The Bible says that Jesus was fully God and fully man. I believe the Bible. We know from the scripture that Jesus lived a perfect life and that he never sinned; not even so much as a wrong thought. So, could he have sinned? Was he capable of sin?

Well All men are capable of sin. Was Jesus a man?

Or is sin something we put a label on something that we think is not right?

Jesus got angry, he got mad, he threw people out of the temple. Being angry is that a sin?

Sin can be defined as specific acts or even thoughts. So it all depends on what people think real sin is.

It is all subjective.

hey Tess - hmmm... this is one of those age-old questions that if it were a simple one to answer, would not require asking ;)

Was he capable of sinning? Capable can suggest an inclination or disposition towards something... in this case sin. Given what we know (after the fact), Jesus was not capable of sin because in every circumstance of life where his commitment to God was tested, he never failed. So answering that question (was he capable of sinning?) is easy to do now that we know all of the circumstances and acts of Jesus after they occurred.

But maybe another question we could raise is was it possible for Jesus to sin? I think that since the opportunities to sin for Jesus were presented through the trials of Satan, the "possibility" for Jesus to sin must have been a reality... if not, why would the temptations of Satan to Christ have even occurred? I think it was possible for Jesus to sin but if he had sinned, the rest of God's story would not be what it is... he would have told a different story.

Another question may be raised at this point. If Jesus were not capable of sin and yet the possibility of Jesus sinning were a reality, what was the point of the trials Jesus faced? Hebrews makes the case that in order for Jesus to be a qualified high priest, he needed to be able to empathize with us in our struggles against sin. He can be a more effective High Priest because he has come face to face with temptation, felt the stings of it (consider how Jesus was hungry and weak while Satan came to tempt him), and yet was able to still do the right thing and obey God.

And I might add that the high priestly quality of Jesus is what sets him apart from all other "Gods." No other religion can boast of a God who was so thoroughly intimate with the human experience that he became human, faced the temptations of sin, knew sorrow and pain, and in the end chose to be merciful to those who killed him.

Jake,

I know it is a tough question. Hmmmm? So you think it was possible. Interesting... I don't believe it was possible at all.

As our High Priest he could relate to what we go through because he had the physical needs of a human being. He is God he couldn't have sinned. But I'm looking to back that up with some scripture. Anyone agree with me? Can anyone think of a scripture to back it up?

Joe,

I totally disagree with you. He was God in the flesh and he had righteous anger because he was Holy and Perfect. If Jesus even had one bad thought he couldn't have paid for my sins... he was completely without sin and I just don't believe he could have sinned.

The definition of sin from what I read according to the Bible is anything God has said Not to do and we do it... or anything God has said TO do and we don't do it. I don't see it as being subjective at all.

I've been known to be wrong though... ( very rare) ha! :0

Tess - I don't think anything is at stake in believing that it was possible for Jesus to sin. Believing it was possible is not akin to believing that Jesus was somehow sinful.

One argument for the possibility that Jesus could sin is the fact that he is actually human. Sometimes when we say that Jesus is fully God and fully man, it's as if what we are really saying is that Jesus is fully God in a human suit (just skin). He has all of the look and feel of a human but he's really not. Well, if that were true, the real significance of Christ's temptations fade into insignificance. The cards would have been so stacked in Christ's favor during those temptations that the temptations would have just been a silly formality. Jesus could have pulled back his human suit and said to Satan "you're no match for me, silly Devil." Jesus was no fake human. The temptations were real and a significant event for him. As Richard D. Phillips put it "The issue is this – if Christ was not able to sin then he was not really human as we are. In this case, Jesus does not really know what it is to be in our situation, and his perfect obedience before the Father was not a real and meritorious achievement."

I am elated at the fact that Jesus in his divinity was able to withstand sin and remain obedient to God because my salvation hinges upon it. Ultimately, I believe that Jesus would not have sinned because he possessed the character and divinity of God. "Even if we are going to affirm that Christ was able to sin because of his fully human nature, we must add that even in this human nature, and certainly in his divine nature, Jesus had no inner disposition to sin. Jesus had no motivation to sin, and therefore he did not sin; in this sense he could not sin. If the same were true of us we also would not sin; the reason we sin, after all, is that we are motivated to sin." (Phillips).

Yes He could have sinned, but He didn't. He was the perfect Adam.

Jake,

I agree with you to a point. I'm just thinking that there was nothing in Him that could respond to sin. Even a wrong thought! I mean,how does anyone get through life without a wrong thought?. He didn't have a" flesh" or the "old nature". Now I KNOW that Adam didn't at first either. BUT... Adam was 1. created and 2. created to be innocent... Not fully God and fully man. The Lord Jesus Christ is, was and always will be HOLY. I don't think he could have.

I look at it this way, when we are formed to his image and get the mind of Christ and a perfected body without spot or blimish in heaven, will we be able to sin? The thought is crazy. If I can sin in heaven then trust me Jake, I will. ( lol, I know me)

Or are you saying that he could have sinned before the resurrection? I'm curious as to your thoughts? I'm not trying to argue. I just got into a long discussion with someone and I really want some input.

Jthere was nothing in Him that could respond to sin. Even a wrong thought! I mean,how does anyone get through life without a wrong thought???
That was the whole point -- that He COULD sin, but He didn't.

Adam didn't have any wrong thoughts for who knows how long. One day he did. He gave in to temptation, was convinced that the fruit of that tree would make him like God. For some reason, that day that idea sounded awfully cool. So he took a bite.

Jesus never was tempted enough to give in, even when Satan offered Him the world. Jesus was created as Adam had been, with the capacity to sin. That's why Adam is called the Old Adam and Jesus is the New Adam -- one gave in and the other didn't. Both started with the same potential. You, however, did not, so you can't equate Jesus' thoughts and actions to your own.

WG,

It is possible that I am wrong... but I don't think he could have. Interesting though.

WG,

It is possible that I am wrong...but I don't think he could have.
Yup, this time you are wrong. Jesus' being human and able to sin and yet not sinning is the entire point of His story here on earth and the thing that makes His sacrifice on the cross so important for us! Otherwise, big deal! So our God died for us. Bet it was a walk in the park for Him then.

No... Jesus did not sin.

No ...Jesus did not sin.
The question on the table is, could He have sinned? ClassyT says no; most of the rest of us say yes. But he didn't.

I don't know. Honestly, I don't. I think he had a free will just as Adam did.. but he was without blemish. We know he was tempted by Satan. I think he could have said yes if he had wanted, but he was doing his Fathers will. He had to be strong.

I think he could have said yes if he had wanted
Precisely!

Yup, this time you are wrong.

Tee hee. Now WG, you know I'm not giving up that easy. Back up your thoughts with scripture.

Precisely!





I'm thankful he was so strong. Strong enough not to call heavens angels to take him from the cross.. He loved us that much. Love is what made him strong.

Jake,

I agree with you to a point. I'm just thinking that there was nothing in Him that could respond to sin. Even a wrong thought! I mean,how does anyone get through life without a wrong thought???...He didn't have a" flesh" or the "old nature". Now i KNOW that Adam didn't at first either. BUT...Adam was 1. created and 2. created to be innocent...Not fully God and fully man. The Lord Jesus Christ is, was and always will be HOLY. I don't think he could have.

I look at it this way, when we are formed to his image and get the mind of Christ and a perfected body without spot or blimish in heaven, will we be able to sin? The thought is crazy. If I can sin in heaven then trust me Jake, i will. ( lol, i know me)

Or are you saying that he could have sinned before the ressurection? I'm curious as to your thoughts? I'm not trying to argue. I just got into a long discussion with someone and I really want some input.

Tess - I absolutely understand what you are saying. It may be that what it is you are taking issue with is that spot that's a little difficult to get at with great clarity. It's that tension between Christ's divinity and his humanity that is really in view here. What is it about Christ's humanity that made the temptations significant, not his divinity?

You're question about the resurrection is interesting... I'll have to consider that a little more and come back to it but I was not suggesting a difference between pre and post resurrection.

It's late so I'm done for the night... I'll pick this up again.

I don't know. Honestly, I don't. I think he had a free will just as Adam did..but he was without blemish. We know he was tempted by Satan. I think he could have said yes if he had wanted, but he was doing his Fathers will. He had to be strong.


TO ALL...
It is a hard question. In fact, I don't even know where the church I attend stands on this one. I myself do NOT see my savior as able to sin. He, in MY eyes, is better than any "superhero" because he had no kryptonite. He COULDN'T make a mistake. Remember he is fully God and fully man. God who knows all and spoke the world into existence, AND fully man,without the sin problem. It TOOK God to redeem this sinful creation. I think it is a beautiful thing... I don't see it as a walk in the park for Him... I also don't see him STRUGGLE for any kind of control over sin. But at the same time, I don't want to disgard or diminish the fact that He was tempted. When the word tempted is used... does it mean he wanted to but he fought the urge? Someone tempted me tonight with chocolate. I like chocolate but I didn't need the calories . I COULD have eaten it, it looked good but I had NO real desire and I don't like how I feel after I eat sweets. Do we have to have a desire in order to be tempted?

Hey! I think I got to the root issue!! Did Jesus ever have the desire to do His own will? See? I don't think he ever did.

It TOOK God to redeem this sinful creation.
The entire point that we are saved is that it took a God who was fully HUMAN and subject to temptation (lots of Bible verses to support that) to do it, one who could withstand the temptation that Adam couldn't.

If there's no desire, then there's no temptation. I have no use for and never want to own an SUV, and even Oprah couldn't tempt me with one. I have no desire, and there's no temptation. Thus, there's no sin.

Jesus was tempted. Think of the Garden. He wanted to walk away, was tempted to walk away, could have walked away, but he withstood the temptation.

WG,

OK! That is excellent advice, thank you.. I shall go read that again with fresh eyes and ears.

It's a difficult question, no doubt. I really don't think there's any difference between the question as stated in the thread title and the question "was Jesus capable of sin, or was it possible for him to sin?" Any way we slice it, we're going to bump into either his humanity or his divinity.

If we say "no, it wasn't possible" we bump into the question of his humanity; if he was fully human, then the frailty that leads to the possibility of committing a sin is part that humanity. But if we say "yes, it was possible" then we bump into the question of his divinity; if "sin" is defined as violating something related to the commands or nature of God, how could God the Son violate himself? So either way we go, we wind up with a conundrum.

Perhaps I'm a little guilty of creating God in my own image, but I do think it was possible. I believe the temptation in the wilderness was real; he was tempted to take the easy way out and gain the world without having to go to the cross. He chose to reject that temptation and "stay the course." I believe his fury in the temple courtyard was real, and he was tempted to go more than a little postal on the greed-mongers there. He chose to eject them forcefully but not give in to hatred in the process. I believe his agony in the garden was real, and he was tempted to back out of what he knew was coming. He chose to suck it up and go ahead with the plan even though he knew what it was going to cost him.

It's embarrassing to admit, but I really think the most profound depiction of his struggle in the garden is the song that Jesus sings in the otherwise-ridiculous-mess Jesus Christ Superstar. "I only want to say, if there is a way, take this cup away from me, for I don't want to taste its poison, feel it burn me, I have changed, I'm not as sure as when we started. Then I was inspired, now I'm sad and tired, listen, surely I've exceed expectations, tried for three years, seems like thirty, could you ask as much from any other man? But if I die, see the saga through and do the things you ask of me...God, thy will is hard, but you hold every card, I will drink your cup of poison, nail me to your cross and break me, bleed me, beat me, kill me, take me now, before I change my mind."

I really hate having to cite that quasi-blasphemous piece of junk, but in this case I think they hit the nail squarely on the head. Which just proves that accidents do happen :D

Dave,

Wow. NO one agrees with me.

