I was in a discussion the other day, and someone suggested that we get our sinful nature just from our fathers, that it does not come from our mothers. Is anyone familiar with this line of thinking?
Embrace the Grace,
Read
|
I was in a discussion the other day, and someone suggested that we get our sinful nature just from our fathers, that it does not come from our mothers. Is anyone familiar with this line of thinking?
Embrace the Grace,
Read
It is written that a man and a woman are one flesh , so there cannot be such an idea.Since they are one flesh then what is born out of them is what they both are!
eve ate the apple first . She was the first to diss obey god and bring sin in. then followed Adam . So its both there faults . We get our sinfull nature because of adam and eve. This originally started all thinks to lucifer who was so full of pride and vanity that he turned against god and tried to over through him.
I think Jesus says some where in the bible that when god the father through lucifer out I. Lucifer was like lightining exiting heaven. Meaning god through lucifer with such power and speed lucifers body resembled that of lightining. That's one hec of a throw...
lucifer started it all . Then lucifer took gods creature the snake to do his biding and get eve and adam to rebel against god as he did. Lucifer was angry he lost the battle with god and failed and he wanted to ruin gods humans and turn them against him...
lucifer has a very sharp toung he has tricked many to fall from god. First he tricked many of gods angels to turn against god and follow himself... he also tricked the snake in the garden to follow him. And the snake with lucifers guidance tricked adam and eve. Lucifers name was changed to satan which means advasary I think...
He met his match in Jesus christ though he tried to do what he did to all others to christ. Only christ was to wise and strong to fall for satans lies. He tempted Jesus in the desert who was fasting and hungry to make stones bread and feed himself Jesus refused... he then told Jesus climb up on a mountain I believe it was and Jump off saying if god loves u he will save u. Jesus replies it is written do not temp the lord thy god... then he told him he would make him a powerful ruler and he would own all the lands and mountains if he bowed down to lucifer. Jesus replied something like it is written you shall have no other gods accept the lord thy god...
sdatan was defeated... satan though will tempt again. The antichrist in the book of revelations is a man who will bring in peace after a great world war... but he becomes greedy with power the devil tempts again as he has done to the angels, the snake and adam and eve he tricks the man. The man sells his soul to the devil.; and becomes the antichrist
See the devil took us from god we actually became sons of the devil many still are sons and daughters of the devil today... he got us through the apple and sin .
god loved man so much. That he himself became a man Jesus christ and took us back from the devil. Was beatn , ripped to pieces beatn by a whip till the bones hang out from his back, made to carry his cross up a hill, mocked spit on, punched in the face , dressed with a mock purple robe , a crown of torns was placed on his head in mock fashion it possibly ripped his forehead open which bled . And they placed a sign above him as he hung on the cross which read Jesus king of the Jews .
not only that he thirsted for water . And a roman soldier gave him vinigar to drink. How horrible is that. They were then fixing to break both of his legs to kill him faster . But he died...
then one of the gaurds to make sure he was dead for certain grabbed a spear and stabed christ with it...
so christ went with a very very hardship to take man back.
And praise the lord he did A-men
Yes, I've heard of this theory that sin comes through ones' father alone.
There is no clear passage saying this. And the Bible often puts all the weight on the man. Of course man also gets the positive side when the Bible almost always calls the redeemed "the sons of God".
On the other side... Jesus did not have a human father.. AND was NOT born in sin.
Personally, I don't teach that sin only comes through the fathers because there is no clear passage saying that. God will explain the whole thing when we see Him face to face. Till then, Qui bono? to pretend we really know which way it is?
Ps 51:5
5 Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me .
NIV
The point is that Jesus could not be born through the male lineage.
He had to be born through Mary's blood line.
The Lineage of Christ: Fulfillment
Jesus had to be have an eternal, sinless nature he couldn't if he was conceived by man. See John 1:14; 1 Timothy 3:16; and Hebrews 2:14-17.
You might be thinking of St. Augustine who was the first to define the doctrine of Original Sin. He believed Original Sin was transmitted through the semen of the father in sexual intercourse. Later, he changed that to "lust". Aquinas disagreed with him.
Welcome Readtobit,
Glad to see you here.
No, I have not seen that idea before but I think it may come from the fact that in many bible passages the word "man" covers all of mankind, both men and women.
