Virgin Birth - Original Sin (Christ)

[Joan]

It seems to me that if Mary was merely used as a surrogate mother and not biologically related to Jesus, He would not be God-man, but instead, God-looking-like-man; not flesh, but a Theophany. Yet we know that every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God, but an antichrist (1 John 4:3; 2 John 1:7).

If the “flesh” component was missing there would have been nothing about Jesus that could have been tempted, “for God cannot be tempted by evil…” (James 1:13). Hebrews 2:17 says that in all things He was made like His brethren, and Hebrews 4:15 insists that He was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. To be tempted, one must have the capacity to act on the temptation. A silly example:I lack the capacity to float about weightlessly, and because it is not something I can do, I have never been tempted to do it. I cannot be tempted to do anything that is not in my power or capacity to perform. That Jesus was tempted to sin tells me He had the capacity to sin, even as we do.

That He was tempted to sin, yet did NOT sin, tells me He also had the capacity to resist temptation to sin. The man-Jesus could be tempted. The God-Jesus could resist. But how? By what power? I always thought that He emptied Himself of deity, that He resisted temptation not by His own strength, but by the power of the Holy Spirit. But I must be missing something because if that is so, by what power did He resist temptation during the 30 years prior to the falling of the Holy Spirit upon Him?

If we are given the Holy Spirit and He dwells within us from the moment of rebirth, yet may not experience the baptism (or filling) of the Spirit until days, months, or even years later, could it be that Jesus' experience was similar in that perhaps as a Son of God he might have had the Spirit from conception in a way that parallels what is given us when we first become Christians, and later received what would be the equivalent of the baptism of the Holy Spirit?
As I consider these questions I find my theology vague and unformed – that is, uninformed. Thank you for a thought-provoking discussion, Brothers!

[Joan]

Apart from the miraculous confirmation of deity, the traditional reason for the virgin birth is said to be to avoid Christ having been "tainted" by "original sin." However, if that simply implies an inherited "tendency" to sin (as I believe), why would that necessitate this? We assume that being born only of Mary would result in one without such taint, but why do we think this is so? Wouldn't He have a "lesser" humanity if He lacked such tendency? I would find it less remarkable that Christ was actually without sin and also don't see how He could be said to have been tempted in all points as I have been if He lacked the broken tendency of mankind resulting from the Fall.

Am I missing something?

I was taught as a child that Jesus was born of a virgin in order to prevent His having been tainted by her original sin, but I was raised Catholic. Do evangelicals believe the same thing? I don’t think it’s a logical teaching, because Mary would have been tainted by her mother’s original sin. In order for Mary to be untainted, Mary’s mama needed to be a virgin, as well. But wait! If Mary’s mother was not born of a virgin, she would have been tainted by Mary’s non-virgin grandmother and would have passed the taint to Mary, who would then have passed it to Jesus. For Jesus to be untainted by non-virginity would have required that his parentage be pure and untainted all the way to the source. He could not have been born from the line of Adam and Eve. It seems to me the primary reason for Jesus’ virgin birth was to establish the fact that He was the Son of God, not of a man. He was both true man from true man (through Mary) and true God from true God (His Father). That would be called into doubt if there was any chance of His having had a biological father. I'm sure there is more to it. I have a tendency to oversimplify. The Lord's ways are complex, past finding out!

[Perry]

Joan,
There's something I'm not following here... are you suggesting that because Mary was a virgin she was without sin at the time Christ was begotten, or are you suggesting that there was no way for her have lost her virginity without sinning? (Probably neither, and I'm just missing something.)

[Joan]

Neither. I was taught that the purpose of the virgin birth was to insulate Jesus from "Original Sin," but I don't believe it now. I'm probably doing it awkwardly but my point is that when I think it through, I find the teaching illogical. Thanks for asking!

