 | | Exclusively Christian Theology This forum is exclusively for those who consider themselves Christian and consider the Bible to be the inspired word of God. | | Over 3000 post club
Posts: 3,612 Posts Per Day: 32.66 Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Portland, OR Rep Power: 5871 Christian More right than left Slogan/motto:
With Oatmeal in my bowl, is Jesus in your soul?
Reputation:
| March 4th, 2011, 02:03 PM Quote: Originally Posted by graceandpeace  amen..was Jesus God? | What would happen if Jesus was just a man of clay?
| | |
|   | | Over 3000 post club
Posts: 3,612 Posts Per Day: 32.66 Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Portland, OR Rep Power: 5871 Christian More right than left Slogan/motto:
With Oatmeal in my bowl, is Jesus in your soul?
Reputation:
| March 4th, 2011, 02:19 PM Quote: Originally Posted by Colossians Jesus can't sin, but if Jesus could have, then Jesus still wouldn't have. Yes this is true also. Allow me to conclude further though: Jesus couldn’t have sinned because He wouldn’t have sinned. That is, His couldn’t was a product of His wouldn’t, which is to say His inability to sin was a product of His will. And then we must add that His will was a product of Who He was. | True. Jesus can't sin because He won't. He chooses not to sin. But the ability to sin is not exactly sin, itself. Jesus really can sin, hypothetically speaking. But Jesus will never and has never sinned. Because if there's no ability to sin then there is therefore no ability to not sin. Slavery is not good. If you can't sin then you are forced to not sin. And that in and of itself is not so good. Jesus is God. As the trinity, they could have sinned. Doing so would destroy the universe, if you've ever seen the film Dogma. But the trinity chose, before the dawn of time, in eternity past, outside of time, that they (being God) were never going to sin, ever, period. That may mean that they had the ability to sin, that freedom to choose, and yet chose the better way, because God is not sin. Because God is not sin, God chose not to ever sin. God had the freedom not sin but was never going to choose it, ever. You may say that God no longer can sin because God chooses not to sin. You may also say that God never ever could have sinned because God chose to not sinned from eternity past, which is beyond time and theory and measure and comprehension. In other words, if we made a time-line, we couldn't pin-point when God chose to not be sin and to not sin (and to also die for us to save us by being sins for us). So in other words, God's decision not to sin, from our perspective, is almost invisible. To us, it is as if God ever had the ability to sin. We may just choose to say that God never ever had the ability to sin. But it is on;y because God gave up that ability before eternity-past, so to speak. An eternity-past ago is too far back for us to even think about. But God did it. You can say that God can't sin because God can't sin right now. And because God is not sin, the choice to even choose sin, back in before eternity-past, was not even an option that God would even consider. But God still had the option to consider it. God just turned down the offer of sin, because God is love.
| | |
| | Over 1500 post club
Posts: 1,713 Posts Per Day: 2.13 Join Date: Jan 2009 Rep Power: 3273 Christian More left than right Slogan/motto:
empty
Reputation:
| March 4th, 2011, 02:36 PM Jesus began as a man and remains a man forever.
Jesus was never God.
Most do not truly believe, but instead make up their own ideas.
God will not honor unbelief.
A believer can not be like Christ in this life without true belief in what God says concerning His son and that revealed to them by the Holy Spirit of Heaven which is God.
We will see how most go when Psalm 91 and Rev 11 comes about, as to where each one will be.
Such pride in their own opinions, oh my.
If any have met the man then you would know who and what He is.
LA.
Jesus is a created being, the Messiah, Gods son through Mary, a man filled at His Baptism with the Spirit of the Almighty God, only as for a mortal man can be, until permanence in fulness at His resurrection and further glorification in His ascension to Gods Throne to reign as God. | | |
| | TOL Water Walker
Posts: 7,267 Posts Per Day: 8.89 Join Date: Dec 2008 Rep Power: 34479 Christian More right than left Slogan/motto:
All things are possible with God.