Mary is the only human whose blood line comes through to Jesus.
Her bloodline include many men and women.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)
The idea of Original Sin and a sinful nature are two separate issues.
Original Sin is a teaching that we are born into sin, that even without sinning ourself, we receive sin at the time of birth. Thus the reason for baptism of an infant.
A sinful nature is just that the desire to do evil and the sin we do.
But Chuck, Baptism does not guarantee salvation. Until a child is of an age of accountability they are automatically entered into heaven are they not?
According to your denominations teachings,Quote:
Originally Posted by 450donn
Those denominations that teach Original sin, Lutheran, Anglican, Catholic, Orthodox and a few others I am sure, have the baptism of the infant of the saving grace of original sin, till they re-state their vows though confirmation.
Fr_Chuck.
Again I agree with you.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Hi,Quote:
Originally Posted by readtobit
The Catholic Church defines Original Sin as the deprivation of Original Justice.
405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.
CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 405
I had heard what you mention in you OP before, but I don't remember who teaches that.
Sincerely,
De Maria.
Thanks for that post.
Fred
The belief that sin nature comes through the father's side only is speculative, and is not taught in scripture. There is a teaching which is an outgrowth of that called generational sin which teaches that the original sin, and the sin of our ancestors is passed down as a curse through the generations. This is not found in scripture. Scripture says that we each pay for our own sin, not the sins of anyone else. There is a point that men, being made the head of the house, bear a greater responsibility for the devotion of the household to true teachings of the Bible and for the spiritual life of the household, but that does not limit the sin nature to man alone.
The sin nature is therefore not sin in and of itself, but rather the tendency or desire to sin, or as Paul states, before we are saved, we are slaves to sin:
Rom 6:5-7
5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.
NKJV
When we submit ourselves to Christ as Lord and Saviour, we agree to become bondservants to Christ. Bondservants are not slaves as such but persons who willing chose to bond themselves to that specific master.
Our nature is changed and the curse of the sin nature is broken therefore through the blood of the cross (not as some say, the water of baptism which is only symbolic of our dying and being resurrected into new life in Christ).
The sin nature is therefore the corruption of the perfect creation that Adam and Eve originally were, and the natural desires placed within them. The corruption came from Satan who placed within them a desire, not for God, but for themselves, the central desire being that men could become God or gods,
Gen 3:5-6
5 For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
NKJV
as Satan himself desired and which drove his rebellion against God.
Isa 14:14
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,
I will be like the Most High.'
NKJV
That is why you find the belief that men become God, becomes gods, or in some way is exalted to divinity or godhood in virtually every non-Christian theology or religion.
I've always thought that Augustine (in The City of God) provides a really useful way of thinking about this. The original sin, committed by Adam and Eve, changed human nature (because they *were* human nature, they were the only humans at the time of the Fall). They did this by introducing into human nature something that wasn't part of it before, namely an absence, a turning away from God in sin. This introduced a tear into the fabric of human nature which became hereditary once they had children because their children inherited their nature (i.e. human nature) from their parents. And so the original sin became hereditary (Ps.51.5 has been quoted above: We are conceived in sin, we inherit at the moment of conception a nature which is broken). Baptism marks the beginning of healing, and hence shouldn't be postponed (if your child needs an antibiotic you don't postpone that treatment because you want the healing to begin as soon as possible--this is how Augustine looks at infant baptism: let the healing begin).
As Augustine points out, when God descends into the Garden and asks Adam and Eve, "Where are you?", he does this not because he doesn't know where they are. The question is rather a rebuke, and a challenge: They have fallen, they aren't with God. This absence is not just psychological: They damaged their nature, their souls, by turning from God. Augustine also points out that Adam's first reaction after the first sin is confusion: He is no longer at one with God, and so he is no longer at one with himself. This internal breakdown of unity and harmony within the self or soul is a symptom of a disease which infects human nature, and which is communicable. Just as a child may inherit a physical disease from its parents, so too can it inherit a spiritual disease which afflicts it by virtue of the very humanity, the nature, it receives from them.
I believe that man could not be of the seed of man simply because he had to be part divine and part human. The link I previously used explains how the male line was cut off in the physical.