[Joan]

I must apologize. I missed seeing that there are 6 pages of discussion here; I responded only to the first. Perry, your question calls me back to see the hurried carelessness of my answer – especially in light of the careful discussion I missed seeing the first time. What I wanted to say has already been said and said well. I hope I haven’t offended anyone. Please carry on as though I’d never barged in!

[benstenson]

I was raised Catholic. I think the doctrine of the "Immaculate Conception" refers to Mary's mother conceiving Mary without the inherited sinfulness stuff. So Mary didn't have it to pass on to Jesus...Original Sin is such a silly idea! The theory is an injection of gnostic belief (sinful flesh) into Christian doctrine.

[BrotherAlan]

Ben, with all do respect, my friend, I'm gonna have to disagree with you on this one! I don't see the doctrine of Original Sin being "tainted" with some sort of "Gnostic" bent. The doctrine of Original Sin does not imply any inherent evil in matter. Rather, the doctrine asserts that man comes into this world deprived of God's sanctifying grace (which grace Adam and Eve did possess, before the Fall), and so this grace needs to be restored to souls (through an infusion of grace by the Holy Spirit). Further, the doctrine recognizes that, since the Fall of Adam and Eve, there has been something drastically wrong in the common human condition-- that is, though all of us are created good and are meant to be with God, nevertheless, we also have real inclination to sin. There is a lack of "integrity", as they say, between the body and the soul. It is not that the body is bad; rather, both body and soul are naturally good, but, unfortunately, they just don't seem to "work well together"! (It takes much grace and effort to make them "work well together"!) I believe those are the main points of the doctrine of Original Sin; and neither of them say that the body is bad (in fact, the assumption is that the body is good, which is why we need to explain why we often fall into the evil of sin with a body that is good).

So, anyways, that's my "takes" on all that....Peace!

-Alan

[benstenson]

It's more important that it is false rather than that it is similar to and evidently derived from a gnostic world-view. But despite subtle differences both systems obscure the difference between the voluntary and the involuntary when it comes to moral quality. Using the word "inclination" is evidence of this. Does inclination mean a desire/temptation (involuntary) or a determination/intention (voluntary)? Or does it just mean a statistical fact which most people mistakingly think implies inevitability (involuntary)?

Different people mean a lot of different and often vague things when they say original sin. If people are calling temptation "Original Sin" then I only disagree with the term which is not so big a deal. But if people believe sin is inevitable as a human being (and they do) then this needs to be refuted! Sin can never be inevitable because God only presently requires whatever we are presently able to do.

The inevitability of human sinfulness is common to gnosticism and the original sin idea (in general). I know this is not exactly the topic of this thread. Though I'm sure whether sin is avoidable or not is at least somewhat relevant. We could always start a new thread though if you want to discuss it?

[BrotherAlan]

I agree with a number of your points, Ben. But, I want to also make some distinctions here, which will hopefully help elucidate this matter.

The first distinction is between the nature of man, as such; and man's nature, as fallen/broken (a quality of our nature). Man's nature, as such, is good, for it is created by God, and has an inclination towards God (that is, man's purpose/end is to know, love, and serve God). But, man's nature, as fallen, has a tendency to fall away from God (for, fallen man's faculties are definitely damaged, though not altogether destroyed; man's intellect is darkened, man's will is weakened, his passions tend to do whatever they please, regardless of whether it's rational or not!, etc.). This state of fallen man to be inclined towards sin is what is known as Original Sin (thus, it is a state, or condition in man; a quality in man, perhaps we could say; thus, to answer your question Ben, Original Sin is not voluntary; rather, it is a condition or quality found in the nature of fallen man. Actual sin is voluntary, but Original Sin is not. "Sin" is used analogously in these cases-- that is, there are similar, but not identical, meanings of "sin" being used).

An analogy on the level of man-made things may help to illustrate this point. Consider a car, made by man. Now, a car is, "by its nature", as a car, a good thing: it's created for a good purpose (to get from point A to point B), and is inclined to achieve this good end. But, if a car has some problems with its engine, then it will be inclined to fall away from its end (and will need some help in order to fix it). Man is like that car; in himself, he is good (again, created by God, and, by nature, inclined towards a good end). But, since the Fall of our First Parents, he has this inclination towards sin, away from his natural end. The doctrine of Original Sin is simply recognizing that man is in this state (i.e., good by nature, but now having a quality in his being of being inclined towards sin).

