Christ's human nature...

[Dr. Shane]

G: The prenatal sin that ALL babies are born with is the sin of our representative Adam.

[doug yowell]

I think the bible does indicate that Jesus was different to "fallen Adam".

I do not think Jesus had the Rom 7:14-25 experience, rather the Rom 8 experience.

But we can have exactly the same experience as Him when we are born again.

What about before we're born again? Doesn't the born again experience also begin our journey towards a natural propensity towards God? Did Jesus develop a natural propensity towards God thru practice?

[Sonny]

Babies are born innocent and choose sin.

"What is a human being, that he could be innocent, someone born from a woman, that he could be righteous?" (Job 15:14)

[Dr. Shane]

Read my entire quote, Sonny.

It means it has a weakened nature and is destined to sin until it experiences the second birth. Babies are born innocent and choose sin.

Now read the verse from Job 15:14...

"What is a human being, that he could be innocent, someone born from a woman, that he could be righteous?"

What I am saying is consistent with the patriarch, isn't it? Someone "born of a woman" is "destined to sin".

Of course Jesus was born of a woman & of the Holy Spirit AND Jesus hadn't been born yet when Job said that!

[Dr. Shane]

Did Jesus develop a natural propensity towards God thru practice?

Very good question!

We know He was tempted as we are so that He could be a merciful High Priest. That tells us a lot. If He was much different than we are, He wouldn't be able to be a merciful High Priest.

[Sonny]

WE ALL DIE IN ADAM. WHY? WE ARE ALL BORN CHILDREN OF WRATH. WHY? WHY DO SUFFER THE PENALTY OF SOMEONE ELSE'S TRANSGRESSION UNLESS THERE IS SOME IMPUTATION OF GUILT?

AND WHAT DID PAUL MEAN WHEN HE SAID: "SIN THAT DWELLS IN ME," "CAPTIVE TO THE LAW OF SIN THAT DWELLS IN MY MEMBERS"???

There is a distinction between guilt and condemnation that I believe we should make: I am not guilty of Adam's original sin unless I personally repeat the same sin, however because I am a distant child of Adam I stand condemned because of the "SIN THAT DWELLS IN ME".

If I do not stand condemned because of my inward sin then I should be able to take my nature to heaven, but according to 1 Corinthians 15:50 I can't.

"Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption."

[Sonny]

Now read the verse from Job 15:14...

"What is a human being, that he could be innocent, someone born from a woman, that he could be righteous?"

What I am saying is consistent with the patriarch, isn't it? Someone "born of a woman" is "destined to sin".

Job is comparing that which is born of a woman with unrighteousness:

"someone born from a woman, that he could be righteous?"

So my take is that you can't be born of a woman and be righteous simultaneously. Job doesn't state you are righteous at birth until you sin.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Read my entire quote, Sonny.

Originally Posted By: Shane

It means it has a weakened nature and is destined to sin until it experiences the second birth. Babies are born innocent and choose sin.

Now read the verse from Job 15:14...

"What is a human being, that he could be innocent, someone born from a woman, that he could be righteous?"

What I am saying is consistent with the patriarch, isn't it? Someone "born of a woman" is "destined to sin".

Of course Jesus was born of a woman & of the Holy Spirit AND Jesus hadn't been born yet when Job said that!

But then there was this:

Originally Posted By: Shane #410992

Prenatal sin is obviously something that is not discussed in the Bible. The logic goes like this. Sin is the act of selfishness. We know that the fetus can make decisions. So then the next question would be if it makes selfish decisions. Perhaps... If the fetus is making selfish decisions in the womb, then the infant could be born a sinner, guilty of its own sin.

[Sonny]

That's funny, but true.

[Sonny]

Here is an interesting statement from Ellen White:

"All may now obtain holy hearts, but it is not correct to claim in this life to have holy flesh . The apostle Paul declares, 'I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing' (Rom. 7:18).'" (Ref unknown)

Here is what the above tells me:

a] As a believer I can have my mind transformed, i.e., I can have a mind in harmony with God's law, but simultaneously,

b] my human body is corrupted by the sinful nature.

So as a believer I can have a mind in harmony with God's law of love, but as a child of Adam I have a humanity that is contaminated by the sin virus (so to speak), which of itself disqualifies me for heaven.

In order to be fully qualified for heaven I must have both a holy mind and holy flesh. The latter simply means I must obtain a glorified body free from the virus of sin before I can enter heaven.

[Gerr]

The newborn is born sinless (unless there is such a thing as pre-natal sin). However that innocent baby has a wicked nature and is destined to sin. At least, that is what the Bible teaches. The pope teaches something different.

G: BTW, you still haven't shown from a Catholic publication what the pope believes.

[Gerr]

Christ was born with a sinless, divine nature, which is drastically different than any other human being. We're told that Christ took "our sinful nature" upon His own sinless nature. Christ's nature was sinless and divine. Upon that nature He took "our sinful nature."

G: The Bible is also clear that He did not cling to the prerogatives of His divinity. And EGW agrees when she says: "He had a full consciousness of His divinity; but He had laid aside His royal crown and kingly robes, and had taken the form of a servant. One of the last acts of His life on earth was to gird Himself as a servant, and perform a servant's part." {CCh 299.4}

For Him to clothe His divinity with humanity, to me simply means that He veiled/hid His divinity. Not for one moment did He resort to His divine power to gain the victory, otherwise He would NOT have been a perfect example for us. He relied totally on His Father for power, just as we must rely totally on Him for power. This IS the faith of Jesus that we ALL CAN/MUST have. Total submission, total reliance, absolute trust in our Father, I believe, is the characteristic of Jesus that CAN/MUST be reproduced in the end-time people before He comes.