I believe the idea of original sin is not the same as why Jesus could not have an earthly father. He had to come through HIS Father God for the divine aspect.
Though this may be Augustine's opinion, it is not substantiated by scripture. The healing (remission of sin and the restoration of our relationship with God) is accomplished on the cross.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
I guess this would be a real bummer if I, or Augustine for that matter, thought that in order to be true there would have to be a Bible verse saying so. Fortunately, I don't subscribe to that view, not least of all because there is no Bible verse that tells me to. There are lots of things that are true that aren't to be found in Scripture: 2+2=4, bleach is a good disinfectant, Pledge makes wood smell lemony fresh. There isn't even a verse in Scripture that says all *theological* truths are contained in its pages. So it isn't obvious to me that I've done something theologically illicit or suspect by saying that I've always found Augustine's thoughts on original sin to be useful. And there certainly isn't a verse in Scripture that says, "Whatever you do, don't baptize infants".Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I agree but want to point out that there are at least two schools of thought on original sin.
As far as baptizing infants the Bible does say repent and be baptized and an infant can not repent but that does not mean a baby is not to be baptized. In Acts it said the whole household was baptized. I still believe that even if you were baptized as an infant you should still be baptized when you are an adult.
1 Cor 4:6Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.
NKJV
Personally, I would be willing to place my whole faith in doctrine which is taught in God's word, rather than competing doctrines taught by men.Quote:
Fortunately, I don't subscribe to that view, not least of all because there is no Bible verse that tells me to.
But everyone can make their own choices in that regard.
Babies can be baptized, but since it does not save adults, it will not save babies. It is, however, a means of dedicating a child, because the term, "baptized" also means to be identified with, and by baptizing an infant, you are identifying that child with the salvation that is in Christ, and dedicating yourself to bring up the child in the truth of scripture, and in the knowledge of the gospel. The Baby will then, in is hoped, grow up to be a m,an or woman of God who will be saved by receiving Christ as save and then desire to participate in believer's baptism as an adult.Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
NOhelp4U.
Yes I believe an infant should be baptized.
I also believe what the Bible says in several ways that one of the things needed for salvation IS Baptism.
Jesus commanded it to be done.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
If baptism is needed for salvation what about the thief on the cross?
The Bible never says infant baptism is a requirement an infant can not make a decision to be saved. The Bible says repent and be baptized in that order. I don't think there is anything wrong with infant baptism but that it is not essential,
1 Peter 3:21
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
N0help4u,
That was Jesus doing.
Jesus was the judge in that case.
With God all things are possible.
That does NOT change the fact that Jesus commanded baptisms to be done.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
De Maria,
Excellent.
Thanks for posting that.
Fred
A good question for which you will never get a good answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
It is important to read this in context. Let's look at the passage in contextQuote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
1 Peter 3:18-22
18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, 19 by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. 21 There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him.
NKJV
We see three things discussed here:
1) Noah's Ark and its role in saving people through the flood
2) Water baptism
3) The gospel and the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
This passage relates these three items by showing how they relate. First Peter speaks the death of Christ on the cross, setting the focus for the passage. As a result of this passage, we know that the focus of the verses that follow are regarding the death of Christ on the cross for our sins.
This death for our sins is then compared, to the flood, with the flood discussed as a symbolic “type” or comparison to salvation which come through the cross of Christ. Then we are told that there is an anti-type, baptism. I often hear the argument that an “anti-type” is the opposite of a type, or as one person recently said, an anti-type being the opposite of a type is “reality”. Unfortunately that argument is not “reality” because in Greek and similar languages, “anti-” often does not mean “opposite” as we understand it in English, but rather means a replacement or a contrast. This when we are told about one type, and then we are told that there is an anti-type, what we see here is a contrasting type of the death on the cross.
an·ti·type n.
One that is foreshadowed by or identified with an earlier symbol or type, such as a figure in the New Testament who has a counterpart in the Old Testament.
An opposite or contrasting type.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin
Company. All rights reserved.
This understanding also agrees with what Paul said in Romans 6 where he identifies baptism as a “likeness” or symbolic of the death and resurrection on the cross:
Rom 6:3-7
3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.
NKJV
In discussions with proponents of baptismal regeneration, they will often just read out Romans 6:3 and then stop before you get to the verse which describes baptism as a “likeness” of the death and resurrection of Christ. So we find that Romans 6 and 1 Peter 3 are telling us the same thing – baptism is symbolic.