Well I think all of the things you mentioned were real too. I think Satan tempted the Lord but I don't think he had the desire to respond to it. The Bible never implies he even thought about it. I always felt that the main reason that was put in the scripture was for an example. That is how WE needed to handle temptation plus to show us that Satan didn't really understand everything either.
Jesus WAS really angry in the temple.. but it was a righteous anger and the Bible says It is OK to be angry but NOT to sin . ( Or something like that anyway.) Because if that situation WAS him acting out in some fleshly rage, then I would say he DID sin. He wouldn't NEED to add hatred to it.

And absolutely the agony and stress he was under in the garden was very real... sweating great drops of blood?. that is some SERIOUS stress. Obviously he needed strength from the Father and at one point he even asks to take the cup away from him if at all possible. Which of course it wasn't possible and he knew it.

But Dave, if it is true that Jesus COULD have sinned... doesn't that mean that WE too could sin in heaven when we no longer have this old flesh? We will be exactly like Jesus.

if it is true that Jesus COULD have sinned ...doesn't that mean that WE too could sin in heaven when we no longer have this old flesh? We will be exactly like Jesus.
I took a two-year course, an overview of the Bible. At our last lesson, our pastor talked about Revelation and the End Times and then swung into what Heaven might be like. He threw out that very idea as a rhetorical question -- will we have free will in heaven and be capable of sinning? If man does have a real choice in following or disobeying God's will, then it seems he either is denied that freedom in eternity or he has the ability to sin even in heaven. Or, is there another possibility? I believe there is.

I await Dave's response to your question, classyT.

But Dave, if it is true that Jesus COULD have sinned ...doesn't that mean that WE too could sin in heaven when we no longer have this old flesh? We will be exactly like Jesus.

We will be exactly like Jesus... as he is now! That is, when he had the capability/possibility, he also had "this old flesh." Remember that when he rose he was in a glorified body, and at our resurrection, so will we. So the answer is no, we won't have that proclivity any more once we're out of this corruption and have put on incorruption (1 Corinthians 15).

It's a difficult question, no doubt. I really don't think there's any difference between the question as stated in the thread title and the question "was Jesus capable of sin, or was it possible for him to sin?" Any way we slice it, we're going to bump into either his humanity or his divinity.

If we say "no, it wasn't possible" we bump into the question of his humanity; if he was fully human, then the frailty that leads to the possibility of committing a sin is part that humanity. But if we say "yes, it was possible" then we bump into the question of his divinity; if "sin" is defined as violating something related to the commands or nature of God, how could God the Son violate himself? So either way we go, we wind up with a conundrum.

Perhaps I'm a little guilty of creating God in my own image, but I do think it was possible. I believe the temptation in the wilderness was real; he was tempted to take the easy way out and gain the world without having to go to the cross. He chose to reject that temptation and "stay the course." I believe his fury in the temple courtyard was real, and he was tempted to go more than a little postal on the greed-mongers there. He chose to eject them forcefully but not give in to hatred in the process. I believe his agony in the garden was real, and he was tempted to back out of what he knew was coming. He chose to suck it up and go ahead with the plan even though he knew what it was going to cost him.

It's embarrassing to admit, but I really think the most profound depiction of his struggle in the garden is the song that Jesus sings in the otherwise-ridiculous-mess Jesus Christ Superstar. "I only want to say, if there is a way, take this cup away from me, for I don't want to taste its poison, feel it burn me, I have changed, I'm not as sure as when we started. Then I was inspired, now I'm sad and tired, listen, surely I've exceed expectations, tried for three years, seems like thirty, could you ask as much from any other man? But if I die, see the saga through and do the things you ask of me...God, thy will is hard, but you hold every card, I will drink your cup of poison, nail me to your cross and break me, bleed me, beat me, kill me, take me now, before I change my mind."

I really hate having to cite that quasi-blasphemous piece of junk, but in this case I think they hit the nail squarely on the head. Which just proves that accidents do happen :D

Dave - yeah, after thinking about it a little more, it's probably a little awkward that I tried to make a distinction between possibility to sin vs capability to sin... I think you are right. I tried to assert my best explanation for what I see as the distinction between Christ's humanity and his divinity. But at very least we all can recognize that tension. I'd like to also piggy-back on the part you mentioned concerning Christ's frailty as a human being. I quoted from this same article once before but I think this explanation some additional value to this discussion:

"Jesus was fully human. He was not a fake. In his humanity, Jesus was just like everybody else, just like you and me, with one difference: our humanity is corrupted by sin; his humanity is perfect in holiness. As a man, Jesus was fully subject to the capacity to sin, and the temptation to sin, and the torment of resisting those temptations, but he was sustained and empowered by his divine nature. Because of his divine and holy nature, Jesus did not sin although sin was a course of action FULLY OPEN TO HIM" (Richard D. Phillips) (emphasis mine).

"Jesus was fully human. He was not a fake. In his humanity, Jesus was just like everybody else, just like you and me, with one difference: our humanity is corrupted by sin; his humanity is perfect in holiness. As a man, Jesus was fully subject to the capacity to sin, and the temptation to sin, and the torment of resisting those temptations, but he was sustained and empowered by his divine nature. Because of his divine and holy nature, Jesus did not sin although sin was a course of action FULLY OPEN TO HIM" (Richard D. Phillips) (emphasis mine).

Do you have a full reference for this article? It looks really interesting.

Do you have a full reference for this article? It looks really interesting.

Was Jesus Capable Of Sinning? Thoughts & Actions (http://thoughtsactions.wordpress.com/2007/10/29/was-jesus-capable-of-sinning/)

Was Jesus Capable Of Sinning? Thoughts & Actions (http://thoughtsactions.wordpress.com/2007/10/29/was-jesus-capable-of-sinning/)

Jake,

You know what Jake, I actually liked that article. Thanks! :)

Jake,

You know what Jake, I actually liked that article. Thanks! :)

Lol... well that's great, Tess... I'm glad ;)

Was Jesus Capable Of Sinning? Thoughts & Actions (http://thoughtsactions.wordpress.com/2007/10/29/was-jesus-capable-of-sinning/)

Good stuff. Thanks!

Dave,

Wow. NO one agrees with me.

Well I think all of the things you mentioned were real too. I think Satan tempted the Lord but I don't think he had the desire to respond to it. The Bible never implies he even thought about it. I always felt that the main reason that was put in the scripture was for an example. That is how WE needed to handle temptation plus to show us that Satan didn't really understand everything either.
Jesus WAS really angry in the temple..but it was a righteous anger and the Bible says It is ok to be angry but NOT to sin . ( Or something like that anyway.) Because if that situation WAS him acting out in some fleshly rage, then I would say he DID sin. he wouldn't NEED to add hatred to it.

And absolutely the agony and stress he was under in the garden was very real... sweating great drops of blood???...that is some SERIOUS stress. Obviously he needed strength from the Father and at one point he even asks to take the cup away from him if at all possible. Which of course it wasn't possible and he knew it.

But Dave, if it is true that Jesus COULD have sinned ...doesn't that mean that WE too could sin in heaven when we no longer have this old flesh? We will be exactly like Jesus.

What about “once saved always saved.” Don’t the rules of once saved always saved, and Luther’s rule sin, sin greatly but believe all the greater, apply to Christ?


JoeT

Luther's rule sin, sin greatly but believe all the greater, apply to Christ?
I'll answer the Luther part of your question. I'm a lifelong Lutheran and was born on his birthday (but different year). I gots rights.

That's not a "rule" established by Luther. (Where on earth did you get the idea that it was?) It was in a private letter to his friend and eventually came to light. We've discussed it here before, on another thread or two. Luther was making the point that God's love and forgiveness are so magnificent and so all-encompassing that we can sin greatly and still be loved and forgiven by Him greatly. It's a rhetorical device called hyperbole. (Just like you might say to your priest, "That was the best homily I ever heard in my life." Yet, we all know you've heard many other terrific homilies and can't really easily rate them in order of best to worst. Hyperbole, Joe.)

And what does it have to do with Christ (as per your comment)??

What about “once saved always saved.” Don’t the rules of once saved always saved, and Luther’s rule sin, sin greatly but believe all the greater, apply to Christ?


JoeT

Grumpy Joe,

Not sure I completely understand what you are saying... Jesus didn't need to be saved from anything...

I personally believe Jesus couldn't have sinned so I'm not too worried about sinning in heaven. I'm just reasoning it out for those who do believe he could have sinned.

Grumpy Joe,

Not sure I completely understand what you are saying...Jesus didn't need to be saved from anything....

I personally believe Jesus couldn't have sinned so I'm not too worried about sinning in heaven. I'm just reasoning it out for those who do believe he could have sinned.

The proposition was whether Christ was free to sin, could have sinned had he chose to do so, or did sin. So it occurred to me that many non-Catholics hold to the concept of “once saved always saved” or “sin greatly but believe all the greater” and thus these concepts would have to stand with the fact that Christ was both man and God. Considering all these concepts co-existing causes a logical dilemma or one or more can’t be true. You might recall you mentioned that as man he was tempted. But, as God, what difference would it have made, why sweat blood? Therefore, which would be wrong, Christ is man, Christ is God, Christ was once saved thus always saved because of faith, or Christ sinned greatly but believed greater?

That’s my question to you.


JoeT

Joe,

Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man. The Lord Jesus never needed to be saved from anything and if Christ sinned even once... we are all sunk because he wasn't a perfect sacrifice for our sins and he would have been unable to redeem mankind.

I know of NO Christian who believes one should sin greatly and believe greater. That certainly isn't in my Bible. But then my bible also says that my salvation isn't based on my performance either.

Anyone who claimed to be a Christian and thought they could do whatever they wanted to as far as sin... I'd ask them to check their birthcerticate. Because a true Christian, one who loves Christ and understands they are a new creature in Christ, will not WANT to continue to live in sin. They will want to obey the Lord. Of course, we are called "sheep" for a reason.. and we can be stupid and wander from time to time. But a true believer is SEALED with the Holy Spirit. ( I didn't say it... Paul did in Ephesians)

I'm still not sure I am answering your question properly. With me grumpy Joe, you just have to make your questions really simple. Because I'm not brightest chickadee around. Ha

Joe,

Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man. The Lord Jesus never needed to be saved from anything and if Christ sinned even once...we are all sunk because he wasn't a perfect sacrifice for our sins and he would have been unable to redeem mankind.

I know of NO Christian who believes one should sin greatly and believe greater. That certainly isn't in my Bible. But then my bible also says that my salvation isn't based on my performance either.

Anyone who claimed to be a Christian and thought they could do whatever they wanted to as far as sin....I'd ask them to check their birthcerticate. Because a true Christian, one who loves Christ and understands they are a new creature in Christ, will not WANT to continue to live in sin. They will want to obey the Lord. Of course, we are called "sheep" for a reason..and we can be stupid and wander from time to time. But a true believer is SEALED with the Holy Spirit. ( i didn't say it....Paul did in Ephesians)

I'm still not sure I am answering your question properly. With me grumpy Joe, you just have to make your questions really simple. Because I'm not brightest chickadee around. ha

FWIW, I'm not really sure I understand Joe's question, either.

many non-Catholics hold to the concept of “once saved always saved” or “sin greatly but believe all the greater”
This non-Catholic believes neither. Only certain Christians, usually "fundamentalists," believe "once saved always saved." I explained the "sin greatly" thing earlier. It was hyperbole in a private letter, not a "doctrine."

thus these concepts would have to stand with the fact that Christ was both man and God.
I don't see a connection.

Christ was once saved thus always saved because of faith, or Christ sinned greatly but believed greater?
Huh? Ummm, neither. (What you smokin', Willis?)

