Question for Baptists/Anabaptists

[ShirChadash]

Hello -- I'm not sure where to ask this exactly... but since my question is related to the thread on Mary in this very forum, and I am seeking specifically Baptist/Anabaptist views on this, I thought I would ask here

I suppose my question is rather multi-part.

Could Yeshua (Jesus), though utterly without sin, have chosen to sin instead of obey The Father?

As Yeshua was fully human, did He struggle with His flesh-nature (some would say, "sin-nature" or other terms, perhaps) and submit it to the Father's Will in obedience instead of giving in to sin?

In order for Yeshua to have lived fully as a human and to atone for our sins, He had to have had our same sin-nature/sin-tendency/struggles/possible choices and overcome them, no?

Then, if Yeshua received His humanity and His flesh from His mother Miriam (Mary), and He did have a sin-nature (an ability to choose sin) which we know is not of G-D, but of the flesh... then did Miriam not also have to have a sin-nature inherent in her humanity as well?

I hope I am making sense here... I have six lil ones running in and out, asking me questions while I am typing this up so if I am not being clear, please let me know. As I read the thread on Mary here, it has occurred to me that in order for Yeshua to have been "fully human" and for His death to have been efficacious for us, He had to have struggled with and defeated the very tendency and nature toward sin that all other humans bear, and to have chosen instead -- in all instances without fail -- The Father's perfect Will. If Yeshua did in fact have the ability to sin, to choose either sin or obedience, then He had to have had that sin-nature in His flesh (have borne the tendency toward sin... struggled with the option of sin).

And if Yeshua got His flesh from Miriam, and His Spirit from G-d the Father, so that He would be fully G-d and fully man... then Miriam had to have also had a sin-nature. Since Yeshua alone is G-d manifest in the flesh, He alone could perfectly choose obedience in every single instance, and never sin.

These are my relatively scatter-minded thoughts this morning.

Conversely, if Yeshua DID NOT have a sin-nature/sin-tendency (I really don't know how best to term it, but I trust that you folks will know what I am getting at and not nit-pik semantics over this), and COULD NOT possibly have been ABLE to choose to sin rather than to obey, then it would seem to me that He couldn't have fully experienced the human struggle of life in the post-Fall world. And if He couldn't choose to sin... well then He couldn't truly choose to obey... IMHO. Yeshua was not an automaton... right?

Please, only you Baptists/Anabaptists reply to this question thread with your views; I am asking for only Baptist and Anabaptist views (which is why I am asking this in your forum). I think I just asked the same basic question about 6 different ways here so I'll quit while I am sorta ahead.

Thanks folks, and shalom (peace) in Yeshua,
~z~

 

[P_G]

Conversely, if Yeshua DID NOT have a sin-nature/sin-tendency (I really don't know how best to term it, but I trust that you folks will know what I am getting at and not nit-pik semantics over this), and COULD NOT possibly have been ABLE to choose to sin rather than to obey, then it would seem to me that He couldn't have fully experienced the human struggle of life in the post-Fall world. And if He couldn't choose to sin... well then He couldn't truly choose to obey... IMHO. Yeshua was not an automaton... right?

Zemmy!!!

Let me put my best Anabaptist hat on for a moment.
Y'shua was not born of sin he was sin free at birth
this is not something we can say for we carry the sin of
Father Adam from even birth (I shall remember the sins of the father even unto the 7th generation) (Which I think we see as forever in this case)

Sin is passed from Adam not Chavah because the sin comes from the fathers side. Ha'Shem is father to Y'shua Thus born with out sin.

BUT he did have the ability to be tempted to sin. His love for the father and his divine nature made sin repugnant to him. But he was surely tempted. We know he did not (For he who was without sin was made to be a sin offering for us)

The sin nature of man is two fold a birth into sin through the line of the father
and a predisposistion to fall to temptation from the birth of flesh.

Y'shua had but one of these traits not both.