Now with that in mind, let's look at the verse which is most often quoted by proponents of baptismal regeneration:
1 Peter 3:21
21 There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh,
NKJV
The contrasting types, the ark, which saved Noah and family through the water, and baptism which saves us in the water - as a type. A "type" simply means symbolic, and thus is symbolic of the death and resurrection of Christ through we we are in fact saved.
Now, let's look at the wider context:
1 Peter 3:18
18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit,
NKJV
Salvation came by Christ suffering on the cross for our sins and then we are made alive by the Spirit. Scripture says that there is one baptism, and it is not a baptism that replaces the blood with water, or replaces the spirit with water, but it is the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
Note that by stating that it is water baptism that is essential, what we are in effect being told is that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is not essential, and that they choose water to replace the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Consider the implications.
1 Peter 3:21
21 There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him.
NKJV
Note that it is water that removes the filth of the flesh, but the water is symbolic of the salvation on the cross. Also note that the substances which cleanses, is the answer of a good conscience towards God. We see a similar reference in Hebrews 9
This passage is very clear regarding the symbolic nature of the various rituals. As pointed out earlier, the reference here to ritual washings is the same word used elsewhere in the New Testament where it is translated as “baptism”.
Heb 9:11-15
11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. 12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, 1 4 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
NKJV
We see confirmation here that it is not the water that cleanses, but the blood of Christ sacrificed on the cross.
Yes how can an infant have a good conscience toward God?Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
I have wrote this before .Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Baptism saves us from the authourity of the world and its master.So the thief on the cross was already judged by the world and its master.The world's judgement for him was... death!That was not going to change , he was already on the cross, but he could still save his soul because he was still alive.He turned to Jesus and asked for mercy.Jesus paid for his ( the thief's) sins also, and the thief saved his soul.
Adam.
Thanks for that.
It makes good sense.
And it does not change the fact that Jesus ordered is followers to go out into the world and baptize people.
Peace and kindness,
Fred.
It is sin that places under enslavement to sin and the only thing that takes that away is the blood that Jesus shed on the cross:Quote:
Originally Posted by adam7gur
Rev 1:4-7
Grace to you and peace from Him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne, 5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth. To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, 6 and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.
NKJV
So baptism is not essential for salvation.Quote:
So the thief on the cross was already judged by the world and its master.The world's judgement for him was... death!That was not going to change , he was already on the cross, but he could still save his soul because he was still alive.He turned to Jesus and asked for mercy.Jesus paid for his ( the thief's) sins also, and the thief saved his soul.
Don't be mislead.
P Baptism IS one of the things like faith that are needed for salvation.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Where is that in scripture?Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
I don't see it as an essential FOR salvation but as a witness OF your salvation. Like your washing your husbands clothes is not essential FOR his love but it bears witness OF your love for him just like works and faith.
Tj3
Baptism is not essential for the salvation of the soul form hell.It is essential for a person to be saved from the world.I am talking about two different kinds of salvation.
Fred
Surely... no doubt... it does not change what Jesus instructed !
There is no concept of salvation from the world in scripture separate from salvation from sin. When we are saved by receiving Christ as Saviour, we receive His righteousness which separates us from the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by adam7gur
There is nothing in scripture saying that baptism saves us - PERIOD!
1 Cor 1:16-17
17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.
NKJV
My friend Tj3Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
But there is a concept of salvation from the world!
Let's think about Noah and his family.They were all saved from the world, but who can tell if they all saved their souls?
I mean those people lived for many years after that , they could have turned away from God if they wanted to.If they did turn away would their souls be saved?But we cannot change the fact that they were saved from the world no matter what !
I am not sure how you mean saved from the world, but these people were still subject to all of the same worldly desire, all the same worldly threats. Where does scripture say that they were not?Quote:
Originally Posted by adam7gur
And further, where does it say that baptism saved Noah and his family? It doesn't. It compares their temporary safety from death to baptism as a comparison, nothing more.
Part of the definition of the word holiness is to be separate - to keep ourselves separate from the world. We cannot be holy and thus separate from the world until or unless we have been saved through faith in Christ.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:05 PM. |