ClassyT, Dave and Wondergirl

I think I know what Joe is getting at. Having said that I am sure Joe will correct me if I am wrong.

If Jesus was more man than God then 'sin greatly and believe the greater' seems to apply to those who who suffer from human weaknesses.

If Jesus was more God than man, then as Joe points out, the problem of sin from Jesus' point of view is irrelevant.

All this of course hinges on how we view the identity of Jesus as both a man and a God.

Only Joe knows exactly what he means, but this is my guess.

Regards

Tut

ClassyT, Dave and Wondergirl

I think I know what Joe is getting at. Having said that I am sure Joe will correct me if I am wrong.

If Jesus was more man than God then 'sin greatly and believe the greater' seems to apply to those who who suffer from human weaknesses.

If Jesus was more God than man, then as Joe points out, the problem of sin from Jesus' point of view is irrelevant.

All this of course hinges on how we view the identity of Jesus as both a man and a God.

Only Joe knows exactly what he means, but this is my guess.

Regards

Tut

I think I get it now, though as you say only The Shadow knows - uh, only Joe knows for sure. All the info we have says he didn't sin, was without sin, however one wants to word it, so I'm not sure the question is really applicable to Jesus. I don't think anybody really considers him to have been more one than the other, and the exact nature of the blending, or "hypostatic union" as the eggheads call it, is a mystery. We do know he never sinned, didn't need saving or anything like that, and that was part of his qualifications for being able to save US. So while I guess I grasp the question now, I'm not sure it's relevant to the current context.

Then again, I could be full of something other than the Holy Spirit... :o

This non-Catholic believes neither. Only certain Christians, usually "fundamentalists," believe "once saved always saved." I explained the "sin greatly" thing earlier. It was hyperbole in a private letter, not a "doctrine."

I don't see a connection.

Huh? Ummm, neither. (What you smokin', Willis?)

We will let Willis continue with his smoke.

Luther believed in total predestination and that man had no free will. Luther denies free-will deeming man totally depraved and incapable of turning toward God. He believed that man was a total reprobate completely incapable of moving toward holiness on his own. It was only by God's election that man was saved. (~referenced removed on request~) And too, even in this salvific process Luther held that God chose among us a group of 'elect'. All others were predestined to hell. Luther's views on are termed 'double predestination' that is one is preordained for either salvation or hell. The difference between Luther and Calvin seems to have been In the issue of faith; all that was needed was to 'believe', and salvation was assured.


“God does not save those who merely fancy themselves sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe more boldly still ( esto peccator et pecca fortiter, sed fortius fide ); and rejoice in Christ, Who is the conqueror of sin, death and the world ; we must sin as long as we are what we are. This life is not the abode of justice, but we look for a new heaven and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness, as Peter says. It suffices that by the riches of the glory of God we have come to know the Lamb, Who taketh away the sin of the world ; sin shall not drag us away from Him, even should we commit fornication or murder thousands and thousands of times a day. Do you think that the price and the ransom paid for our sins by this sublime Lamb is so insignificant? Pray boldly, for you are in truth a very bold sinner” (Luther, letter to Melanchthon, on August 1, 1521.)

Calvin taught God predestined every man as 'elect' unconditionally by the Divine will or as a reprobate predestined to hell by the Divine will. In Calvin's view each individual is either created for mercy or created for wrath. For example it was God's will that Adam sin in Eden receiving reprobation. For Calvin free-will is somewhat of a questionable in Eden but clear that it didn't exist afterward. (Instit. I, 15, 8; III, 23, 8) The Calvinist Confession was revised in 1903 it to include an element of Divine love in salvation recognizing that children who die in infancy are not condemned to hell.

Zwingli believed and taught, "Just as God incited the robber to commit murder, so also He forces the judge to impose the penalty of death on the murderer" (De provid. Dei, in "Opera" ed. Schuler, IV, 113). Likewise Melanchthon taught that Judas was doing the work of God. (cf. Trent, Sess. VI, can. vi, in Denzinger, n. 816)

In the Protestant view moral and ethical dilemmas are established e.g. the 'devil made me do it' or God forbid, 'God made me do it'. And unless we forget, “Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe more boldly still”

Catholic views of predestination are rather simple. Catholics hold an uncertainty in an omniscience and omnipotent Divine predestination. It's unknown who is 'elect' and who isn't. This was dogmatically taught at the Council of Trent (Sess. VI, can. Xv). This view is best expressed in the verses: 1 Corinthians 4:4; 9:27; 10:12; Philippians 2:12.

I'd be happy to go into more detail, but this isn't the correct thread for the topic. I only wanted to point out that if one holds to the view of 'once saved, always saved' or 'sin, sin greatly but believe all the greater'. Since Christ is both God and man we would expect these rules of faith to apply to Jesus as well. Scripture doesn't seem to support it does it?

JoeT

(Cf. HARTMANN GRISAR, SJ.
"HARTMANN GRISAR" had his own agenda and an axe to grind. I stopped reading your thread as soon as I saw his name. I would not give any credence to anything he wrote about Luther.

"HARTMANN GRISAR" had his own agenda and an axe to grind.


How so? Besides I didn't quote Grisar, I quoted Luther.

JoeT

How so? Besides I didn't quote Grisar, I quoted Luther.
I said I STOPPED READING as soon as I saw Grisar's name. I didn't say you quoted him.

I said I STOPPED READING as soon as I saw Grisar's name. I didn't say you quoted him.


Ok, so you can't read?

Ok, so you can't read?
Insults don't become you. I thought you were better than that.

Insults don't become you. I thought you were better than that.

It wasn't an insult. Bad grammar remember.

It wasn't an insult. Bad grammar remember.
Actually it wasn't bad grammar, but a mishmash of words that made no sense. And it was an obvious truth (which I quoted) and not an insult.

Now, if you would remove Grisar from your argument, since he has nothing important to say about the current discussion regarding Jesus being able to sin, I will be glad to respond. I cannot imagine how Grisar's opinion of Luther would add to this thread.

It may be possible to defend ClassyT's claim that it was impossible for Jesus to sin.

Consider the claim that no power on heaven or earth can render a false statement true. This statement is a consequence of logic rather than an empirical fact. 'Jesus cannot sin' was true a thousand years before he was born and is still true three thousand years after his death.

There is no denying that in terms of empiricism Jesus could have sinned in the same way as the rest of us. This is because he was in human form and subject to the laws of cause and effect. However, when we think of him being removed from the physical world and consider the truth of the statement,' Jesus cannot sin' as a logical statement then the past, present and future do not come into play.

It is a little bit like saying that 2+2=4 was true yesterday, the day before that and the day before that. It will be true tomorrow as well.

Adopting such a position has implications for fatalism. Interestingly enough this brings us back to Joe's statement about Calvin, Luther and predestination.

Tut

It may be possible to defend ClassyT's claim that it was impossible for Jesus to sin.

If the 'possibility' didn't exist then He wasn't a man, He would have been something more than man. Right?

JoeT

If the 'possibility' didn't exist then He wasn't a man, He would have been something more than man. Right?

JoeT

This conundrum is pretty much what led to the Docetic heresy in the first couple of centuries after Jesus. This view said he wasn't really human, but only appeared to be (hence the name, Greek DOKEO, "seem") or was clothed in a human form, which he shed at the crucifixion. Ultimately the church at large rejected it based on Paul's statements that he truly was a man, Hebrews' statement that he was tempted just like we are, etc. To me, this is yet again an instance when we're trying to comprehend something that's far beyond our finite minds.

If the 'possibility' didn't exist then He wasn't a man, He would have been something more than man. Right?

JoeT


Good observation Joe. In the final analysis I think you are correct.

When we consider possibility we often find it difficult to separate it from probability.

Basically probability deals with events which are not predetermined. For example, if we toss a coin many times we will end up with a definite statistical pattern. i.e. very close to 50/50.

It is possible to argue that possibility involves a degree of belief which could be seen as something which exists 'on top of probability'.

When we are talking about Jesus as a man, or any other person for that matter we are talking about a variety of available knowledge which goes beyond probability.

I guess in the end ClassyT cannot expect a definite answer in terms of truth or falsity.

Regards Tut

Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man. The Lord Jesus never needed to be saved from anything and if Christ sinned even once...we are all sunk because he wasn't a perfect sacrifice for our sins and he would have been unable to redeem mankind.

My point was that Christ was both God and man. Therefore what can be scripturally applied to man can be applied to Christ. Beyond bringing the Kingdom of God to us, his life is a testament to man achieving holiness through his works in faith.

In regard to sin we can apply temptation to the man that is Christ. Christ speaks to temptations, “you are they who have continued with me in my temptations , i.e. in spite of temptations. Christ knows how man is tempted, “Watch and pray that you enter not into temptation” (Matt 26:41). In the vein of Why should we watch if we are saved simply by believing. And once we believe how could we be tempted, that is being ‘always saved’? And once saved why would the Lord need to know how to deliver the “godly from temptations” (2 Peter 2:9)? We know that He was tempted as every man is tempted.


I know of NO Christian who believes one should sin greatly and believe greater. That certainly isn't in my Bible. But then my bible also says that my salvation isn't based on my performance either.

Your right our salvation isn’t based on performance. Rather we preserve working out our salvation with fear and trembling. If salvation were assured as some believe then hope has been realized, and we have no further need of hope. Yet we’re told, “we are saved by hope!” (Rom 8:23-24)


Anyone who claimed to be a Christian and thought they could do whatever they wanted to as far as sin....I'd ask them to check their birth certificate.
What does the birth certificate have to do with it? Is the suggestion that we are born Christian?

JoeT

This conundrum is pretty much what led to the Docetic heresy in the first couple of centuries after Jesus. This view said he wasn't really human, but only appeared to be (hence the name, Greek DOKEO, "seem") or was clothed in a human form, which he shed at the crucifixion. Ultimately the church at large rejected it based on Paul's statements that he truly was a man, Hebrews' statement that he was tempted just like we are, etc. To me, this is yet again an instance when we're trying to comprehend something that's far beyond our finite minds.


Docetism belongs to Gnosticism; it’s not properly a Christian heresy. Nevertheless, my suggestion was somewhat opposite. I’m suggesting that Christ was as ‘human’ as you and I are. The 'man' that is Christ has the same propensity for error and sin as you and I do. I almost hate to say this, but many good men hung on the cross before Christ and many good men hung on the cross after Christ. It wasn’t the fact that he was crucified that makes Christ different, it’s that he was the perfect Pasch. Not just the holocaust, but the entire Paschal feast. Christ has the same free-will to choose; to cooperate with God’s will as all men do. As ClassyT noted, this is why he sweats blood in the garden. The temptations in Christ’s garden of life are proportionately greater than those in most men. Christ is the Divine example that men have the capacity to cooperate with the will of God becoming blessed. Which brings us to the conclusion that ‘once saved always saved’ would be in conflict with the example given in Christ. Christ didn’t sin because he freely cooperated with the will of God, not because he was ‘saved’.

JoeT

Docetism belongs to Gnosticism; it’s not properly a Christian heresy.

Gnosticism was a Christian heresy. It grew out of a blending of Christianity with certain Greek forms of mysticism.


Nevertheless, my suggestion was somewhat opposite. I’m suggesting that Christ was as ‘human’ as you and I are. The 'man' that is Christ has the same propensity for error and sin as you and I do.

I don't think anybody is disputing that. The question has to do more with the union of human and divine natures. In one sense, he wasn't as human as we, because a) he didn't have a human father and b) he was also fully God. Hence the conundrum.


Christ didn’t sin because he freely cooperated with the will of God, not because he was ‘saved’.