Blessings

Pastor George

 

[GreenEyedLady]

Pastor George,
I never knew that. What is the supporting scripture?
Thanks, it makes total sense but I would like to see where you got that from.
GEL

 

[ShirChadash]

Hiya PG!

Zemmy!!!

Let me put my best Anabaptist hat on for a moment.
Y'shua was not born of sin he was sin free at birth
this is not something we can say for we carry the sin of
Father Adam from even birth (I shall remember the sins of the father even unto the 7th generation) (Which I think we see as forever in this case)

Yup, ITA (I totally agree, that is.)

Sin is passed from Adam not Chavah because the sin comes from the fathers side. Ha'Shem is father to Y'shua Thus born with out sin.

gotcha. Hope I was clear enough -- I didn't mean He was sinful, or that He did sin ... just meant... could He have chosen to sin and (thankfully) never did?

BUT he did have the ability to be tempted to sin. His love for the father and his divine nature made sin repugnant to him. But he was surely tempted. We know he did not (For he who was without sin was made to be a sin offering for us)

I just wanna make sure I get this right. I know He was tempted to sin... which tells me He could consider sinning. Could He in fact have chosen, in His humanness, to sin rather than to embrace The Father's Will in obedience, at any given time? And it was an exercise of His Will conforming to The Father's Will that He didn't sin (rather than an inability on His part to sin?) ?

The sin nature of man is two fold a birth into sin through the line of the father
and a predisposistion to fall to temptation from the birth of flesh.

beddy interesdingk!

Y'shua had but one of these traits not both.

ITA!

Now... could He have chosen to sin (I realize this is rather hypothetical, as He never did sin...) Am I annoying you yet?

 

[Iollain]

Hi,

Is it because Adam knew what he was doing when he first sinned, and Eve didn't?

 

[Iollain]

Hey

While your at writing here Pastor George, can you explain 1 Cor 11:10? What does that mean 'because of the angels'? I really can't figure that out at all.

 

[P_G]

Well I was typing for an hour and my PC Locked up and I lost everything so I am going to split this up into a few messages.

First I appologize for the translation of 7 generations I think this can be either 3rd to the 4th or 3rd to the 4th but in any event it does not change the gist of the scripture:

Exo 34:7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.


Deu 5:9 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,

The 4th generation is significant enough it is beyond the span of a mans life. What G-d is saying is that your sin will carry through to every generation you will ever witness. Or in our aspect forever. We shall go to the grave and see the retrebution of our sin.

Also significant is that it passes through the line via the father through a man. We see this today when we say that a foul act will ruin the family name. Who carries the name? The father of course.

Cont

PG

 

[P_G]

To move along let us look at the spiritual authority of the Husband / Father and that it is by the Father that we see our spiritual training:

Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
Eph 5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
Eph 5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
Eph 5:29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
Eph 5:30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
Eph 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
Eph 5:32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
Eph 5:33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

Is G-d telling us that a womman is a second class citizen? No he is however saying that the man the husband the father is to be the spirtual head of the household. To pass along that which the Lord would pass to him. I am sure your local pastor can and will explain the priesthood of the husband and his role in the family to you fully!

Please Girls no flames on this ok? Remember this passage also tells us guys to die for our families!

OK so here we see the spirtual authority family wise runs through the fathers line. The Husband.

Case in point:

If a saved woman faithfully attends church alone there is only a 10% chance of the rest of her family comming in and getting saved and churched

If the roles are reversed and it is a husband a father the number jumps to 90% probability that his family will follow become saved and regular church goers.

G-d does honor his own plan!

Cont

PG

 

[P_G]

Ahh the flesh the flesh what about that fleshy fleshy flesh!

And temptation? Where does the passion in our lives come from?
Where do the tears come from?
Where does the love of beauty come from?

From men?
If you think this then I know you are not married!

No from our graceful wonderful sisters
who bring all the lovileness of the senses to us and teach us these things.

