Are Men Born Sinners? - Library of Theology

e touched with the feelings of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we
are, yet without sin." "For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all one:
for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren." Heb. 2:17, 4:15, 2:11.
It is a serious error to deny the deity of Christ. One cannot be a Christian and deny his
deity. John taught that it is equally serious to deny the humanity of Christ. "Every spirit
that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: and every spirit that
confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God." I John 4:2, 3. "Many
deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the
flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. II John 7.
The doctrine of Christ's human nature is fully attested in the Bible. Nevertheless, because
of their belief that men are born sinners and that human nature or the flesh is inherently
sinful, the defenders of the doctrine of original sin must deny in some way or another the
real humanity of Christ and that he came in human flesh like other men. Phil. 2:6-8, I
Tim. 3:16, Gal. 4:4, John 1:14, I John 4:2-3, II John 7.
Augustine did this by teaching that sin is transmitted through the lust of procreation so
that since Jesus was born of a virgin, he was not born through lust and therefore was not
born with the same sinful nature as other men. Harnack says:
The extremely disgusting disquisitions on marriage and lust in the polemical writings
against Julian are, as the latter rightly perceived, hardly independent of Augustine's
Manichaeism...And the disquisitions are by no means a mere outwork in Augustine's
system; they belong to its very center...Children possess original sin, because their
parents have procreated them in lust and by this proposition stands or falls the doctrine of
original sin. So also Christ has sinlessness attributed to him because he has not been born
of marriage, and Augustine imagined paradisaical marriages in which children were
begotten without lust, or, as Julian says jestingly, were to be shaken from trees.
This idea of Augustine that lust in procreation transmits sin contradicts the whole spirit of
the Scriptures on marriage and the bearing of children. Moreover, the Bible nowhere
teaches that the virgin birth of Jesus was to keep him from being born with original sin.
The Bible teaches that there was one, and only one, reason for the virgin birth of our
Lord. It was so that God could take on human nature, become a man, and dwell among
us. Luke 1: 31-35, John 1:14, Gal. 4:4, Matt. 1:1. The reason for the virgin birth is made
plain in Luke 1:31-35. This passage gives no hint that the reason for the virgin birth was
to keep Jesus free from original sin; what it does tell us is that the reason was so that
God's Son could be born.
But we have already seen the Scriptures in Hebrews which show that Christ took upon
himself our human nature (Heb. 2:14), that he was in all things made like his brethren
(Heb. 2:17), that he that sanctifies and they who are sanctified are all of one (Heb. 2:11),
and that he was tempted like we are in all points (Heb. 4:15), yet without sin. Could it
really be true that he was tempted in all points like we are if he did not have the same
nature as we? And is it not true that the word "yet" in the statement "yet without sin"