I haven't seen anybody say otherwise.

My point was that Christ was both God and man. Therefore what can be scripturally applied to man can be applied to Christ.

That does not follow, because as you said, he's also God. That's going to limit somewhat the things about man that can be applied to him. Whether you intend to or not (and I don't claim to know), you're basically saying his divine nature didn't affect him at all and it was only his humanity that was active. That's simply not the case.

Gnosticism was a Christian heresy. It grew out of a blending of Christianity with certain Greek forms of mysticism.



I don't think anybody is disputing that. The question has to do more with the union of human and divine natures. In one sense, he wasn't as human as we, because a) he didn't have a human father and b) he was also fully God. Hence the conundrum.



I haven't seen anybody say otherwise.


It would have been a lot simpler if Jesus was a divine being in human form. If this were the case then ClassyT proposition that, 'Jesus cannot sin' would be correct. It would be logically impossible for him to have done so.

This position beings about problems when we come to consider free will. Basically, Jesus not being able to sin means that he would not have free will.

As stated before this position also has implication for fatalism which would be rejected by most Christian denominations.

Unfortunately for ClassyT her idea is difficult to sustain from a Christian point of view.


Regards

Tut

As stated before this position also has implication for fatalism which would be rejected by most Christian denominations.

Unfortunately for ClassyT her idea is difficult to sustain from a Christian point of view.


Regards

Tut

A correction is in order here.

Fatalism has many things in common with predestination. Perhaps I should have said fatalism would be rejected by many Christian denominations.

Tut

Gnosticism was a Christian heresy. It grew out of a blending of Christianity with certain Greek forms of mysticism.

It would seem to me to call it a heresy would be to elevate Gnosticism to the level of Christianity. That would be like calling Buddhism a Christian heresy because they have similar morals and ethics as Christians.


I don't think anybody is disputing that. The question has to do more with the union of human and divine natures. In one sense, he wasn't as human as we, because a) he didn't have a human father and b) he was also fully God. Hence the conundrum.

Conundrum it may be, nevertheless if we assign a Divinity to any part of Christ’s resistance to temptations and unyielding scruples then what good would His sacrifice be? We could always claim fatalism. Man could never fulfill the call to be Christ like, to be adopted sons of God – there is no part of man that fits the description of Divinity.

JoeT

It would have been a lot simpler if Jesus was a divine being in human form. If this were the case then ClassyT proposition that, 'Jesus cannot sin' would be correct. It would be logically impossible for him to have done so.

This position beings about problems when we come to consider free will. Basically, Jesus not being able to sin means that he would not have free will.

As stated before this position also has implication for fatalism which would be rejected by most Christian denominations.

Unfortunately for ClassyT her idea is difficult to sustain from a Christian point of view.


Regards

Tut



I agree.

That does not follow, because as you said, he's also God. That's going to limit somewhat the things about man that can be applied to him. Whether you intend to or not (and I don't claim to know), you're basically saying his divine nature didn't affect him at all and it was only his humanity that was active. That's simply not the case.


I can't make any claim to know what part Christ’s Divinity played in the human part of Christ’s nature, but it would seem to me if Christ is to be the ‘perfect’ sacrifice He needs to be a perfect man ~ not a perfect God, a perfect God already exists.

This seems to be the view of St. Thomas:


our Lord says (Luke 22:42): "Father, if Thou wilt, remove this chalice from Me. But yet not My will but Thine be done." And Ambrose, quoting this to the Emperor Gratian (De Fide ii, 7) says: "As He assumed my will, He assumed my sorrow;" and on Luke 22:42 he says: "His will, He refers to the Man--the Father's, to the Godhead. For the will of man is temporal, and the will of the Godhead eternal." St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Tertia Pars , 18, 1

JoeT

My point was that Christ was both God and man. Therefore what can be scripturally applied to man can be applied to Christ. Beyond bringing the Kingdom of God to us, his life is a testament to man achieving holiness through his works in faith.

In regard to sin we can apply temptation to the man that is Christ. Christ speaks to temptations, “you are they who have continued with me in my temptations , i.e. inspite of temptations. Christ knows how man is tempted, “Watch and pray that you enter not into temptation” (Matt 26:41). In the vein of Why should we watch if we are saved simply by believing. And once we believe how could we be tempted, that is being ‘always saved’? And once saved why would the Lord need to know how to deliver the “godly from temptations” (2 Peter 2:9)? We know that He was tempted as every man is tempted.



Your right our salvation isn’t based on performance. Rather we preserve working out our salvation with fear and trembling. If salvation were assured as some believe then hope has been realized, and we have no further need of hope. Yet we’re told, “we are saved by hope!” (Rom 8:23-24)


What does the birth certificate have to do with it? Is the suggestion that we are born Christian?

JoeT



Grumpy JoeT,

No. We aren't born Christians.. we are suppose to be born again. Remember what Jesus said to Nicodemus? I meant your birth certificate spirtually speaking.

We will have to agree to disagree on exactly what the Apostle Paul meant by "working out your salvation"... he isn't talking about trying to keep something we can't lose. If he were, he would be contradicting himselfand other parts of the Bible. We are SEALED with the Holy spirit of promise, we are ALREADY seated in heavenly places. ( check out Ephesians) There is too many verses to support the Lord Jesus is indeed the AUTHOR and FINISHER of my faith. Good thing Noah was put in that ARK and not left hangin on a tree limb "hoping" to be saved from the flood.. don't you think? :D

Unfortunately for ClassyT her idea is difficult to sustain from a Christian point of view.


Regards

Tut

Tut,

But Jesus, even in his humanity, was born different than we are. He wasn't born with a sinful nature. We WERE. Therefore he had NO sinful desires and then you top that with the fact he is also God.

He was never the man in Romans 7 that the apostle paul describes... thats my story and I'm sticking to it.

But Jesus, even in his humanity, was born different than we are. He wasn't born with a sinful nature. We WERE. Therefore he had NO sinful desires and then you top that with the fact he is also God.

He was never the man in Romans 7 that the apostle paul describes...thats my story and i'm stickin to it.
Adam in his humanity was created differently from how we are. He didn't have a sinful nature. He had no sinful desires. He did have free will.

So Jesus was like Adam -- perfect, sinless, had no sinful desires, had no clue what sin was.

Did Jesus have free will like Adam did?

Tut,

But Jesus, even in his humanity, was born different than we are. He wasn't born with a sinful nature. We WERE. Therefore he had NO sinful desires and then you top that with the fact he is also God.

He was never the man in Romans 7 that the apostle paul describes...thats my story and i'm stickin to it.



Hi classyT,

I would say that you above statement amounts to this...

Jesus was a person like us in every way except he lacked a sinful nature. He also had something we don't have, i.e.. Divinity.

When Jesus was tempted to sin he might act like he was tempted but in reality he wasn't tempted. This was because he didn't have the capacity to sin. Put in a different way, he does not have the ability to feel tempted.

Is such a person possible? There could have been such a person and maybe there is such a person. However, in the end we need to ask ourselves is such a person within the bounds of what we understand as a human being?

Regards

Tut

When Jesus was tempted to sin he might act like he was tempted but in reality he wasn't tempted. This was because he didn't have the capacity to sin.
So you're saying Jesus didn't have free will, i.e. He would not have been able to sin no matter how big the temptation.

WG,

Adam was created innocent. It is true he didn't have a sin nature but he also wasn't God either. AND... Jesus did know what sin was. He knew good and evil unlike Adam.

Grumpy JoeT,

No. We aren't born Christians..we are suppose to be born again. remember what Jesus said to Nicodemus? I meant your birth certificate spirtually speaking.

We will have to agree to disagree on exactly what the Apostle Paul meant by "working out your salvation"...he isn't talking about trying to keep something we can't lose. If he were, he would be contradicting himselfand other parts of the Bible. We are SEALED with the Holy spirit of promise, we are ALREADY seated in heavenly places. ( check out Ephesians) There is too many verses to support the Lord Jesus is indeed the AUTHOR and FINISHER of my faith. Good thing Noah was put in that ARK and not left hangin on a tree limb "hoping" to be saved from the flood..don't ya think? :D

Ephesians 3:10

That the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places through the church,

My friend grumpy JoeT:

These are the exact verses I was thinking of in Ephesians:



<< Ephesians 2 :4-9 NIV
But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by GRACE you have been saved. And God raised US up with Christ and SEATED US with HIM in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.

It has it all in there... I'm already seated in heavenly places AND my salvation is a free gift, not of works.

BTW... CHURCH = the body of Christ = all true believes in the Lord Jesus and his FINISHED work at calvary.. :)

Tut,

Lol.. you make me laugh. You must talk to me like I am a confused blonde.. because I am. Sad to say I can't tell where you stand from your posts... so which side do you take... could he have sinned if he chose to?

WG.

Jesus' free will would be to do the will of his Father. Some of the things the Lord Jesus actually said.. "Ii and my father are one" John 10:30 "If anyone haas seen me, they have seen the Father". John 14:9 "Before Abraham was,I AM. John 8:58 His will was identical to the Father's will.

WG.

Jesus' free will would be to do the will of his Father. some of the things the Lord Jesus actually said.."Ii and my father are one" John 10:30 "If anyone haas seen me, they have seen the Father". John 14:9 "Before Abraham was,I AM. John 8:58 His will was identical to the Father's will.
But Jesus was also fully human. What does that mean?

So you're saying Jesus didn't have free will, i.e., He would not have been able to sin no matter how big the temptation.


Hi Wondergirl and ClassyT,

No. I am saying this is what ClassyT's position amounts to.


"But Jesus, even in his humanity, was born different than we are. He wasn't born with a sinful nature. We WERE. Therefore he had no sinful desires and you top that with the fact that he is also God". Quote ClassyT

ClassyT has said that Jesus is different to a normal man. What I am saying is that this difference amounts to Jesus not having the experience of being tempted.

Regards

Tut

Sorry Wonder girl I didn't answer your question.

My position is that Jesus had free will.

Regards Tut

My friend grumpy JoeT:

These are the exact verses I was thinking of in Ephesians:

<< Ephesians 2 :4-9 NIV
But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by GRACE you have been saved. And God raised US up with Christ and SEATED US with HIM in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.

It has it all in there...I'm already seated in heavenly places AND my salvation is a free gift, not of works.

BTW...CHURCH = the body of Christ = all true believes in the Lord Jesus and his FINISHED work at calvary..:)


Christ started the work at Calvary ~ God ends it on the "last day".

But, where is the guarantee of salvation, of “once saved always saved”? I don’t see it in these verses. These verses are simply declaration the merit of ‘just’ fruits? Furthermore, by what means do we achieve our seat ~ believe? Isn’t salvation through baptism (a work) and isn’t salvation eternal life through communion, as commanded by Christ “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you? How can you render, all I got to do is believe, from these verses. (By the way ~ I’ve always wanted to ask ~ does one click their heels together like Alice when they ‘believe’?) If we hold the heel clicking true, and John 6:52 is true and John 3:5 is true, what good is it to be seated next to Christ? We could never get to heaven to claim our seat; without baptism the Kingdom’s portal is never opened, nor will we ever have an eternal life with which to enjoy our seat.

