Posted on 09/14/2002 11:27:48 AM PDT by Itsfreewill
My friend and I stood looking down at his tiny newborn baby, lying contentedly in his crib. "Of course," said my friend, "our little Tommy is a sinner."
These words were a continuation of the doctrine my friend had taught earlier in his Sunday school class: a doctrine that is accepted as orthodoxy almost universally in our churches, the doctrine that all of humanity sinned in Adam when he ate the forbidden fruit, that Adam's sin, its guilt, and its curse were imputed to all his descendants, and that all of his descendants are now born with an Adamic sin nature which makes sin unavoidable and makes us "by nature the children of wrath."
What makes this incredible doctrine believable is the fact that there are verses in the Bible which seem to teach it. Psalm 51:5 comes immediately to the mind of the Christian who has been taught to believe in the doctrine of original sin: "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." This settles it for the Christian. If the Bible says we were "shapen in iniquity" and "conceived in sin," then it has to be so.
And the above text would teach that men are born sinners if it were meant to be taken literally. But the language of this text is not literal, it is figurative. Both context and reality demand a figurative interpretation of this text.
For example, let's compare Psalm 51:5 with Job 1:21, which says: "Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither." If Psalm 51:5 can be interpreted literally to teach the doctrine that David and all other men are born sinners, then Job 1:21 can be interpreted literally to teach the doctrine that Job and all other men will some day go back into their mother's womb.
Neither Psalm 51:5 nor Job 1:21 is to be understood literally. They are both figurative expressions. Both context and our knowledge of reality demand a figurative interpretation of these two texts.
David uses figurative language throughout his Psalms. In fact, in the 51st Psalm, verses five, seven, and eight are all figurative expressions. So if verse five can be made to teach that men are born sinners, then verse seven can be made to teach that hyssop cleanses us from sin when it says, "Purge me with hyssop and I shall be clean." Also, verse eight can be made to teach the doctrine that God breaks the Christian's bones when he sins, and that his broken bones rejoice when he is forgiven "Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice." Another of David's Psalms, Psalm 58:3, can be made to teach the astonishing doctrine that babies speak from the very moment they are born: "The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies."
But who would seriously teach from this last text that babies actually do speak as soon as they are born? None of these passages is meant to be understood in a literal sense. They are all figurative expressions. If they were understood literally, they would all teach what we know to be contrary to reality; for reality teaches us that bones don't rejoice, hyssop doesn't purge sin, babies don't speak as soon as they leave the womb, and an unborn child is not morally depraved.
The same rules of interpretation that would permit Psalm 51:5 to teach that babies are born sinners, would, if applied to these passages (or if applied to many other passages in the Bible), allow for every kind of perversion and wild interpretation of God's Word. Look again at the words of Job 1:21: "Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither." Did Job, by these words, mean to teach that he and all other men would some day go back into their mother's womb? We know that such a meaning is absurd. But it is just as reasonable to give to Job 1:21 the nonsensical meaning that Job and all other men will some day go back into their mother's womb, as it is to give to Psalm 51:5 the nonsensical meaning that David and all other men are born sinners. David was not teaching in this passage that he was born a sinner. He instead was confessing to God the awful guilt and sinfulness of his heart, and he cried out to God in strong language the language of figure and symbol to express that awful guilt and sinfulness.
But if David intended to affirm that he was literally "shapen in iniquity and conceived in sin," then he affirmed absolute nonsense, and he charged his Creator with making him a sinner; for David knew that God was his Maker:
Thy hands have made me and fashioned me. Psalm 119:73
You made all the delicate, inner parts of my body, and knit them together in my mother's womb. Psalm 139:13 (Living Bible)
Know ye that the Lord he is God: It is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves. Psalm 100:3
Are we to understand from these passages that God fashions men into sinners in their mother's womb? No, we know that God does not create sinners. Yet, upon the supposition that Psalm 51:5 teaches that men are born sinners, these texts could teach nothing else. Who cannot see that the doctrine that men are born sinners charges God with creating sinners? It represents man as being formed a sinner in his mother's womb, when the Bible clearly teaches that God forms man in his mother's womb. It represents man as coming into this world a sinner, when the Bible clearly teaches that God creates all men. It may be objected that God created only Adam and Eve, and that the rest of mankind descended from them by natural generation. But this objection does not relieve the doctrine of an inherited sin nature of its slander and libel of the character of God. For if man has a sinful nature at birth, who is it who established the laws of procreation under which he would be born with that nature? God, of course. There is no escaping the logical inference that is implicit in the doctrine of an inherited sin nature. It is a blasphemous and slanderous libel on the character of God.