But alas from her line we get temptation
I think too in part because we get drunk on the pleasure of temptation
Where in scripture?

Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
Gen 3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
Gen 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
Gen 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
Gen 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons

So there are some thoughts to it

Could Y'shua have sinned well yes I suppose he could have
But his father and his nature was Holy
and without sin
And he says
Be thou holy for I am holy.

You can walk this way too! Just not as good.


Blessings

Pastor George

 

[theseed]

HaMoskiak was like us but he did not have our sinful nature. In most circles, that means that we can help but sin. Just as a leopard can't change his spots, so too we can't change our sinful nature or flesh. The NIV bible translates flesh as sinful nature (Rom. 7.5).

Adam and Eve were not created with a sinful nature, but they chose to sin when they were tempted. They were perfect, but when they sin, it concieved death and they became sinners by nature and under God's wrath.

Hebrews 2 (NASB)
17 Therefore, He had (1) to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might (2) become a merciful and faithful (3) high priest in (4) things pertaining to God, to (5) make propitiation for the sins of the people.

Hebrews 4
15 For we do not have (1) a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been (2) tempted in all things as we are, yet (3) without sin.

Romans 7
5 For while we were (1) in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were (2) aroused by the Law, were at work (3) in the members of our body to bear fruit for death.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Adam and Eve were not created with a sinful nature, but they chose to sin when they were tempted. They were perfect, but when they sin, it concieved death and they became sinners by nature and under God's wrath.

So far, so good....

With all due respect to those who have already answered, not all Baptists and Anabaptists (I assume you are also asking anyone of the Free Chruch Protestant traditions represented here, including Quakers) believe as Pastor George does. You will find quite a bit of variation in our concepts of "original sin." Some of us try to avoid even using the word, as we believe sin (like faith!) is personal, not inherited. Death entered the world through the sin of our first parents. Sin has had other irreversible (except by Christ, our Savior) effects that have made it impossible for anyone (Except Christ, again) to live completely free of sin, but we trust Christ our Savior to free us from both sin and death, and make us fit for the Kingdom of God.

Those of us who hold beliefs like these would not form exactly the same qustions as the ones you posed.

Could Yeshua (Jesus), though utterly without sin, have chosen to sin instead of obey The Father?

A lot of Anabaptists would avoid asking such speculative questions, considering them irreverent. Others would simply say the Bible doesn't answer it.

As Yeshua was fully human, did He struggle with His flesh-nature (some would say, "sin-nature" or other terms, perhaps) and submit it to the Father's Will in obedience instead of giving in to sin?

We know from some of the scriptures postd above, and others, that Jesus was tempted. We know that he sufferd as a result of some temptations - in Gethsemane, at least. And we know he triumphed over all temptations.

In order for Yeshua to have lived fully as a human and to atone for our sins, He had to have had our same sin-nature/sin-tendency/struggles/possible choices and overcome them, no?

Then, if Yeshua received His humanity and His flesh from His mother Miriam (Mary), and He did have a sin-nature (an ability to choose sin) which we know is not of G-D, but of the flesh... then did Miriam not also have to have a sin-nature inherent in her humanity as well?

I wouldn't use the term "sin-nature." However, both Mary and Jesus were born as mortal humans under sentence of death because of sin.

I think you will find more Quakers and Anabaptists than Baptists who think this way. It is probably a minority view. Some of Pastor George's ideas, like sin being inherited through our male, not female parents, are also minority views. You will find that Free Church Protestants are quite diverse, theologically.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Sin is passed from Adam not Chavah because the sin comes from the fathers side. Ha'Shem is father to Y'shua Thus born with out sin.

Pastor George, I've never heard of this belief before. I don't know if this will sidetrack this thread too much, but could you explain?

I'm thinking about the ramifications of this idea. Given the current stage of reproductive technology. If some scientist wer to clone a human female, would the resulting baby be born without sin?