Our salvation is found in two things, God’s love and the hope he gives us. There is no salvation in an Alice like heel clicking belief; there are no assurances, guarantees, or warranties outside of 'hope’. The first hope is found in John’s Gospel, “unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Christ teaches that any man who enters the “Kingdom of God” must be baptized of water and of the Holy Spirit. The ‘Kingdom’ has different meanings, a place, a certain holiness transcending life to the next, or the Church herself. Knowing the road to the “Kingdom” we can enter gate through Baptism. The water is the cleansing that lathers away sin; the Holy Spirit instructs and strengthens our faith, as we just heard, through the Church. John the Baptist tells us that we will be baptized in the Holy Ghost and fire (Cf. Matthew 3:11). Over a life time, the Holy Spirit stokes the our passions for Christ with fire with a faith that can be likened to flux, smelting away impurities into a lump of pure golden holiness; whereby the created comes to yearn for the Creator wherein for deliverance. (Rom 8)

In Christ the chains of concupiscence are broken away, freeing the faithful from corruption (death); liberating man, making him eligible to be adopted as the children of God. “We ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption of the sons of God, the redemption of our body” Paul shows us how this happens, “we are saved by hope!” (Rom 8:23-24). It’s here in the mournful groans that we are invited to be consumed in communion with Christ.

The second offer of hope is found in the Eucharist; you might say sustenance for the Body of Christ. “For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.” The blood signifies a ‘real’ sacrifice of meat for the first born on Pasch.

What then are we to make of the Christ saying he was the ‘meat’; why wouldn’t he feed us manna? You may recall that when the manna fell from heaven, it needed to be collected, processed and cooked in short order, or it would spoil – this bread had a 24 hour shelf life. Christ proposes something more substantial than the Twinkie food – a worthless cake surrounding a sweet pasty center with little real nutritional value. How long would such sustenance last? Christ reminds us that our “fathers ate manna in the desert, and are dead. (John 6:49), sounds like all bun without any filling meat. However to Israel the Shew Bread of the temple was eaten by the high priest to receive Divine Wisdom. This bread of a Divine knowledge is a worthless empty burger without the meat of faith hope and charity provided by the Church.

Why is it that Moses’ bread didn’t save? The bread of the intellect isn’t meat enough to last an eternity; intellectual word of God is only good for this world. Christ, however is telling us He’ll provide the beef, he says “I am that bread of life”. I am the meat that an eternal death must pass over, I am the meat of everlasting life, a flesh for the life of the world; a meat for the first-born in His Kingdom. The simple fact of the matter is that “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.” A sacrificial meat for the first born of His KIngdom is given us all so that death will pass over.

Why labor “for the meat which perishes;” why not work for “that which endures unto life everlasting, which the Son of man will give you.” So where’s the beef? Christ tells us where, and flat out too, and it ain’t in the Wonder bread! “For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. (Cf. John 6:26, 55).



Grumpy JoeT

Christ started the work at Calvary ~ God ends it on the "last day".

But, where is the guarantee of salvation, of “once saved always saved”? I don’t see it in these verses. These verses are simply declaration the merit of ‘just’ fruits?

No, they're a plain description of how salvation comes.


Furthermore, by what means do we achieve our seat ~ believe? Isn’t salvation through baptism (a work)

No.


and isn’t salvation eternal life through communion,

No.


(By the way ~ I’ve always wanted to ask ~ does one click their heels together like Alice when they ‘believe’?)

Alice who? If you're trying to reference the Wizard of Oz, you have the wrong girl. Not a very effective attempt at ridicule! ;)

so... a lot of people think it is possible that Jesus could have sinned... but that then acknkowledges that there is a higher order above god... it goes like this:

Is something wrong because god knows it is wrong? Or is it wrong because it is not of god? (in other words does god acknowledge goodness because it is good, or because all that is good is godly) The later has to be the answer if you believe that god is the ultamate being, the end all- all pwerfull, all knowing creater that we as christains profess to believe in.

It is impossible that god is something he is not... if he sinned then he would have been and since we know he never changes there is no way that sin could ever have become part of who he is... It's just funny that saten tried to tempt him... just imagine that- how foolish must one be to tempt God or to think that one would be able to prevail over God... wow that's lol worthy

No, they're a plain description of how salvation comes.
No.
No.

That’s not very informative; nothing much to chew on.

JoeT

That’s not very informative; nothing much to chew on.

JoeT
There was nothing fed to us. What about Alice?

so..

Is something wrong because god knows it is wrong? or is it wrong because it is not of god? (in other words does god acknowledge goodness because it is good, or because all that is good is godly) The later has to be the answer if you believe that god is the ultamate being, the end all- all pwerfull, all knowing creater that we as christains profess to believe in.




Hi Boogers,

Your question has been debated for about 3000 years and there is still no agreement. It is better known as the Euthyphro Dilemma...

Is something morally right because God commands it? It is claimed that it makes no difference what God commands. By simply commanding something it is by definition morally correct.

Opposed to this is the claim that God only commands what is good. If we are aware that something is obviously morally wrong then we can be assured that God would not command it.

I certainly don't know the answer.

Regards

Tut

Christ started the work at Calvary ~ God ends it on the "last day".

But, where is the guarantee of salvation, of “once saved always saved”? I don't see it in these verses. These verses are simply declaration the merit of 'just' fruits? Furthermore, by what means do we achieve our seat ~ believe? Isn't salvation through baptism (a work) and isn't salvation eternal life through communion, as commanded by Christ “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you? How can you render, all I got to do is believe, from these verses. (By the way ~ I've always wanted to ask ~ does one click their heels together like Alice when they 'believe'?) If we hold the heel clicking true, and John 6:52 is true and John 3:5 is true, what good is it to be seated next to Christ? We could never get to heaven to claim our seat; without baptism the Kingdom's portal is never opened, nor will we ever have an eternal life with which to enjoy our seat.

Our salvation is found in two things, God's love and the hope he gives us. There is no salvation in an Alice like heel clicking belief; there are no assurances, guarantees, or warranties outside of of 'hope'. The first hope is found in John's Gospel, “unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Christ teaches that any man who enters the “Kingdom of God” must be baptized of water and of the Holy Spirit. The 'Kingdom' has different meanings, a place, a certain holiness transcending life to the next, or the Church herself. Knowing the road to the “Kingdom” we can enter gate through Baptism. The water is the cleansing that lathers away sin; the Holy Spirit instructs and strengthens our faith, as we just heard, through the Church. John the Baptist tells us that we will be baptized in the Holy Ghost and fire (Cf. Matthew 3:11). Over a life time, the Holy Spirit stokes the our passions for Christ with fire with a faith that can be likened to flux, smelting away impurities into a lump of pure golden holiness; whereby the created comes to yearn for the Creator wherein for deliverance. (Rom 8)

In Christ the chains of concupiscence are broken away, freeing the faithful from corruption (death); liberating man, making him eligible to be adopted as the children of God. “We ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption of the sons of God, the redemption of our body” Paul shows us how this happens, “we are saved by hope!” (Rom 8:23-24). It's here in the mournful groans that we are invited to be consumed in communion with Christ.

The second offer of hope is found in the Eucharist; you might say sustenance for the Body of Christ. “For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.” The blood signifies a 'real' sacrifice of meat for the first born on Pasch.

What then are we to make of the Christ saying he was the 'meat'; why wouldn't he feed us manna? You may recall that when the manna fell from heaven, it needed to be collected, processed and cooked in short order, or it would spoil – this bread had a 24 hour shelf life. Christ proposes something more substantial than the Twinkie food – a worthless cake surrounding a sweet pasty center with little real nutritional value. How long would such sustenance last? Christ reminds us that our “fathers ate manna in the desert, and are dead. (John 6:49), sounds like all bun without any filling meat. However to Israel the Shew Bread of the temple was eaten by the high priest to receive Divine Wisdom. This bread of a Divine knowledge is a worthless empty burger without the meat of faith hope and charity provided by the Church.

Why is it that Moses' bread didn't save? The bread of the intellect isn't meat enough to last an eternity; intellectual word of God is only good for this world. Christ, however is telling us He'll provide the beef, he says “I am that bread of life”. I am the meat that an eternal death must pass over, I am the meat of everlasting life, a flesh for the life of the world; a meat for the first-born in His Kingdom. The simple fact of the matter is that “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.” A sacrificial meat for the first born of His KIngdom is given us all so that death will pass over.

Why labor “for the meat which perishes;” why not work for “that which endures unto life everlasting, which the Son of man will give you.” So where's the beef? Christ tells us where, and flat out too, and it ain't in the Wonder bread! “For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. (Cf. John 6:26, 55).



Grumpy JoeT


Grumpy JoeT,

That isn't what the bible records. Christ FINISHED the work at calvary...

Also would like to add that in the bible when Paul used the word HOPE it is a sure thing... not like when we use the word hope. He says so himself. Check out Romans 5:5 Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us.
HOPE Doesn't disappoint.. it is a SURE thing

Also check out Colossians 1:27 Because Christ is in you, the hope of glory

Also : In Ephesians we are told when we BELIEVED the gospel of our salvation we were sealed with the Holy Spirit. I didn't have to click my heels.. I simply believed and I was born again, sealed with the Holy Spirit, my name written in the lambs book of life where no man could pluck me out of HIs hand and I was immediately seated in heavenly places. (That is my position spiritually) I didn't say it... the Bible did.

Now if it wasn't true that I was sealed with the Holy Spirit after I believed.. why did Paul say such a thing? AND... my question for you is... what sin could I commit where the Holy Spirit would leave me after I believed? The Bible says we can quench the Spirit and we can grieve the Spirit.. but I find nothing to say the HOLY SPIRIT will ever leave. I'm sealed. I'm safe, I'm secure.. not because I deserve it... but because the Lord Jesus redeemed me and I rest completely in HIM by faith plus NOTHING. For HE is truly enough. This is what makes Christianity different from every other religion.. I don't have to do ANYTHNG other than believe. Then because I am sealed with the HOLY SPIRIT.. I want to do good works now because of the HOLY SPIRIT who lives in me. I don't do them for my salvation.

There is no where in the bible that says I have to take communion to be saved. The Lord Jesus asked us to do it in remberence of HIM and His death. I WANT to do it... I love to do it.. but it has nothing to do with my salvation.

But Jesus was also fully human. What does that mean?

That he had all the physical needs of a man, he felt hunger, thirst, pain, happiness, sadness. It is true he had a free will.. but his free will was the same as God the Father. Perhaps it isn't fruitful to debate this... but I'm really surprised that not one person has agreed with me.

i want to do good works now because of the HOLY SPIRIT who lives in me. I don't do them for my salvation.

Yup. Good works are our thank you to God for salvation. God loves us and gave us a free gift of eternal life; now we say "thank you" by loving Him in return and demonstrating His love to others.

Grandma gives me a new bike just because she loves me. I say thank you to her and then, without her asking me to do it, I sweep her front porch and set the table for lunch and pull weeds in her garden because I am so happy. I do Grandpa's and Grandma's laundry, fold it after it's dry, and put it away in the right places. When I go home later, I am cheerful and loving, helping Mom and Dad however I can.

That he had all the physical needs of a man, he felt hunger, thirst, pain, happiness, sadness. It is true he had a free will..but his free will was the exact same as God the Father. Perhaps it isn't fruitful to debate this...but I'm really surprised that not one person has agreed with me.
Was Jesus' free will the same kind as what God gave Adam?

WG,

Adam didn't understand all things.. he had no knowledge of good and evil. Jesus fully understood. So while Jeus did have a free will... it was with full knowledge of everything.

The promise of the Lord Jesus was given in Genesis 3 :15 when God is speaking to satan..

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

It was already a done deal.. Jesus couldn't sin... wouldn't sin and wasn't capable of it. God's word is TRUTH... he isn't a man that he should lie.. so why promise this if there was a possiblily?

It was already a done deal..Jesus couldn't sin...wouldn't sin and wasn't capable of it. God's word is TRUTH...he isn't a man that he should lie..so why promise this if there was a possiblily?
Then our faith is in vain, and Jesus' sacrifice was for naught. If what you say is true, He is not the "New Adam" who understands us, He did not really suffer during the beatings and humiliation by the soldiers, and He did not suffer in the Garden nor on the cross. All is a sham.