But one might as well reject the Bible out of hand, if he does not want to recognize that God is the Creator of all men. For the fact that God is the Creator of all men is one of the clearest truths taught in the Bible.
Thy hands have made me and fashioned me. Psalm 119:73
Thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee: for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Psalm 139:13, 14
Did not he that made me in the womb make him? and did not one fashion us in the womb? Job 31:15
Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee. Jer. 1:5
Have we not all one father? Hath not one God created us? Mal. 2:10
Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth. Eccl. 12:1
Know ye that the Lord he is God; it is he that hath made us and not we ourselves. Psalm 100:3
I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth...for it repenteth me that I have made them. Gen. 6:7
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...So God created man in his image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Gen. 1:26,27
Ye are gods; and all of you are the children of the most High. Psalm 82:6
For in the image of God made he man. Gen. 9:6
Man is the image and glory of God. I Cor. 11:7
Men are made after the similitude of God. James 3:9
The Lord formeth the spirit of man within him. Zech. 12:1
The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life. Job 33:4
He giveth to all life, and breath, and all things. Acts 17:25
We are the offspring of God. Acts 17:29
I am the root and the offspring of David. Rev. 22:16
Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions. Eccl. 7:29
This last text not only declares that God has created man, but it also affirms that God created man upright. If man is created upright, he cannot be born a sinner; and if he is born a sinner, he cannot be created upright. Either one or the other may be true, but they cannot both be true for the two are contradictories.
But when God says he "created us in his image, and gave us life and breath and all things," are we to understand that he created us as sinners? When he says, "We are his offspring," are we to understand that his offspring are born sinners? When Jesus said, "I am the root and the offspring of David," are we to understand that David sprang forth from the root Christ Jesus with a sinful nature? Or, are we to understand that Jesus, as the offspring of David, was born with a sinful nature? The very fact that Jesus was a man, descended from Adam, and born with a human nature as we are, shows that men are not born with a sinful nature. I John 4:3, II John 7, Heb. 2:14, Heb. 2:16-18, Heb. 4:15, Rom. 1:3, Matt. 1:1, Luke 3:38.
The doctrine of original sin is false: it slanders and libels the character of God, it shocks man's god-given consciousness of justice, and it flies in the face of the plainest teachings of God's holy Word. The doctrine of original sin is not a Bible doctrine. It is a grotesque myth that contradicts the Bible on almost every page. But because good Christians can quote texts from the Bible to "prove" the doctrine of original sin, they are convinced it is true. But good Christians have rejected truth and clung to error in the name of the Bible before.
For instance, Galileo and Copernicus brought to the church the truth that the earth was not the center of the universe, that the sun did not go around the earth but that the earth went around the sun and that the earth rotated on its axis, giving the illusion that the sun was going around the earth.
We all know this to be true now, but did all good Christians believe it then? No, both John Calvin and Martin Luther clung, along with the church, to the error that the earth was the center of the universe, that the sun went around the earth and that the earth stood still.
"Martin Luther called Copernicus 'an upstart astrologer' and a 'fool who wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy.' Calvin thundered: 'Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit? Do not the Scriptures say that Joshua commanded the sun and not the earth to stand still? That the sun runs from one end of the heavens to the other?'"
Both Calvin and Luther were good, well-meaning men, but they still clung to their false views because they could quote Scripture texts to support them. Likewise, there are good, well-meaning Christians today who also erroneously cling to the doctrine of original sin because they can quote texts from the Bible to "prove" it.
It is these texts, that have been taken out of context and misinterpreted to support this false doctrine, that we will examine in the next chapter.