Reputation:
| March 4th, 2011, 11:53 PM Quote: Originally Posted by beloved57 andy:
Not experimentally, the elect are not yet experimentally intrinsically Holy, but they will be.. | If we are one Spirit with the Lord, our Spirit is as pure as God. Our new man was created according to God in true righteousness and holiness. We are admonished to put this new man on, which simply means "walk in the Spirit". Quote: | In Fact, not even Adam was, nor Satan before He sinned and His Angels.. | Adam was innocent, not righteous. He could not have been tempted with what he didn't morally understand.
Delight yourself in the LORD, And He shall give you the desires of your heart. . Psalms 37:4 | | |
| | | | Right
Posts: 17,293 Posts Per Day: 9.82 Join Date: May 2006 Rep Power: 285695 Christian Right Winger Slogan/motto:
If indeed you have heard of the Dispensation of Grace given to me for you...
Reputation:
| March 5th, 2011, 01:39 AM Quote: Originally Posted by graceandpeace This is the crux of the matter. We must interpret the bible with a few facts in mind. Most interpret the term, "Jesus was born under the law", as to mean that Jesus was subject to it; yet His word states very clearly that it was only made for sinners... | And you always seem to skip over the part that says he died in our place, and we are sinners. He kept it for us, the sinners. And you try and make being "born under the law" meaning something other that what it means. That means you are subject to it. Jesus at around the age of 30 was water baptised. Here is the exchange. Matthew 3
4 Now John himself was clothed in camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist; and his food was locusts and wild honey. 5 Then Jerusalem, all Judea, and all the region around the Jordan went out to him 6 and were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins
13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan to be baptized by him. 14 And John tried to prevent Him, saying, “I need to be baptized by You, and are You coming to me?”
15 But Jesus answered and said to him, “Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he allowed Him. He was water baptised to fulfill righteousness. Explain it.
| | |
| | | | Over 1500 post club
Posts: 1,713 Posts Per Day: 2.13 Join Date: Jan 2009 Rep Power: 3273 Christian More left than right Slogan/motto:
empty
Reputation:
| March 5th, 2011, 02:09 AM Quote: Originally Posted by Nick M And you always seem to skip over the part that says he died in our place, and we are sinners. He kept it for us, the sinners.
And you try and make being "born under the law" meaning something other that what it means. That means you are subject to it. Jesus at around the age of 30 was water baptised.
Here is the exchange.
Matthew 3
4 Now John himself was clothed in camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist; and his food was locusts and wild honey. 5 Then Jerusalem, all Judea, and all the region around the Jordan went out to him 6 and were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins
13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan to be baptized by him. 14 And John tried to prevent Him, saying, “I need to be baptized by You, and are You coming to me?”
15 But Jesus answered and said to him, “Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he allowed Him.
He was water baptised to fulfill righteousness. Explain it. | Well done. LA
Jesus is a created being, the Messiah, Gods son through Mary, a man filled at His Baptism with the Spirit of the Almighty God, only as for a mortal man can be, until permanence in fulness at His resurrection and further glorification in His ascension to Gods Throne to reign as God. | | |
| | | | Over 1500 post club
Posts: 1,515 Posts Per Day: 0.77 Join Date: Oct 2005 Rep Power: 3889 - Christian - Right Wing Zealot Slogan/motto:
Reputation:
| March 5th, 2011, 03:18 AM Andyc,
We are just as holy in Christ, and yet we still sin
Our old man sins. The New Man, which is Christ in us, does not sin.
So when John says “He that is born of God cannot sin”, He is speaking about Christ in us.
It is only by virtue of Christ's residence in us that we are holy.
If we are one Spirit with the Lord, our Spirit is as pure as God. Our new man was created according to God in true righteousness and holiness. We are admonished to put this new man on, which simply means "walk in the Spirit".
Yes but this is involuntary: it is only as the Lord causes it to be. Otherwise it is not of grace, but works.
Adam was innocent, not righteous. He could not have been tempted with what he didn't morally understand.