Yes he did... he suffered bled and died. He is called the second Adam. Why is our faith in vain?

All I'm saying is that God had the solution to the fall of man in Genesis... and he did suffer and die for us and he crushed the head of satan in the process.

Not sure why you think it is a sham?

That he had all the physical needs of a man, he felt hunger, thirst, pain, happiness, sadness. It is true he had a free will..but his free will was the exact same as God the Father. Perhaps it isn't fruitful to debate this...but I'm really surprised that not one person has agreed with me.


Hi ClassyT,

I think it is fruitful because these types of statements are central to your original question. As Boogers pointed out the idea that Jesus and God having the same free will suffers from an Euthypro problem.

I am a bit pushed for time at the moment but I could outline the problem later on if you like.

Regards

Tut

Yes he did...he suffered bled and died.
But only in a robotic way, and not really real blood or pain, right? 'Cause after all, you said He wouldn't have succumbed to temptation. He wasn't really human and couldn't be tempted which means He didn't really suffer and die like a human. Not really. Right? It was just a fakey God thing, not a human thing. Right?

But only in a robotic way, and not really real blood or pain, right? 'Cause after all, you said He wouldn't have succumbed to temptation. He wasn't really human and couldn't be tempted which means He didn't really suffer and die like a human. Not really. Right? It was just a fakey God thing, not a human thing. Right?

I don't see how this follows. Not being tempted to sin really doesn't have anything to do with mortality or the capacity to suffer.

That isn't what the bible records. Christ FINISHED the work at calvary....
Christ finished his ministry in His Passion, so doing beginning His Kingdom on earth.

Also I would like to add that in the bible when Paul used the word HOPE it is a sure thing...not like when we use the word hope. He says so himself. Check out Romans 5:5 Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us.
HOPE DOESN"T disappoint..it is a SURE thing


Being justified therefore by faith, let us have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ: By whom also we have access through faith into this grace, wherein we stand, and glory in the hope of the glory of the sons of God. And not only so; but we glory also in tribulations, knowing that tribulation worketh patience; And patience trial; and trial hope; And hope confoundeth not: because the charity of God is poured forth in our hearts, by the Holy Ghost, who is given to us.

A hope that realizes its object is no longer hope. The virtue of hope that scripture speaks of is a yearning to obtain from God an infinite good, particularly consisting of eternal life and a gratification only God satisfies. In hope we are no longer hesitant in our faith satisfying the intellect and will to seek Him. (Cf. Augustine, Holy Trinity, 14, 3, 6)

These verses in Romans don’t speak of a guaranteed salvation; ‘faith alone’ isn’t salvific. Rather it’s a dead faith no longer in need of God finding instead a satisfaction in self. These verses speak to that assurance of hope that groans “within ourselves, waiting for the adoption of the sons of God, the redemption of our body.” We find God’s charity that he gave us Christ, whose death didn’t end sin, doesn’t warranty salvation, but gives us hope even in tribulation. This hope translates into our perseverance in hope, with fear and trembling to work out our salvation. (Cf. Phil. 2:12).


Also check out Colossians 1:27 Because Christ is in you, the hope of glory

Also : In Ephesians we are told when we BELIEVED the gospel of our salvation we were sealed with the Holy Spirit. I didn't have to click my heels..i simply believed and I was born again, sealed with the Holy Spirit, my name written in the lambs book of life where no man could pluck me out of HIs hand and I was immediately seated in heavenly places. (That is my position spiritually) I didn't say it.....the Bible did.

God’s grace, gives us faith which in its turn produces hope which in its turn produces charity. However, Charity is the greatest of these, because it merits grace which in turn strengthens our faith working an increase in our hope and again an increase in charity.


Now if it wasn't true that I was sealed with the Holy Spirit after I believed..why did Paul say such a thing? AND.....my question for you is...what sin could I commit where the Holy Spirit would leave me after I believed? The Bible says we can quench the Spirit and we can grieve the Spirit..but I find nothing to say the HOLY SPIRIT will ever leave. I'm sealed. I'm safe, I'm secure..not because I deserve it...but because the Lord Jesus redeemed me and I rest completely in HIM by faith plus NOTHING. For HE is truly enough. This is what makes Christianity different from every other religion..i don't have to do ANYTHNG other than believe. Then because I am sealed with the HOLY SPIRIT..i want to do good works now because of the HOLY SPIRIT who lives in me. I don't do them for my salvation.

It’s not true that hope is eternal; if it is then we are doomed. Part of hope is that we realize our faith in Christ, becoming adopted ‘sons of God’; “hope that is seen, is not hope”. Conversely, a hope that is eternal is never realized.

Furthermore, if by eternal hope you mean to say that we realize our hope in this world then we are also doomed. Receiving our salvation in this world would be to say that our hope is realized in this world. Look around your mad world; is this your ‘salvation’? To what end do we persevere to the end, to be saved back into this world? (Cf Matt 10:22 and Matt 24:13).


There is nowhere in the bible that says I have to take communion to be saved. The Lord Jesus asked us to do it in remembrance of HIM and His death. I WANT to do it....I love to do it..but it has nothing to do with my salvation.

It’s in this way the bible says hope saves: “And not only it, but ourselves also, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption of the sons of God [i.e. HOPE FOR], the redemption of our body. For we are saved by hope.” (Romans 8:23-24). It’s in our hope that we preserver.

JoeT

But only in a robotic way, and not really real blood or pain, right? 'Cause after all, you said He wouldn't have succumbed to temptation. He wasn't really human and couldn't be tempted which means He didn't really suffer and die like a human. Not really. Right? It was just a fakey God thing, not a human thing. Right?

No... it was real and it was something no one has ever gone through nor will go through. Not only was it painful beyond words, but he was ridiculed, spit on, mocked.. and then God placed all the sin of the world upon HIM, who knew no sin. The Lord was sweating great drops of blood in the garden.. it didn't get too much more REAL than that, talk about STRESS. He was fully human obviously and not at all robotic. My point WG is that he couldn't, wouldn't, and not capable of sin. Jesus, even in his humanity, came for one purpose; to do the will of his Father. The promise of Jesus was given in Genesis 3:15. How could he have failed? How could he have any other will? God is not a man that he should lie.

Hi ClassyT,

I think it is fruitful because these types of statements are central to your original question. As Boogers pointed out the idea that Jesus and God having the same free will suffers from an Euthypro problem.

I am a bit pushed for time at the moment but I could outline the problem later on if you like.

Regards

Tut

Feel free to explain. But I do believe that the Lord Jesus is God and I do believe his free will was to do the will of his Father.

Tess

My point WG is that he couldn't, wouldn't, and not capable of sin. Jesus, even in his humanity, came for one purpose; to do the will of his Father. The promise of Jesus was given in Genesis 3:15. How could he have failed? How could he have any other will? God is not a man that he should lie.
Yes, Jesus could have failed. Adam failed. Because he failed, we are all caught in the web of sin and will not live forever in a perfect world like he was meant to do. Jesus came for one purpose: to be the perfect creature, the perfect Adam, that we cannot be. Jesus replayed the tape just like Superman did in the movie by the same name when he rewrote history. The Genesis verse doesn't say Jesus will be successful; it simply says God will try again someday with a "new Adam." And He did. And that new Adam was able to withstand temptation this time and override His human desires (unlike the old Adam).

Christ finished his ministry in His Passion, so doing beginning His Kingdom on earth.



Being justified therefore by faith, let us have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ: By whom also we have access through faith into this grace, wherein we stand, and glory in the hope of the glory of the sons of God. And not only so; but we glory also in tribulations, knowing that tribulation worketh patience; And patience trial; and trial hope; And hope confoundeth not: because the charity of God is poured forth in our hearts, by the Holy Ghost, who is given to us.

A hope that realizes its object is no longer hope. The virtue of hope that scripture speaks of is a yearning to obtain from God an infinite good, particularly consisting of eternal life and a gratification only God satisfies. In hope we are no longer hesitant in our faith satisfying the intellect and will to seek Him. (Cf. Augustine, Holy Trinity, 14, 3, 6)

These verses in Romans don’t speak of a guaranteed salvation; ‘faith alone’ isn’t salvific. Rather it’s a dead faith no longer in need of God finding instead a satisfaction in self. These verses speak to that assurance of hope that groans “within ourselves, waiting for the adoption of the sons of God, the redemption of our body.” We find God’s charity that he gave us Christ, whose death didn’t end sin, doesn’t warranty salvation, but gives us hope even in tribulation. This hope translates into our perseverance in hope, with fear and trembling to work out our salvation. (Cf. Phil. 2:12).



God’s grace, gives us faith which in its turn produces hope which in its turn produces charity. However, Charity is the greatest of these, because it merits grace which in turn strengthens our faith working an increase in our hope and again an increase in charity.



It’s not true that hope is eternal; if it is then we are doomed. Part of hope is that we realize our faith in Christ, becoming adopted ‘sons of God’; “hope that is seen, is not hope”. Conversely, a hope that is eternal is never realized.

Furthermore, if by eternal hope you mean to say that we realize our hope in this world then we are also doomed. Receiving our salvation in this world would be to say that our hope is realized in this world. Look around your mad world; is this your ‘salvation’? To what end do we persevere to the end, to be saved back into this world? (Cf Matt 10:22 and Matt 24:13).



It’s in this way the bible says hope saves: “And not only it, but ourselves also, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption of the sons of God [i.e. HOPE FOR], the redemption of our body. For we are saved by hope.” (Romans 8:23-24). It’s in our hope that we preserver.

JoeT

GrumpyJoeT,

Wow... we just totally don't agree.

I will say it again... Hebrews 12:2 Jesus christ is the AUTHOR and FINISHER of my faith. ( I didn't say it... the Bible did)

When Paul speaks of Hope.. he lays it out plain as can be. I am not hoping I am saved... I KNOW I aml. Because my HOPE is in the Lord Jesus Christ. And we know this kind of HOPE doesn't disappoint. You can try to get around it but that is what the Bible says.

I was sealed with the Holy spirit the moment I believed... ( I guess sealed doesn't really mean sealed.) I was seated in heavenly places ( guess seated doesn't really mean seated) The Lord Jesus himself has said he will never leave me or forsake me... ( I guess never doesn't mean never).

I believe the bible. I believe : if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus Christ and shall believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead THOU SHALT BE SAVED. Romans 10:9 ( don't tell me.. let me guess... it doesn't mean I'm saved if I do exactly that)

Hey, I believe the Bible. I don't add to it and I don't twist it. I put it into context and I believe it... it is called faith. For by grace are you saved through faith and THAT not of yourself, it is a gift from God lest any man should boast. Eph.

Heck,according to that verse, I can't even take credit for having the FAITH to get saved.



Honesty I have no idea what you are talking about when you stated this:


"Furthermore, if by eternal hope you mean to say that we realize our hope in this world then we are also doomed. Receiving our salvation in this world would be to say that our hope is realized in this world. Look around your mad world; is this your ‘salvation’? To what end do we persevere to the end, to be saved back into this world?"

HUH? I'm saved from spending my eternity in a devils hell separated from God forever and ever. I'm saved and my name was written in the Lambs book of life the day I received Christ as my Lord and savior. I'm NOT saved from living in this world. But I am called to be salt and light to it. I am told( in scripture) to be in the world but not OF the world. I'm saved so that I can live and tell others the good news of Jesus Christ.

Sorry if I'm rambling... gotta run. Going to go watch some fireworks.

Feel free to explain. But I do believe that the Lord Jesus is God and I do believe his free will was to do the will of his Father.