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. Psalm 51:5
The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. Psalm 58:3
And were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. Eph. 2:3
Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one. Job 14:4
What is man that he should be clean, and he that is born of a woman, that he should be righteous? Job 15:14
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned...Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Rom. 5:12, 18, 19
Hank
That's right. It can be deliberated all day long but in the end God is more merciful and just than we can imagine as mere humans.
Btw, we don't accept the concept of original sin. I thought it was only an RC thing?
Wow, great post!! Also the thing about sin being contrary to human nature--- absolutely!!!
More good words....agreed!!
Tell me more about Augustine?
It is a doctrinal belief for almost all Christianity..what there is disagreement on is the effect of it and the way there is regeneration...
Conclusion
I think I know what some are thinking! First of all, you are saying, "It is not right that something Adam has done before I was born should affect my eternal lot." Well, really it does not, for you may turn in repentance and faith to the Last Adam, Jesus Christ, and be saved eternally.
Actually, if one reflects upon the divine scheme here, he will soon come to the conviction that it is the best possible method of saving men and women. If the testing, or probation, of man were individual, then most of us admit we would have fallen. We would not have had the fact of being the representative for all of our posterity as a check on us to prevent us from easily falling. The representation by Adam makes it possible for the principle to be operative in the case of Christ. He may become our Representative in our salvation. The angels sinned individually, and they have no representative for salvation. I must confess that I like the principle of representation. We fell through no personal fault of our own; we rise through no personal merit of our own. When a father strikes oil, the children get rich. And we have hit a gusher in the Last Adam!
Yes in that we were made in God's image. We suffer from the consequences of the division incurred as a result of original sin, but we do not bear the guilt.
We were not that heavily influenced by Augustine, if at all. We see him as a western saint.
Here is a blurb from The Orthodox Church -
"The image of God is distorted by sin but never destroyed...and because we still retain the image of God we still retain free will, although sin restricts its scope....Orthodoxy repudiates any interpretation of the fall which allows no room for human freedom....
"But although Orthodox maintain that humans after the fall still posessed free will and were still capable of good actions, they agree with the west in believing that sin had set up a barrier which humanity by its own efforts could never break down. Sin blocked the path to union with God. Since we could not come to God, He came to us."
Malachi 3:3 says: "He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver."
This verse puzzled some women in a Bible study and they wondered what this statement meant about the character and nature of God. One of the women offered to find out the process of refining silver and get back to the group at their next Bible Study.
That week, the woman called a silversmith and made an appointment to watch him at work. She didn't mention anything about the reason for her interest beyond her curiosity about the process of refining silver.
As she watched the silversmith, he held a piece of silver over the fire and let it heat up. He explained that in refining silver, one needed to hold the silver in the middle of the fire where the flames were hottest as to burn away all the impurities.
The woman thought about God holding us in such a hot spot then she thought again about the verse that says: "He sits as a refiner and purifier of silver." She asked the silversmith if it was true that he had to sit there in front of the fire the whole time the silver was being refined.
The man answered that yes, he not only had to sit there holding the silver, but he had to keep his eyes on the silver the entire time it was in the fire. If the silver was left a moment too long in the flames, it would be destroyed.
The woman was silent for a moment. Then she asked the silversmith, "How do you know when the silver is fully refined?" He smiled at her and answered, "Oh, that's easy - when I see my image in it."
I can find myself having repented my sins, desiring to remain holy and faithful to Him in ALL things, even in fasting and prayer, and yet out of the blue I find myself allowing even a minutia of an enormous sin into myself.
I can even repeat this effort and find the sin to reeappear, perhaps as another type of sin.
And what if I am successful at resisting sin over a period of practice? Am I then to claim I have become more holy because of my own good works or efforts in practice? We are not saved by our works lest any man should boast, yet I still am cognizant that after a period of being holy, I will find myself to have sinned again.
The best way I can describe my predicament is that even though I have placed faith in Him, and struggle to resist temptation successfully, I still bumble onto cognition that I later have sinned.
Trutfully, I must admit, that my character might indeed seek to remain in Him, yet I still possess a character, quite discernable from Christ, wherein I have some sort of tendancy to sin, or if you will, a nature. A nature to sin is a very nice concise manner to describe this miserable predicament I find myself. I grant that my only salvation from that predicament is first through my Lord and Savior Christ, Jesus, and secondly I look forward to that day when our hearts and minds are rewritten to follow His will.