But Adam was in fact tempted. And the reason he was tempted was because he was not righteous.
Christ who was righteous, therefore could not be tempted, else what were the advantage of being righteous?
Manc,
You were quoting unrelated scriptures that supported your case
Given me one which was unrelated, and you and I shall have a little exchange on it.
Muzic,
Adam was the perfect human, created exactly as God desired. And Adam had the ability to sin.
And Christ was a different individual to Adam. The issue pivots on the individual, not the generic.
If Jesus is the second Adam come to take away the sin of the world by making the sacrifice of human life for us, then Jesus must have this ability, or he isn't 100% human.
This doesn’t follow, other than by reason of begging the question, which you are quite good at.
as he removes human capacity for real temptation from that nature. Even Adam and Eve were able to be tempted.
The capacity was there just like the capacity of a gasoline tank with no fuel in it.
And thus making Jesus not 100% human.
No...making Jesus filled with the Spirit rather than gasoline.
But here's a puzzle for you to mull over, which you simply have not thought about: If Christ had in fact gone ahead and sinned, what would have happened to the structure of the Godhead?
Since it didn't happen, we'll never know.
Oh you can go better than that. Come on, have a stab at it.
For unless you can show a possible effect (eg: “God ceases to be a Trinity”, or “God disappears”), your claim is a tree falling in a forest with no-one around to hear it.
Commensurately, given that all things in the universe were made by the Word who is Christ, would their "made by" tag have been amended?
Well, if you create a device that brings peace and joy to all mankind, and then turn into a rapist... does that change the device?
Now answer the question asked.
because Christ was fully human and walked in a sinful world, all the external temptations existed for Him as they do for us, and He experienced them.
He never considered the advantages of giving in to them – He never weighed up the pros vs the cons.
So no, He did not experience them as we do because He was never double-minded even for a micro-second, which is another way of saying that He was not enticed.
Your ‘theology’ is simply your imputing to Christ what you feel yourself: it is not theology, but presumption.
And you are illogical, for your idea would have us believe that Christ was the most sexually charged man to have ever lived, so that He would fully experience temptation to a degree at least as great as the most sexually charged man to have lived other than Himself.
Some men are simply not very sexual at all and yet they are not homosexuals: they could walk into a whorehouse and not be tempted. If this is so by reason of biology, why cannot it also be so by reason of the indwelling Spirit?
Do you not understand that when one is under the influence of the Holy Spirit that one is not even interested in the things of the flesh?
Do you think that at Pentecost those upon whom the Spirit fell would have been able to be enticed with sexual things at the same time?
What is the point of walking by the Spirit if it is just as hard work resisting as when you are not walking by the Spirit?
Goodness me man: you simply don’t think beyond your own temptations. God has called the believer to peace, not inner tumult. And it is the peace of Christ that He gives us.
But your whole basis is that you think Christ came to keep the law. He didn’t. He wasn’t even interested in the law. For “the law is not of faith”. And that one single wrong seed of knowledge, taints your whole view of things.
Joey Arnold,
Why is the ability or availability or possibility that Jesus can or could sin a bad thing?
Note a linguistic paradigm:
When we say “That man is detestable” we do not mean the man is able to be detested, but that he is detested.
When we say “That idea is laughable”, we do not mean we can laugh about it, but that we do laugh about it.
So God has constructed our language to mirror the fact that being “able” to do something imputes the achievement of it to us up front.
But what you have done is unwittingly create a false dichotomy of [sin] vs [ability to sin].
That is, [ability to sin] is undefined: it doesn’t mean anything, and cannot be evaluated unless it is populated with sin.
Accordingly, one does not become a sinner by sinning, but sins because one is a sinner.
Jesus can't sin because He won't.
And the fact that you know He definitely won’t, means He can’t.
Sin is product of the volition, and the volition is a product of who you are.