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Shane

Now read the verse from Job 15:14...

"What is a human being, that he could be innocent, someone born from a woman, that he could be righteous?"

What I am saying is consistent with the patriarch, isn't it? Someone "born of a woman" is "destined to sin".

Job is comparing that which is born of a woman with unrighteousness:

"someone born from a woman, that he could be righteous?"

So my take is that you can't be born of a woman and be righteous simultaneously. Job doesn't state you are righteous at birth until you sin.

G: Thanks for your that quote & input. It seems to reinforce what I am saying.

[Gerr]

[Sonny]

There is a distinction between guilt and condemnation that I believe we should make: I am not guilty of Adam's original sin unless I personally repeat the same sin, however because I am a distant child of Adam I stand condemned because of the "SIN THAT DWELLS IN ME".

By the way, I can back the above statement up using Ellen White:

“We have reason for ceaseless gratitude to God that Christ, by His perfect obedience has won back the heaven that Adam lost through disobedience. Adam sinned and the children of Adam share his guilt and it’s consequences. But Jesus bore the guilt of Adam, and all the children of Adam that will flee to Christ, the second Adam, may escape the penalty of transgression.” (Sons and Daughters, page 120)

Now I am a bit uncomfortable with the noun "guilt". I prefer the noun "condemnation". Infants are not born guilty of Adam's specific sin, i.e., eating the fruit of the tree of good and evil. This is clear from the following:

"The son will not be guilty because of what his father did. And the father will not be guilty because of what his son did." (Ezekiel 18:20)

However, because all of us share Adam's fallen human life, we share in his condemnation. This is clear in the following:

"Therefore, just as through one man (Adam) sin entered into the world (the human race), and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned" (Romans 5:12)

This is repeated again in verse 18:

"So then as through one transgression (clearly, Adam's sin) there resulted condemnation to all men."

We stand condemned at birth because we share Adam's fallen humanity, a humanity that is both void of God's spirit and contains the virus sin.

Again, if that is untrue then we should be able to take our sinful natures to heaven with us as long as we aren't outwardly sinning.

This brings us back full circle to infants. If infants are born innocent -that is, free from condemnation - then are we to assume that if an infant dies shortly after delivery that he/she doesn't need a Christ?

We must remember that Christ came to save sinners! If in this example the infant is innocent until it sins then that infant doesn't need the righteousness of Christ to qualify it for heaven.

Let's keep in mind that Christ came to save sinners primarily from the condemnation of the law. Only after that condemnation is lifted do we experience a regenerated mind.

[Gerr]

[Gerr]

"We have reason for ceaseless gratitude to God that Christ, by His perfect obedience has won back the heaven that Adam lost through disobedience. Adam sinned and the children of Adam share his guilt and it’s consequences. But Jesus bore the guilt of Adam, and all the children of Adam that will flee to Christ, the second Adam, may escape the penalty of transgression.” (Sons and Daughters, page 120)

Did you see this Shane?

[Dr. Shane]

Job doesn't state you are righteous at birth until you sin.

That wasn't the issue he was addressing. He was addressing people in general. Humans (which of course are born of women) cannot be righteous in and of themselves. They are born with a sinful nature and destined to sin. A leopard cannot change its spots nor an Ethiopian the color of his skin. We are all born with a sinful nature and destined to sin. That is Job's point. Job was not discussing the issue of original sin.

[Dr. Shane]

Pam,

Pre-natal sin is purely speculation. I put it out there because it is a possibility but as far as we know, babies are born innocent of sin until they conscientiously commit sin themselves. Each of us has chosen to commit sin. It is not something we can blame on our parents or on Adam. It is true that we are born with a sinful nature and drawn to sin but in the end of time, when the judgment is made, we will only be found guilty of the sins we have committed. Adam's sin will not be recorded against us. Nor will that of our parents. The good news is that if we are washed with the blood of the Lamb, all our sins will be blotted out.

[Dr. Shane]

whether it's Adam's guilt or the "sin that dwells in me" that condemns me at conception or at birth, it is still NOT sin of my OWN doing.

I think a problem here is the concept of time. Christ died for our sins before we ever committed them. In the same respect, when we are born, we are condemned for our sins before we commit them. God sees our whole experience. He sees the beginning from the end. He knows what we will do before we do it. In fact, He died for what we will do before we do it.

[Sonny]

--- when we are born, we are condemned for our sins before we commit them.

[Dr. Shane]

Originally Posted By: Shane

--- when we are born, we are condemned for our sins before we commit them.

That's unfair.

[Dr. Shane]

We are born selfish, which in turn means our thoughts are self-centered. This, I believe, the law also condemns.

This takes us back to the issue of prenatal sin. If, as a baby, we are guilty of sin due to selfish thoughts, then we may well have had selfish thoughts while in the womb. I don't think the birth canal has some kind of property that causes the child to start making selfish thoughts with their first breath of air.

[Sonny]

---If in this example (i.e., where the infant dies upon delivery) --- then that infant doesn't need the righteousness of Christ to qualify it for heaven.

Doesn't this present a problem with your view?

[Dr. Shane]

So the infant enters heaven, at the resurrection, under his/her own merit? He doesn't need the righteousness of Christ?

Now we are venturing into an area of information which has not been revealed to us. That's fine. We call that speculation because the Bible doesn't tell us the exact answer. We do that in the subject of origins all the time.

Myself, I would see no reason why a fetus, that has never sinned, would need the righteousness of Christ to enter into heaven. Unless there is such a thing as prenatal sin, which is another area of speculation.