Evidence for God from Science

Is man born guilty, before God because of man's sin nature? Or, is each man, guilty before God, because of each man's own sin?

It is the second, or else Jesus would have been guilty before God. Men sin because of their sin nature, and all men are guilty. Jesus did not sin even though he was born as a man, because he is also God. So he had the power to save us, being guiltless.

This is perfect for a comparison between how the Eastern Orthodox view this subject verses how the Christianized Western view it!
-
-
-

wrain62 wrote:It is the second, or else Jesus would have been guilty before God. Men sin because of their sin nature, and all men are guilty. Jesus did not sin even though he was born as a man, because he is also God. So he had the power to save us, being guiltless.

But he was not of the "seed of Adam". He was born of a woman, but did not inherit the sin nature of mankind because His Father is God.

Romans appears to indicate that both elements are at work. We're collectively identified with Adam and born with a sin nature and we affirm that nature in that all of us manifest that sin nature when we sin. Christ is the second Adam with whom those who come to Christ are identified through Salvation.

There are some who speculate that the sin nature then is transmitted and present within male seed, which then in a physical sense would explain why Christ, as the only man incarnated by the Holy Spirit within a woman did not have a sin nature (Christ as the seed of a woman.) Frankly, while that is something that validly can be inferred, I think it more of a spiritual issue than something that is inherent within the physical transmission of life.

Catholicism historically goes one step further and believes that sin nature is as present in women as it is in men, and that in order for Christ to have been born sinless without the sin nature, Mary must have been a unique vessel, free from the presence of sin herself. That's what is meant in that context with the term "Immaculate Conception" meaning Mary herself was created and born uniquely so that she could bear the savior. This also ties into why some tradition hold that Mary remained a virgin throughout her life and the "brother and sisters" of Jesus were cousins and not actual physical siblings.

Scripture, in my opinion, doesn't answer this question in terms of "how" God accomplished it. It's an example, again in my opinion, of Scholasticism which sought to satisfy and answer questions not directly addressed by Scripture through the use of inferential logic and premises drawn from otherwise unconnected Scripture passages and/or other premises inferred through basic reason.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Catholicism historically goes one step further and believes that sin nature is as present in women as it is in men, and that in order for Christ to have been born sinless without the sin nature, Mary must have been a unique vessel, free from the presence of sin herself. That's what is meant in that context with the term "Immaculate Conception" meaning Mary herself was created and born uniquely so that she could bear the savior. This also ties into why some tradition hold that Mary remained a virgin throughout her life and the "brother and sisters" of Jesus were cousins and not actual physical siblings.

FYI, another reason (and IMO the more compelling one) for Mary's perpetual virginity is that since she bore a son from the Holy Spirit, she could not bear another from a mere man lest she be considered an adulteress.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Romans appears to indicate that both elements are at work. We're collectively identified with Adam and born with a sin nature and we affirm that nature in that all of us manifest that sin nature when we sin. Christ is the second Adam with whom those who come to Christ are identified through Salvation.

There are some who speculate that the sin nature then is transmitted and present within male seed, which then in a physical sense would explain why Christ, as the only man incarnated by the Holy Spirit within a woman did not have a sin nature (Christ as the seed of a woman.) Frankly, while that is something that validly can be inferred, I think it more of a spiritual issue than something that is inherent within the physical transmission of life.

Catholicism historically goes one step further and believes that sin nature is as present in women as it is in men, and that in order for Christ to have been born sinless without the sin nature, Mary must have been a unique vessel, free from the presence of sin herself. That's what is meant in that context with the term "Immaculate Conception" meaning Mary herself was created and born uniquely so that she could bear the savior. This also ties into why some tradition hold that Mary remained a virgin throughout her life and the "brother and sisters" of Jesus were cousins and not actual physical siblings.

Scripture, in my opinion, doesn't answer this question in terms of "how" God accomplished it. It's an example, again in my opinion, of Scholasticism which sought to satisfy and answer questions not directly addressed by Scripture through the use of inferential logic and premises drawn from otherwise unconnected Scripture passages and/or other premises inferred through basic reason.