The singular characteristic which distinguishes between God and man, is that God’s volition is infallible. Otherwise He is not God at all, but just a spirit with a contingency as to whether he’ll make it in the long run.
| | |
| | | | TOL Water Walker
Posts: 7,267 Posts Per Day: 8.89 Join Date: Dec 2008 Rep Power: 34479 Christian More right than left Slogan/motto:
All things are possible with God.
Reputation:
| March 5th, 2011, 03:53 AM Quote: Originally Posted by Colossians Our old man sins. The New Man, which is Christ in us, does not sin.
So when John says “He that is born of God cannot sin”, He is speaking about Christ in us.
It is only by virtue of Christ's residence in us that we are holy. | The saint cannot justify sin. And so the John passage is talking about practicing sin. Quote: | Yes but this is involuntary: it is only as the Lord causes it to be. Otherwise it is not of grace, but works. | Works of faith as we appropriate God's grace. We must take God at his word that we are righteous in Christ, and act on it. This is an area where the Galatians struggled because people were distorting the gospel of grace. Quote: But Adam was in fact tempted. And the reason he was tempted was because he was not righteous.
Christ who was righteous, therefore could not be tempted, else what were the advantage of being righteous? | Temptation in and of itself is not sinful. When a person can morally discern the difference between good and evil, and they choose good, they choose righteousness. Jesus chose to do what is right all of the time, but it involved suffering on his part to deny his self will.
Delight yourself in the LORD, And He shall give you the desires of your heart. . Psalms 37:4 | | |
| | | | Over 1500 post club
Posts: 1,515 Posts Per Day: 0.77 Join Date: Oct 2005 Rep Power: 3889 - Christian - Right Wing Zealot Slogan/motto:
Reputation:
| March 5th, 2011, 04:29 AM AndyC,
Our old man sins. The New Man, which is Christ in us, does not sin. So when John says “He that is born of God cannot sin”, He is speaking about Christ in us. It is only by virtue of Christ's residence in us that we are holy.
The saint cannot justify sin. And so the John passage is talking about practicing sin.
The modern “practicing sin” interpretation (aside from the fact that such cannot be defined) is simply a rationale based on the infusion of another topic into the passage, as you have done here with “the saint cannot justify sin”.
John is not talking about degrees of sin, or what we think we experience, but speaking from a constitutional viewpoint, and from the law of first mention. To wit, He that is born of God is primarily the first born: Christ Himself.
It is not then talking about the whole Christian (spirit + flesh), for the flesh is not born again. It is only speaking of that which is born again, which, by definition, cannot sin.
So John is encouraging us with the doctrine of imputation: we are told that He that is born of God cannot sin, because God sees only Christ in us and not us ourselves.
The topic of justifying sin is not in focus here. That is more the issue of Rom 6.
Accordingly the KJV's "cannot sin" is correct. The KJV is always correct.
Works of faith as we appropriate God's grace.
But we appropriate grace, by grace. So your idea here suffers from circularity. The 39 questions thread covers this circularity problem in a number of questions.
But Adam was in fact tempted. And the reason he was tempted was because he was not righteous. Christ who was righteous, therefore could not be tempted, else what were the advantage of being righteous?
Temptation in and of itself is not sinful.
It is by extension, in that it is proof that the one affected by it is a sinner, for else there would be no temptation. For one's being tempted is evidenced in equivocation, and equivocation, is double-mindedness, and double-mindedness, is sin.
One who walks by faith in the Spirit, is simply not accessible to being enticed. When you are walking by the Spirit yourself, is not the irresistible symptom of this the fact that you do not feel tempted by anything of the world?
When you later feel tempted, is it not because you are at that point no longer walking by the Spirit?
I pointed out in the OP that "the motions of sins are [invoked] by the law", and that Christ could not have sinned because He necessarily walked by faith rather than by the law, having the Spirit without measure. You need to reflect on this.
Last edited by Colossians; March 5th, 2011 at 04:56 AM. | | |
| | | | Over 3000 post club
Posts: 3,612 Posts Per Day: 32.66 Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Portland, OR Rep Power: 5871 Christian More right than left Slogan/motto:
With Oatmeal in my bowl, is Jesus in your soul?