 

[ShirChadash]

A lot of Anabaptists would avoid asking such speculative questions, considering them irreverent.

I just wanted to extend my apologies to anyone who might feel I am/have been irreverent in posing these speculative questions... irreverence was definitely not my intention in any way.

shalom,
~z~

 

[Crazy Liz]

I just wanted to extend my apologies to anyone who might feel I am/have been irreverent in posing these speculative questions... irreverence was definitely not my intention in any way.

shalom,
~z~

Sorry. I didn't mean I was offended.

I'm not offended by people asking irreverent questions, and I don't think many here would be. What I really meant was that out of reverence it is often better just to say we don't know some things about God. The Incarnation is a great mystery. There is a lot about it we will never understand. Speculating about it in certain ways is something some people might avoid out of reverence.

OTOH, you did notice your exchange with Pastor George led me to speculate about the ramifications of his theory if applied to reproductive technology.

 

[theseed]

There are a few parts to sin when it comes to people.

1)God imputes sin onto all of us (except Christ of course). God imputes Adam's sin on us (Rom. 5.12). This is also known as orginal sin.

2)It was transmited from Adam to the whole human race, since it comes from Adam, it makes sense that somone would beleive that it came from man. We are conceived in sin (Psalm 51:5)

3)We all have a sin nature, a law in our flesh that works contrary to the law of God (Rom. 7:5).

4)Christ was without sin, so he did not inherit sin, nor did he have the law of sin in his flesh--a sinful nature (Hebrews 2.17, 4.15). The remedy for imputed sin is imputed righousness, which comes from Christ (2 Cor. 5:21)

 

[kayanne]

Could Yeshua (Jesus), though utterly without sin, have chosen to sin instead of obey The Father?
~z~

I will give you my short answer. God (in any form, Father, Son, or Spirit), CANNOT do anything contrary to His nature. His nature is perfect and holy.

 

[P_G]

Pastor George, I've never heard of this belief before. I don't know if this will sidetrack this thread too much, but could you explain?

I'm thinking about the ramifications of this idea. Given the current stage of reproductive technology. If some scientist wer to clone a human female, would the resulting baby be born without sin?

Well Liz I tried to explain this in a series of 3 very long posts. Some times when we read the Bible we can see a direct effect. Basically it looks like this
The Penelty for murder is death. It is a sin period. No discussion.

But other times we see the nature of something. ie we see that G-d is compassionette because he shows compassion and does so quite often.

The verses I showed go to the nature of what is. Does the Bible come down and directly say "Sin follows the fathers line" No it surely does not. But we see enough evidence that sin does follow the fathers line to inturperlate that it does. We know it because the evidence is there to say so.

I think rather than try to do this in a long disertation I will do so on one of the web casts and you all can ask questions and I can answer them adequately.

As for cloning
Well lets see what happens with that when man begins to play god.


Much Love

Lively discussion

Pastor George

 

[ShirChadash]

Excellent answers, all. Thanks folks. Crazy Liz... LOL you didn't sound offended to me, I just wanted to make sure to extend an apology to any who might be... a "just-in-case" if you kwim.

still thinking,

~z~

 

[Carrye]

I will give you my short answer. God (in any form, Father, Son, or Spirit), CANNOT do anything contrary to His nature. His nature is perfect and holy.

He has both a human and a divine nature (2 natures, 1 person). Human nature has free will, and so it seems that Christ very well could have chosen to sin. The devil tempted him many times. If Christ did not have this choice, his life on earth would've been a pre-orchestrated game - he would have been a puppet of the Father, and we know this isn't true.

I certainly understand what you're trying to say here, Kayanne, but it doesn't seem to capture the reality of the whole situation. Or is this a difference between Catholic & Baptist theology?

 

[Iollain]

This is a very enlightening thread. I've been thinking, are the sins from the fathers because Adam knew he was sinning and Eve was fooled?
1 Timothy 2:14
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.