, why the law requires a mother unclean after childbirth, and why Christ had to be born of a virgin
Could this death be referring to spiritual death—to those who will not follow Christ the Savior of the world?why would we have death if we have no sin?
…because God would be the Father of Jesus.why born of a virgin?
Everyone is subject to physical death (except when the Rapture occurs). But spiritual death applies to the unsaved.Could this death be referring to spiritual death—to those who will not follow Christ the Savior of the world?
Merriam -Webster defines impeccable as "not capable of sinning or liable to sin". The question then arises, how are we to understand the following verse? -
"For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted." (Heb 2:18 KJV)
The NRSV translates it "tested" rather than "tempted"; and the Revised English Bible translates "Because he himself has passed through the test of suffering, he is able to help those who are in the midst of their test. (Heb 2:18 REB)
I hold to a highly pure view of Jesus Christ in that He had no inner sin nature to which the temptation could attach itself, so he could not sin. Merriam-Webster defines tempt as "to entice to do wrong by promise of pleasure or gain". There is another verse to consider on this -
"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:" (Jas 1:13 KJV)
On James 1:13 the NRSV and REB keep to the word "tempt" rather than "test".
Orthodox Christianity insists upon the impeccability of Jesus Christ. The Chalcedonian Creed (451 AD) established the orthodox view that Christ has two natures (human and divine) that are unified in one person.
"We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us."
To say Jesus Christ had to be capable of sinning in order to be tempted as we are would require the belief that Jesus Christ inherited the sin nature from Adam, which he did not, Romans 5.
The NRSV and REB change to test is the better understanding of Hebrews 2:18. I believe to deny the impeccability of Jesus Christ drags one into a blasphemous system of belief.
Not really. That verse has a different meaning.One could argue from scripture that according to the apostle John, all children of God are impeccable.
One could argue from scripture that according to the apostle John, all children of God are impeccable.
1 John 2:9 Whoever has been born of God does not commit sin; for His seed remains in him and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
Jesus was tempted but did not sin. Perhaps you misunderstand the meaning of the word liable. One cannot be liable for sin if one has not sinned.Merriam -Webster defines impeccable as "not capable of sinning or liable to sin". The question then arises, how are we to understand the following verse? -
"For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted." (Heb 2:18 KJV)
Context always clarifies. The first verse of that chapter states...One could argue from scripture that according to the apostle John, all children of God are impeccable.
1 John 2:9 Whoever has been born of God does not commit sin; for His seed remains in him and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
And yet we are tempted and we can yield to that temptation.
I hold to a highly pure view of Jesus Christ in that He had no inner sin nature to which the temptation could attach itself, so he could not sin.