In a nutshell, I'm not offended when the old sin nature is mentioned, because I've found the observation to be very true. Only through Him by His plan are we able to resist the temptation completely, by His will.
Ahhhh but are we ??? Something VERY serious happened it Eden..it was not a bump in the road...Adam was created in the image of God...but what does scripture say of us??
Gen 5:3And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat [a son] in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
Notice the children of Adam (us) were made not after the image of the Father from that day forward we were after the image of man .
Man had fallen..man had lost his innocence, man was seperated from God and unable to do ANYTHING pleasing to God ...and so scripture asks us
Job 14:4 Who can bring a clean [thing] out of an unclean? not one.
David knew
Psa 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Look to see Adams reaction to God after he sinned...
Gen 3:8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
Gen 3:9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where [art] thou?
Gen 3:10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I [was] naked; and I hid myself.
Adam ,that had walked with God in the garden..that had PERFECT fellowship with Him now hid from God...Man has hid from God from that time forward.....man is out of relationship with God..that is the effect of the original sin.
All men now run from God, men love sin and run from God
Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
Rom 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Jesus put it very plainly
Jhn 8:44 Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
If it were not so..if we did not need to have that relationship restored we would not have needed a savior
....Christ had to come to reconcile us back to the Father...we needed to be born again ,we needed a new heart ..
Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
Eph 2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition [between us];
Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, [even] the law of commandments [contained] in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, [so] making peace;
Eph 2:16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
Eph 2:17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
Eph 2:18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
Eph 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
The word impute means to ascribe or attribute a characteristic or quality to something or someone. If I impute hate to someone, I mean they hate or are hateful. To impute righteousness to someone is to say they are righteous.
[Merriam Webster's Collegiate® Dictionary, 10th Edition
2 : to credit to a person or a cause : ATTRIBUTE ... synonym see ASCRIBE
The Wordsmyth English Dictionary-Thesaurus
Definition 1. to ascribe or attribute to a source or cause.
Crossref. Syn. attribute , accredit , lay , ascribe
Definition 2. to credit or discredit someone with.
Example I don't impute any low motives for his behavior.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language
1. To relate to a particular cause or source; attribute the fault or responsibility to: imputed the rocket failure to a faulty gasket; kindly imputed my clumsiness to inexperience. 2. To assign as a characteristic; credit: the gracefulness so often imputed to cats. See synonyms at attribute.]
The word impute, with one exception, is never used to ascribe what is not true to someone or something. The one exception is when one imputes something to someone in an attempt to impune their motives or integrity. Not even the theologians would attribute this use of the word to God. When God imputes something to someone, it is true, if it were not, it would be a lie.
But theologians have made God a liar, not once, but three times. First they accuse God of imputing one person's sin to someone else. God hates this very idea, and condemns those who make this kind of false imputation themselves and condemns those who accuse God of this heinous lie.
Eze 18:2-32 What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge? As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel. Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die. ... Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? [Adam] When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. ... Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal? When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die. Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive. ... Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin. Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.
Not content to simply accuse God of lying and attributing the sin of Adam to all men, they argue with God that since sin is the cause of death and all die, it must be because they are guilty of Adam's sin. But God plainly says, "the soul that sinneth, it shall die." As if this were not clear enough, it is made clear, that though death came into the world through Adam as a result of his sin, every man, nevertheless, dies because they are guilty of their own sin, "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." ( Ro 5:12 )
The second lie the theologians accuse God of is attributing sin to Christ. There is not one verse of Scripture that says God ever imputed, that is, attributed sin to Christ. Everywhere, always, God only attriubutes sinless perfection to Christ. In the one verse that is used to imply sin was imputed to Christ, it clearly indicates sin is not imputed to Him, but that he suffered the same consequences a sinner would suffer, just as if sin were imputed to him, but, the verse emphasizes, He knew no sin, by imputation or in any other way. "Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." (2 Co 5:20-21)
The very language of this verse indicates the rhetorical nature of the phrase, "he hath made him to be sin," for no one believes Jesus was turned into sin the way the frog was turned into a prince. If we take it "literally" that is what it would have to mean. But no one takes it literally, not even those theologians who attempt to use this verse to indicate God imputed man's sin to Christ.