Yeah i see the physical explanation of sin nature to be a bit silly and likewise i also think it is more of a spiritual issue. The way i think of it is that we are human beings who were created with a moral nature and to be in communion with God - that is our original or default mode of existence, once you take God of the picture you are just a man with a moral nature, a finite being and it is clear from our experience that no purely finite moral being can be morally perfect without God. I would go so far as to say that not even the angels without the HS can be morally perfect ( which isn't far IMO hahah).

CeT-To wrote:I would go so far as to say that not even the angels without the HS can be morally perfect ( which isn't far IMO hahah).

Angels do not have redemption, so once they sin they are gone.

Byblos wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:Catholicism historically goes one step further and believes that sin nature is as present in women as it is in men, and that in order for Christ to have been born sinless without the sin nature, Mary must have been a unique vessel, free from the presence of sin herself. That's what is meant in that context with the term "Immaculate Conception" meaning Mary herself was created and born uniquely so that she could bear the savior. This also ties into why some tradition hold that Mary remained a virgin throughout her life and the "brother and sisters" of Jesus were cousins and not actual physical siblings.

FYI, another reason (and IMO the more compelling one) for Mary's perpetual virginity is that since she bore a son from the Holy Spirit, she could not bear another from a mere man lest she be considered an adulteress.

So, Byblos, are you saying that Mary was married to God?

Is man born guilty, before God because of man's sin nature? Or, is each man, guilty before God, because of each man's own sin?

Yes

FYI, another reason (and IMO the more compelling one) for Mary's perpetual virginity is that since she bore a son from the Holy Spirit, she could not bear another from a mere man lest she be considered an adulteress.

Mary was God's wife?
Jesus touched lepers, dined with vile sinners, and ultimately took upon Himself the sin of the world. Yet for some reason He couldn't manage the womb of a regular woman?

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:Catholicism historically goes one step further and believes that sin nature is as present in women as it is in men, and that in order for Christ to have been born sinless without the sin nature, Mary must have been a unique vessel, free from the presence of sin herself. That's what is meant in that context with the term "Immaculate Conception" meaning Mary herself was created and born uniquely so that she could bear the savior. This also ties into why some tradition hold that Mary remained a virgin throughout her life and the "brother and sisters" of Jesus were cousins and not actual physical siblings.

FYI, another reason (and IMO the more compelling one) for Mary's perpetual virginity is that since she bore a son from the Holy Spirit, she could not bear another from a mere man lest she be considered an adulteress.

So, Byblos, are you saying that Mary was married to God?

She was pregnant by the Holy Spirit so in a sense she was betrothed to the Holy Spirit. It would not be fitting (to say the least) to have her carry another man's offspring.

She was pregnant by the Holy Spirit so in a sense she was betrothed to the Holy Spirit. It would not be fitting (to say the least) to have her carry another man's offspring.

So, then according to Catholicism, Mary was an adulterer, then? If she was "betrothed" to the Holy Spirit, and then married Joseph, was polygamy legal then?

wrain62 wrote:

CeT-To wrote:I would go so far as to say that not even the angels without the HS can be morally perfect ( which isn't far IMO hahah).

Angels do not have redemption, so once they sin they are gone.

That's true and that still fits with my view, where did you see that it didn't?

CeT-To wrote:

wrain62 wrote:

CeT-To wrote:I would go so far as to say that not even the angels without the HS can be morally perfect ( which isn't far IMO hahah).

Angels do not have redemption, so once they sin they are gone.

That's true and that still fits with my view, where did you see that it didn't?

Can something be morally imperfect and not sin? Wait I suppose the one that don't are always in the presense of the HS haha.

RickD wrote:Is man born guilty, before God because of man's sin nature? Or, is each man, guilty before God, because of each man's own sin?

Yes.


Man is a sinner from conception, and is thus guilty. He is responsible for his own sin. Both are true.