Tess

Hi Tess,

I don't think I will.

You are obviously passionate about this. I don't want to try and undermine your beliefs.

Best wishes

Tut.

Hi Tess,

I don't think I will.

You are obviously passionate about this. I don't want to try and undermine your beliefs.

Best wishes

Tut.

Sounds like it's about time for the good ol' "agree to disagree" thing?

Yes, Jesus could have failed. Adam failed. Because he failed, we are all caught in the web of sin and will not live forever in a perfect world like he was meant to do. Jesus came for one purpose: to be the perfect creature, the perfect Adam, that we cannot be. Jesus replayed the tape just like Superman did in the movie by the same name when he rewrote history. The Genesis verse doesn't say Jesus will be successful; it simply says God will try again someday with a "new Adam." And He did. And that new Adam was able to withstand temptation this time and override His human desires (unlike the old Adam).
WG,
Jesus was promised in Genesis 3:15 and it DID say he would be successful... Satan bruised the Lord's heal... but the LORD crushed Satan's head. If Jesus could fail, God wouldn't have made such a promise.
ALSO:
Adam wasn't sent to redeem mankind and then failed. Adam caused the sin problem with his failure and passed to everyone after him. The reason the Lord Jesus is called the second Adam because HE came and JUSTIFIED mankind. He makes those that call upon him... just as if they had NEVER sinned. This is the reason he is called the second Adam. Not because he overcame some temptation. One man caused sin and separation from God... Jesus came and redeemed us back to have fellowship with the Father because we are a new creature.

WG,
Jesus was promised in Genesis 3:15 and it DID say he would be successful....Satan bruised the Lord's heal...but the LORD crushed Satan's head. If Jesus could fail, God wouldn't have made such a promise.
ALSO:
Adam wasn't sent to redeem mankind and then failed. Adam caused the sin problem with his failure and passed to everyone after him. The reason the Lord Jesus is called the second Adam because HE came and JUSTIFIED mankind. He makes those that call upon him...just as if they had NEVER sinned. This is the reason he is called the second Adam. Not because he overcame some temptation. One man caused sin and seperation from God...Jesus came and redeemed us back to have fellowship with the Father because we are a new creature.

Sir Nitpick sez to both of ya:

Jesus is never called the Second Adam. He's call the Last Adam in 1 Cor 15:45.

My RSV says "second" for the I Cor. Verse.

WG,
Jesus was promised in Genesis 3:15 and it DID say he would be successful... Satan bruised the Lord's heal... but the LORD crushed Satan's head.
That takes us only to the crucifixion and Jesus in the grave. (Pssst, the Lord's heel, not "heal.")

Adam wasn't sent to redeem mankind and then failed.
We weren't supposed to need Jesus. Adam was created perfect, and if he'd minded his p's and q's, redemption wouldn't have been necessary.

Adam caused the sin problem with his failure and passed to everyone after him.
So? I have no quarrel with that.

The reason the Lord Jesus is called the second Adam because HE came and JUSTIFIED mankind.
No, He's called that because he did it right -- lived a perfect life. The first Adam wasn't able to manage that.

"Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved-you and your household."

I also know that in order to be saved we must believe in Jesus Christ, but it also says, "you and your household." Is that saying that just because I believe that my family will be saved too, even if they don't believe? No, of course not. The verses also say, "Then they (Paul and Silas) spoke the word of the Lord," to the jailer and his household. This is something else we must do, read and know the words of our Lord.
After this was done, and their wounds were washed, "then immediately he and all his family were baptized." There are other verses in God's word, that tell us to, "Repent and be baptized." Including this one in Acts, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off--for all whom the Lord our God will call."

We are given this promise; us, our children, our grandchildre; as long as we do the will of our Father, and in that will, He tells us to Believe, Study to show ourselves approved, Repent and be Baptized. Then we will receive the gift that is promised to us.

My RSV says "second" for the I Cor. verse.

It's wrong. The word in the Greek is ESCHATOS, "last."

It's wrong. The word in the Greek is ESCHATOS, "last."
I, in a Lutherlike way, was calling them the old and the new until ClassyT jogged me off center with "second." *hrumph* It's her fault.

I always cringe when I enter the religious threads. Just can't stand how ugly it can get. Intriguiged by the questions... frustrated when it comes to verbal blows. I usually leave. I'm fine with conflict, but sometimes it just get too far for me. I'm not well read enough to volley back and forth also.

Real, honest thanks to all who are active in this thread. I've loved reading through it.

I've felt the grace of God at times in my life. I've struggled to really hear Him. I know damn well I've heard the voice of evil. Know this for sure. "wilderness" can take many shapes and forms.

Gethsemane seals this for me.

Brings me to tears.

I believe Christ was capable of sin, but chose to not sin.

If I'm wrong and Christ was, by nature, incapable of sin... well... fine then.

A man still laid down His life to save mine.

Either way, I'm humbled and grateful.

real, honest thanks to all who are active in this thread. ive loved reading through it.
Thanks, kp, for saying that. We all honestly LIKE each other despite our differences, and that has come through in our responses. As a result, this thread hasn't dissolved into the usual ranting and fits, with Fr_Chuck closing it down.

I, in a Lutherlike way, wuz calling them the old and the new until ClassyT jogged me off center with "second." *hrumph* It's her fault.

I'm going to leave that one entirely alone!! :D

i always cringe when i enter the religious threads. just can't stand how ugly it can get. intriguiged by the questions... frustrated when it comes to verbal blows. i usually leave. im fine with conflict, but sometimes it just get too far for me. im not well read enough to volley back and forth also.

real, honest thanks to all who are active in this thread. ive loved reading through it.

ive felt the grace of God at times in my life. ive struggled to really hear Him. i know damn well ive heard the voice of evil. know this for sure. "wilderness" can take many shapes and forms.

gethsemane seals this for me.



brings me to tears.

i believe Christ was capable of sin, but chose to not sin.

if im wrong and Christ was, by nature, incapable of sin... well... fine then.

a man still laid down His life to save mine.

either way, im humbled and grateful.

I agree with the fact that either way, I am humbled and grateful! Amen to that!!

"Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved-you and your household."

I also know that in order to be saved we must believe in Jesus Christ, but it also says, "you and your household." Is that saying that just because I believe that my family will be saved too, even if they don't believe? No, of course not. The verses also say, "Then they (Paul and Silas) spoke the word of the Lord," to the jailer and his household. This is something else we must do, read and know the words of our Lord.
After this was done, and their wounds were washed, "then immediately he and all his family were baptized." There are other verses in God's word, that tell us to, "Repent and be baptized." Including this one in Acts, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off--for all whom the Lord our God will call."

We are given this promise; us, our children, our grandchildre; as long as we do the will of our Father, and in that will, He tells us to Believe, Study to show ourselves approved, Repent and be Baptized. Then we will receive the gift that is promised to us.

Donna Mae,

I may be wrong on this but I'm going to tell you what I think concerning the jailer. I believe that promise was made to him because he was the head of the household and because of that position and his decision to follow Christ, his influence would affect his family and they would be saved as well. I don't think Paul meant his family was immediately saved because of his decsion.. in fact, I know he didn't because that thought isn't in line with any other scripture in the bible. AND I also think we can hold on to that promise for our individual families when we bring our children up in the Lord. ( I'm OPEN to anyone else's thoughts on this... please feel free to comment)

Also ( and we have discussed this before) when peter told those Jews to repent and be baptized he had no concept of the church. He was still a Jewish man going to temple ( we see that later on in Acts.) Paul ( the apostle who was given from the Lord Jesus the knowledge of GRACE and how salvation works ( see all of Romans) never says baptism is required to be saved BUT it is an important part of our obedience to the Lord.. it is an outward showing to the world of the inward change. We see it over and over again. Of course one should be baptized!! But not a requirement for salvation.


Whenever we read the bible, we have to put everything into context and rightly divide it.( Paul tells this to Timothy) Now why do we need to "rightly" divide the word? Because it can be "wrongly" divided. Before reading a book... know what the book is basically about and what is going on in the book and who it is written DIRECTLY to and who is speaking and WHY they are writing. Also take the chapter and what the writer is saying in the whole chapter BEFORE we try to understand one verse. Take for instance Galatians... I'm not going to go to Galatians to try to find info concerning salvation. WHY? Because it is a book about letting false doctrines in and adding something to our salvation. Do I make sense?

Acts is about how Christianity actually STARTED. In the beginning of Acts... those 12 apostles were completely clueless on the concept of gentiles in the church, or even what the church really was ( the bride of Christ) they had know knoweldge of GRACE. If you want to know how salvation really works and what is required... read Romans. Paul explains it... it is faith plus NOTHING. Jesus did it all... Romans is all about the GRACE of God. And GRACE is something not any of us earn or deserve. Again... I am open to discussion on this topic.

Also ( and we have discussed this before) when peter told those Jews to repent and be baptized he had no concept of the church.

Say again? So we can ignore everything in Peter because it was written in a certain order? Even still, most scholars, including Protestants, suggest The Acts of the Apostles was written before 1 Peter. What concept of Church would he have being given the Key to Heaven?


but not a requirement for salvation.
“I say to you, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Did Christ not know what he was talking since Matthew was written before John?

JoeT

Did Christ not know what he was talking since Matthew was written before John?
"And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."—Mark 16:15-16.

Say again? So we can ignore everything in Peter because it was written in a certain order? Even still, most scholars, including Protestants, suggest The Acts of the Apostles was written before 1 Peter. What concept of Church would he have being given the Key to Heaven?


“I say to you, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Did Christ not know what he was talking since Matthew was written before John?

JoeT

Grumpy JoeT,

Now when did I say we could just ignore Peter? I didn't my little grumpy pal. Allzzzz I said was that Peter had no concept of the Church. He had no idea that the Lord was going to include gentiles and we are no longer under the law but under grace. He didn't... he didn't, he just plain didn't.

That was later revealed and given to the Apostle Paul to preach and he did. BTW, who was Peter addressing in Acts? Me? You? Or was it the Jews who had JUST put the Lord Jesus on the cross only a couple of months before?? Hmmmmm... I believe it was the later if memory serves me correct. Context, context, context... otherwise the bible would contradict itself.. and we both know that isn't true. Surely we can agree on that! :)

The apostle Paul teaches we are saved by faith plus NOTHING. Now, did I get baptized? Of course I did!! Anyone who calls themselves a Christian and doesn't follow in believers baptism is in disobedience. BUT it didn't save me. If I had died before I had gotten the chance, I would be in heaven right now. The Lord Jesus never left anything to man accept to believe. For without faith it is impossible to please God. If he had left something for us to do to earn our salvation or to keep our salvation, then our Christianity is just another religion where we hope and pray we are good enough and we did enough, and we did it right. Poppycock. Jesus paid it all... Salvation is of the Lord.

Now do it think for a second that I changed your mind?? / naah... but that's OK. It will have to be another agree to disagree.

Yes, Peter was addressing the Jews who crucified Christ (and all of Israel), but everything in the Bible is for our learning. When Jesus was preaching on the mountain, he was talking to people from Galilee, the Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea, and the region across the Jordan. Does that mean that we don't have to follow what He was teaching them because He wasn't exactly talking to us. No. Jesus' teachings, and the apostles' teachings are things we study everyday, and follow in our daily lives. "The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off--for all whom the Lord our God will call. Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about 3,000 were added to their number that day."

1 Peter 3:19-21
By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

Which sometimes were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, wherin few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,)by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

1 Peter 3:19-21
By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

which sometimes were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, wherin few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,)by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Read the part in the parentheses. Baptism doesn't actually "put away" anything, it's an act of good conscience. It's the resurrection of Jesus that actually saves us.