Reputation:
| March 5th, 2011, 04:39 AM Quote: Originally Posted by Colossians The singular characteristic which distinguishes between God and man, is that God’s volition is infallible. Otherwise He is not God at all, but just a spirit with a contingency as to whether he’ll make it in the long run. | God can't sin. But that doesn't mean that God is forced to not sin. God is not sin. God is love. God does because of what He is. God is the Great I Am. Jesus is God. But God could have sinned. But God can't sin. God doesn't sin. God can't sin. If God did sin, it would become not sin. Sin is whatever God doesn't do. Sin is not God. God is not sin. Sin means whatever that God is not. Sin is separation from God. Sin lacks what God is, what God has, what God does, what God gives. God won't sin. God can't sin. God doesn't want to sin. But God can sin. But won't. But indeed, God can't because God can't. But God could have sinned. But in our eyes, it doesn't matter. The bottom-line is that God can't sin because God isn't sin. If God did sin, we would all die, or that sin would not be sin.
| | |
| | Over 1500 post club
Posts: 1,515 Posts Per Day: 0.77 Join Date: Oct 2005 Rep Power: 3889 - Christian - Right Wing Zealot Slogan/motto:
Reputation:
| March 5th, 2011, 04:43 AM Joey Arnold,
Aside from the fact you haven't taken on board all I wrote to you, you contradict yourself in:
"God could have sinned. But God can't sin."
If He can't sin, He couldn't have. "Could" is simply the past tense of "Can".
| | |
| | | | Over 3000 post club
Posts: 3,612 Posts Per Day: 32.66 Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Portland, OR Rep Power: 5871 Christian More right than left Slogan/motto:
With Oatmeal in my bowl, is Jesus in your soul?
Reputation:
| March 5th, 2011, 03:08 PM Quote: Originally Posted by Colossians Joey Arnold, Aside from the fact you haven't taken on board all I wrote to you, you contradict yourself in: "God could have sinned. But God can't sin." If He can't sin, He couldn't have. "Could" is simply the past tense of "Can". | God can do whatever that God wants to do. But I'm only writing in English. That is why it sounds like a contradiction. I said God can't sin, but God can sin. That sounds like nonsense, from surface level. But we have to think about it. God can't sin because sin means what God is going to not do, what God is not, who God is not. Sin means where God is not. That definition makes it impossible for God to sin. It does not mean God is forced to be good, perfect, holy, to not sin. It means that God wants to do what God does. God wants to be holy, good, caring, because that is who God is, and that is who Jesus is. But God can sin in a hypothetical sense. God can do whatever God wants. Because God can sin, God can't sin. This makes sense to me. God can sin. This means God has freewill. God can do what God wants to do. God is not a slave to perfection because God defines perfection. If God were to sin, it would either destroy the universe or that sin that God did would somehow not be sin. This means that God can sin. If God sins, that sin becomes no longer sin. That also means God can't sin. If God sins, and it is in fact sin, then God ceases from being sinless. That destroys the universe. Because God is outside of time, then if God were to ever sin in the future ever, and if that sin was sin for God, then that would destroy us, and destroy the past, present and future, since God is outside of time, and kill us where we are now, destroying our existence before we ever were even born. And just by the fact that we do exist, it means that God has not ever sinned even in the future. Because if God even sins, then we all die. Our existence and our conscious is proof enough that God can't sin, will not sin, doesn't want to sin, will never ever sin, has never sin, just because we are here. If God were to someday sin. Then we would have never existed in the first place to even talk about it to begin with. Therefore, because we know that, then we can conclude that God can't sin because God has never, before, in eternity past or in eternity future, or outside of time, or anywhere else, sinned, ever, now, then, or ever in the future. But God could have sinned. God can. God can't because God has never.