The verse means the very same thing as, "all we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all," ( Isa. 53:6 ) and "who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed." (1 Pet. 2:24) Again the metaphorical meaning is obvious. Sins are not things, they do not have weight. What Jesus bore was the penalty of the sins we should have borne, and would have borne, except that, "in due time, Christ died for" us.
At this point we must remind ourselves what imputation means. It means ascribing something to someone. It means to say a certain thing is true of someone. It NEVER means to say something is true of someone, which really isn't true. Since we know Jesus knew no sin, if God imputed sin to Jesus, He would have been saying, Jesus is a sinner, which we know is not true.
Finally, the theologians accuse God of lying about righteousness. Specifically, they say God imputes Christ's righteousness to sinners. There is not a single verse of Scripture that says Christ's righteousness has been attributed or imputed to anyone else. Not only would this violate the principle which God has already so eloquently outlined in Ezekiel 18, but would be a lie. God never calls that which is not righteous as though it were righteous.
Notice, it says, "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." It does not say that we might be made as "if righteous."
The Bible definitely says that God imputes righteousness, but it never says that God imputes Christ's righteousness to anyone. The words impute, imputed, imputing, appear in the New Testament a total of nine times. It will only take a moment to examine those examples to determine exactly what God does impute.
Ro 4:5-8 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
Ro 4:9-11 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
Ro 4:19-25 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara's womb: He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.
Rom 5:13 For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
2 Cor 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
Jas 2:21-23 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
Two more things must be said about these false teachings regarding imputation. This phrase in Rom. 4:9 "faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness," and this one in James 2:23, "Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness," are both treated by the theologians as though they meant, "faith was reckoned to Abraham as though it were righteousness," and "Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness even though it wasn't.
God never calls that righteousness which is not righteousness, and God never calls that sin which is not sin, which is flatly condemned in Scripture. Isa 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
If God reckons faith for righteousness it is not "as if" it were righteousness. God reckons faith to be righteousness, because it is righteousness.
Finally, the theologian's use of the word impute is a complete misuse of the word. No aspect or quality of one person is ever imputed to another. There is no such use of this word anywhere, especially in Scripture. The theologians use this word to imply some kind of transfer of sin or righteousness from one person to another. The word impute is never used in this way. There is no way to use this word to imply a transfer of anything, and can never have this meaning.
The so-called, "doctrine of imputation," is an entirely man-made doctrine that accuses God of injustice, contradicts the Word of God, and insults the intelligence of just men. There is no more a "doctine of imputation" than there is a, "doctrine of abhorrence," because the word abhor is used in the Bible, or a "doctrine of rememberence," because various forms of the word remember are used in the Bible. The words impute, reckon, call, and find, for example, all mean the same thing when used to indicate the attributing of a quality or characteristic to someone, and nothing more.
Hank
====
HANK: The very language of this verse indicates the rhetorical nature of the phrase, "he hath made him to be sin," for no one believes Jesus was turned into sin the way the frog was turned into a prince. If we take it "literally" that is what it would have to mean. But no one takes it literally, not even those theologians who attempt to use this verse to indicate God imputed man's sin to Christ.
Drstevej: God literally charges our sin to Jesus who bears the legal penalty. God literally charges the righteousness of Christ to us which alone meets God's standard.
Hank are you or anyone righteous enough (apart from any imputed righteousness) to meet God's standard?
Yes Jesus had a different nature than Adam.
I did not ask about the relationship of Jesus nature to Adam's because it is problematic. Adam could have had two different natures according to Calvinists and other Augustinians, before and after the fall.
Jesus was fully man, and also fully God.
Amen!
Adam was fully man, but not God at all.
Ah, well, yeah, but, what's the point?
Jesus did not sin, nor did He have sin in His heart.
I see you missed the entire point of my question.
The question is only about Jesus Human nature (you did say "Jesus was fully man, and also fully God.") My question is about the "fully man," aspect only. Was Jesus human nature different than any other man's human nature, such as Paul's, or the writer of Hebrews, or yours, or mine?
Hank
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.