Another distinction we need to make is between that which is necessary, and that which is certain. A thing is said to be necessary when it can not be otherwise (eg., it is necessary for fire to cause smoke). A thing is said to be certain when it IN FACT is (or will be) (eg., while I am sitting on a chair, it is certain that I am sitting in that chair; it is not necessary that I be sitting on the chair, for I could have chosen to be standing). Or, to see the distinction between necessary and certainty, consider the fact that God will CERTAINLY give mercy to the contrite of heart; but He does not do this of necessity (for, God is free in giving mercy).

Now, applying this to the discussion on Original Sin, we must say that man always remains free; so, his free choices are not necessary (for something that is freely chosen is not necessary). So, it is never necessary that man sin (so Calvin is wrong). On the other hand, without the grace of God, it is certain-- but not necessary-- that man will fall into sin (eventually). Man's will remains free, but in order to freely choose well, man needs God's grace; else he will certainly fall into sin (so Pelagius is wrong)....but, again, such sin is not necessary (so, again, Calvin is wrong).

The truth is in the "middle ground" between these: man remains free, his free actions are not done out of necessity, and God does not command the impossible; but, without God's grace, man will certainly, but not of necessity, fall into sin. So man needs God's grace to fulfill the commandments (so, Augustine, among others, is correct, for he found this middle ground).

This is what the Scriptures teach. With regard to the existence of our free-will, and the lack of necessity of sin, Scripture says, "As I live, says the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways; for why will you die, O house of Israel?" (Ezek. 33:11). And, with regard to man's need for grace, we have Christ's own words, "Without me, you can do nothing." (John 15:5) And, Paul's words, "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure." And somewhat related to all this, with regard to the strength that man receives through Christ, we have Paul's words, "I can do all things in him (Christ) who strengthens me." (Phil. 4:13)

In Christ,
BrotherAlan

[benstenson]

If something is not necessary then it is possible it will be otherwise. If it is possible something will be otherwise, then it is possible it will be otherwise than my prediction.

A conclusion about the future is only logically necessary when the nature of the reality being considered is itself necessitated. Just as premises must accurately reflect reality, so must the logical necessity of a conclusion accurately reflect the reality being predicted. If the future is not necessitated then neither is the prediction. It is impossible to logically conclude that sin is inevitable.

We are capable of falling away from God, but our nature, our involuntary attributes, can not fall away from God. For example, our faculty of passion or desire was deliberately created to be amoral and unthinking. Our sensibility was never meant to think rationally or make rational decisions. It never had those abilities. That is why we have an intellect and a will. We have the power to submit our will to our sensibility (selfishness/carnality) or to our intelligence (benevolence/sanity).

We are only obligated to love with whatever faculties, power, ability, strength we presently have. If our faculties have been damaged then our obligation has been reduced accordingly. If our faculties have been completely taken away then so has our obligation.

Obligation only has respect to the will. Where there is no will, no power over self, there is no obligation. If a creature is emptied of freedom then it is also emptied of obligation. And where there is no obligation there can be no sin.

If Original Sin just means damaged faculties, but Original Sin does not necessitate transgression of the law, then damaged faculties do not necessitate transgression of the law.

I agree with that. Being crippled is no crime. Being mentally retarded is no crime.

But if damaged faculties do not necessitate sin, then what is the connection between saying our faculties are damaged and saying that sin is inevitable? What would the relationship be? Two unrelated facts?

If sin is not necessitated then there is no reason for it to be inevitable. So if I asked "Why is sin inevitable?" there could be no answer, because the answer would be the reason - and if not the reason then no answer at all. But there is no reason for sin, and therefore no reason sin would be inevitable.