| | |
| | | | Over 1500 post club
Posts: 1,713 Posts Per Day: 2.13 Join Date: Jan 2009 Rep Power: 3273 Christian More left than right Slogan/motto:
empty
Reputation:
| March 5th, 2011, 04:18 PM Quote: Originally Posted by Colossians So John is encouraging us with the doctrine of imputation: we are told that He that is born of God cannot sin, because God sees only Christ in us and not us ourselves. | Rubbish. Heb 4:13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. Heb 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. Heb 4:15 For we have not a high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. The epistle of 1John shows the contrasting lifestyle between the false prophet and the true follower of Jesus, and he warns the true against living as the false do, which often happens. Quote: The topic of justifying sin is not in focus here. That is more the issue of Rom 6.
Accordingly the KJV's "cannot sin" is correct. The KJV is always correct. | Well John's letter also states that one can sin in chs 1 and 2 and also that one can sin in such a way as another ought not pray for them. You have not understood the whole letter (and not much else either being so puffed up) Quote: But Adam was in fact tempted. And the reason he was tempted was because he was not righteous. Christ who was righteous, therefore could not be tempted, else what were the advantage of being righteous?
Temptation in and of itself is not sinful.
It is by extension, in that it is proof that the one affected by it is a sinner, for else there would be no temptation. For one's being tempted is evidenced in equivocation, and equivocation, is double-mindedness, and double-mindedness, is sin.
One who walks by faith in the Spirit, is simply not accessible to being enticed. When you are walking by the Spirit yourself, is not the irresistible symptom of this the fact that you do not feel tempted by anything of the world?
When you later feel tempted, is it not because you are at that point no longer walking by the Spirit?
I pointed out in the OP that "the motions of sins are [invoked] by the law", and that Christ could not have sinned because He necessarily walked by faith rather than by the law, having the Spirit without measure. You need to reflect on this. | More rubbish. Adam was not made unrighteous that he could be tempted and sin. These are all your own ideas, and you will invent anything to make your case. You do not know it, but Christ was not filled with the Holy Spirit until His baptism by John. Go read it. It was necessary that Christ resist the damage of the human body which resulted upon ALL men from Adams sin. It was in this condition (not of being filled with the Holy Spirit) that the atonement was of effect, or it was illegal. Adam was not unrighteous before he sinned and Christ was not walking by the Spirit when He resisted sin. Christ as the man He was born entirely of, obeyed God to the fullest for He was that man (not a babe) at His baptism and any further conflict with satan demonstrated it , but neither during His temptations, or the cross, was Christ filled with the Holy Spirit. You lie. LA.
Jesus is a created being, the Messiah, Gods son through Mary, a man filled at His Baptism with the Spirit of the Almighty God, only as for a mortal man can be, until permanence in fulness at His resurrection and further glorification in His ascension to Gods Throne to reign as God. | | |
| | TOL Subscriber
Posts: 4,455 Posts Per Day: 5.54 Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Quebec, Canada Rep Power: 9688 Christian More right than left Slogan/motto:
graceandpeace to all men.
Reputation:
| March 5th, 2011, 05:02 PM Quote: Originally Posted by JoeyArnold Why is the ability or availability or possibility that Jesus can or could sin a bad thing? | Because God cannot sin. To say that God could sin; is putting God on a level where He would no longer 'be God'. Jesus was both God and man at the same time.
| | |
| | TOL Subscriber
Posts: 4,455 Posts Per Day: 5.54 Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Quebec, Canada Rep Power: 9688 Christian More right than left Slogan/motto:
graceandpeace to all men.
Reputation:
| March 5th, 2011, 05:03 PM Quote: Originally Posted by JoeyArnold What would happen if Jesus was just a man of clay? | we would have no perfect sacrifice and all of us would have no hope. He was the JUST for the unjust. God alone is 'just' and we are only 'just' because we are IN HIM...the true Vine.
| | |
| | Posting Rules | You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | | Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2 Copyright ©2000 - 2011, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com Copyright 1997-2010 TheologyOnLine |  |  |
No comments:
Post a Comment