Yes, Peter was addressing the Jews who crucified Christ (and all of Israel), but everything in the Bible is for our learning. When Jesus was preaching on the mountain, he was talking to people from Galilee, the Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea, and the region across the Jordan. Does that mean that we don't have to follow what He was teaching them because He wasn't exactly talking to us. No. Jesus' teachings, and the apostles' teachings are things we study everyday, and follow in our daily lives. "The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off--for all whom the Lord our God will call. Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about 3,000 were added to their number that day."

ABSOULETY, everything was written for our learning... but not everything was written directly to us. When you put all the knowledge we have concerning Peter's preaching that day... we understand that Peter was still a good little Jewish guy.. going to temple. He didn't understand GRACE or what the Lord was about to do. ALSO would like to say that those 3000 jews are part of the body of Christ! But they didn't know it that day... and neither did Peter. If we do NOT put these verses in context the bible contradicts itself and that is simply IMPOSSIBLE...

Paul has clearly told us what we must do to be saved by the grace of God... Romans 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. ( notice the period) thee end

Romans is a book written to the church.. which is the body of Christ, which is us who believe. Romans also explains how to be saved and how salvation works. It also explains grace or the God's favor to us for no early reason.

Let me be clear.. the bible is for ALL of us. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. But it must be put into context and Paul says we are to rightly divide it... because it can be wrongly divided.

It is amazing how everyone can ignore "whereunto even baptism doth also now save us,"--baptism saves.

Paul says we are to rightly divide it....because it can be wrongly divided.
Can you say this another way? "Divide" has a "negative" (as in taking away) connotation. I don't think it is a common term in Christendom with the meaning you give it. (Dave might have a better handle on this.) I do get out a lot, but never heard that word until this Web site. How about "understand" or some other synonym?

1 Peter 3:19-21
By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

which sometimes were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, wherin few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,)by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Donna,

Again, it must be put into context... Peter isn't writing 1 Peter to teach people how to be saved. And... I would also say he is speaking about a spirtual baptism. What actually happens to us when we get saved. Those eight souls in Noah's ark never did encounter water.. never touched any of them. This is clearly spirtual.

You know on a personal note... when I was in my 20's I met a couple who were involved in a church who believed you had to be baptised in order to be saved. I would go to their cell group and listen to him teach every Monday night. WOW was it good stuff... I learned so much. BUT... I eventually had to stop going because they were constantly trying to get me saved. I WAS saved... I was baptized even.. but because I said baptism didn't save me... they never accepted me as a born again Christian. It was at this time in my life I decided to find out for SURE if baptism was required for salvation. Logically it seemed crazy to me.. because you would have to rely on another human being to baptize you and I couldn't fathom the Lord leaving anything to man. BUT... I never was one to just go by logic... ha ( good thing cause many people think my logic is screwy at best.) :) Anyway I studied and prayed and asked the Lord to please help me know for sure. The truth is... I just wanted to be right with Jesus... I didn't have to be RIGHT with my knowledge of the word. I wasn't just going to go along with stuff just because that was what my parents taught me. After prayer and study.. I believe with all my heart baptism is an outward showing of an inward change. I believe a christian SHOULD be baptized because Jesus told us to. :) I believe when we put the word of God into context... it is crystal clear.

Classy

I will always believe that baptism is needed for salvation--and you will probably always believe that it isn't. So I guess there is no need for further discussion--I think we're both set firm in our beliefs. But I can always hope that you will see the true meaning of God's word. I know you think that's just my opinion, but I do believe it is fact.

I will always believe that baptism is needed for salvation
I'm with ClassyT on this -- "By grace are you saved, through faith, and not of works [like baptism], lest any man should boast." Eph. 2:8,9

Water (not grape juice or beer or Kool-Aid Cherry Flavor) is used for baptism, because water is the most accessible liquid there is. But even someone on his death bed, say, at the scene of a car accident or plane crash, can be saved by confessing Christ without being baptized.

Donna,

Again, it must be put into context...Peter isn't writing 1 Peter to teach people how to be saved. And ....I would also say he is speaking about a spirtual baptism. What actually happens to us when we get saved. Those eight souls in Noah's ark never did encounter water..never touched any of them. This is clearly spirtual.

Agreed. The word that the KJV translates "like figure" is basically "antitype," which indicates that the rescue of Noah and his family was the "type," or foreshadowing, of what was to come. As classyT says, the water never touched Noah or his family; in fact the 1 Peter verse specifically says they were "saved through," i.e. brought through the deluge and came out safe on the other side of it. Baptism is an "antitype" of this; just as Noah's salvation from the flood symbolized our salvation, so baptism symbolizes it in a more concrete fashion. That's why even the KJV translation renders it as a "figure," not a literal saving because baptism doesn't save anybody. It symbolizes the salvation that happens through faith by grace.

Can you say this another way? "Divide" has a "negative" (as in taking away) connotation. I don't think it is a common term in Christendom with the meaning you give it. (Dave might have a better handle on this.) I do get out a lot, but never heard that word until this Web site. How about "understand" or some other synonym?

I like "analyze properly," but that's just me. The NIV's "correctly handles" is a good one; essentially, in the literal sense it means "cut a straight path" such as when one is making a path through a forest; a straight path is more effective than a meandering one. That's the main reason I like "analyze properly" but your mileage may vary, and that's okay.

Water (not grape juice or beer or Kool-Aid Cherry Flavor) is used for baptism, because water is the most accessible liquid there is. But even someone on his death bed, say, at the scene of a car accident or plane crash, can be saved by confessing Christ without being baptized.

It worked well enough for the thief on the cross...

Sorry, but everything didn't print.
Was the water just accessible when it flowed from the side of our Lord when He was on the cross? Water is mentioned all through the Bible, and we are told why, we are saved when we are baptized through Christ, in the water. And yes Noah and his family were saved through water, it was water that separated them from the evil of the world. Just as baptism separates us from the world, "keep yourself unspotted from the world," through baptism we are cleansed of the sin we were in when we were "in" the world.
Baptism isn't a work, it is a command.

Sorry, but everything didn't print.
Was the water just accessible when it flowed from the side of our Lord when He was on the cross?
Jesus was supposed to scoop up water flowing from His side (after He was dead) to baptize the thief on the cross? (After DEATH, the blood separates into water [lymph] and the blood itself.

Baptism isn't a work, it is a command.
And when you obey a command, you work. Salvation was God at work. After that, the Holy Spirit works in each of us. We do no work at all, but are simply and mightily infused with grace.

Are you a Witness? Knowing that would help us understand where you are coming from.

Sorry, but everything didn't print.
Was the water just accessible when it flowed from the side of our Lord when He was on the cross? Water is mentioned all through the Bible, and we are told why, we are saved when we are baptized through Christ, in the water. And yes Noah and his family were saved through water, it was water that separated them from the evil of the world. Just as baptism separates us from the world, "keep yourself unspotted from the world," through baptism we are cleansed of the sin we were in when we were "in" the world.
Baptism isn't a work, it is a command.

Baptism is something that requires another human being. My Lord would NEVER place salvation in someone else's hands. The thief on the cross Donna Mae, doesn't count. Want to know why? Because Jesus hadn't resurrected! ( yes, I helped YOUR cause.. not mine) Baptism is a picture of us dying with Christ and being raised again. Incidentally... ever see ANYWHERE where the apostles were baptized? Hmmmmm? Interesting don't you think.. seeing as how you believe it is part of salvation. AND... when Peter told those Jews to repent and be baptized... do you reckon he understood he would need to be baptized again as well? After all, if he was baptized under John ( the baptist), it wasn't at all the same thing at ALL! Remember... Jesus hadn't yet died and rose again. Just something to chew on... or not.

I agree the Lord says to do it.. so it IS a command. I haven't personally met one person who was saved who didn't want to be baptized. I HAVE however, met people who were on their death bed and accepted the Lord Jesus and never even understood anything about a physcial baptism.

Incidentally.. what does God do with people who are physically unable to be baptized? Or all alone?

If the Lord Jesus left one thing up to man... other than belief, we'd all be sunk. Because the last time I checked... we were all just a bunch of sinners in need of a savior.

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be SAVED.

If thou shalt confess with thy mouth.. the Lord Jesus Christ and shall believe in thine heart that God hath rasied him from the dead.. thou shalt be saved.

One last thing.. then I promise I will shut up... All God did was tell Adam NOT to eat of the tree of knowledge. THAT WAS IT. And he screwed it up... he took a bite!! Come ON... do you really think he is going to leave ANYTHING concerning salvation in man's hands. I mean... seriously.. THINK about it. MAN will ALWAYS screw it up! Adam was proof. That is my story and I'm sticking to it.

Please don't be offended. I'm just giving you something to think about.

Jesus was supposed to scoop up water flowing from His side (after He was dead) to baptize the thief on the cross? (After DEATH, the blood separates into water [lymph] and the blood itself.

And when you obey a command, you work. Salvation was God at work. After that, the Holy Spirit works in each of us. We do no work at all, but are simply and mightily infused with grace.

Are you a Witness? Knowing that would help us understand where you are coming from.

I agree with you... a command IS a work. The Lord Jesus ASKS us to remember him in his death and to baptise in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
NEITHER of these two acts are for salvation. Salvation is of the Lord.

Sorry, but everything didn't print.
Was the water just accessible when it flowed from the side of our Lord when He was on the cross?

First of all, please do your commenting in a post, not in the comment box. It's confusing (not that it takes much to confuse me). Second, do you really suppose that what came from his side was H2O? And even supposing it was, what does it have to do with anything?


Water is mentioned all through the Bible, and we are told why, we are saved when we are baptized through Christ, in the water. And yes Noah and his family were saved through water, it was water that separated them from the evil of the world.

Are you kidding? It was water that destroyed the world, and the ark "separated them" from the water!


Just as baptism separates us from the world, "keep yourself unspotted from the world," through baptism we are cleansed of the sin we were in when we were "in" the world.

So are you saying that once you're baptized you don't sin any more? This makes no sense at all.

Classy
Yes, I know about the thief, as I said in my response to dwashbur, earlier.
We know that with Christ, anything is possible, that's what grace is all about. Like Christ told Peter, about the disciple whom he loved, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me." And we're talking about Jesus, the washing the disciples feet may have been what they needed at that time. When Peter said, "Lord, you shall never wash my feet." Jesus said, "You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand. Unless I wash you, you will have no part with me." Peter said, "Then Lord, not just my feet but my hands and my head as well."
I mean we're talking about Jesus! He could take care of the disciples how ever he wanted. And they had already received the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost, before Peter said," Repent and be baptized..."

As far as someone on their death bed, that is God's grace if they are saved, but if they believe, and have accepted the Lord, then don't you think they would have already known about baptism? Can a person really be saved if all they do is accept Christ and then decide to ignore His teachings, because if the have accept Christ as you said, but don't know anything about Him, how can they be saved? But that's not up to us.

We 'were' all a bunch of sinners needing our Savior, but in order to be free from our sins, we need to be washed as He tells us. If we are not baptized, how do we receive the Holy Spirit? Certainly not by someone laying their hands on us like of churches do. That would definitely be left in the hands of someone else.

"...And now why tariest thou, arise and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, for the remission of sins..." Why would anyone want to wait about something so important? If someone has a chance to wipe every sin from our past, wouldn't we do it in a heartbeat?

Have you considered what is written in James 2:14-25? I think this says a lot about faith and works. I won't quote it all here, but the 14th and 15th verses are very plain--"What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

I am certainly not offended, we're talking about Christ, what could be better than that?:)

Wondergirl
No, I am not a Witness. I attend the church of Christ, we study only God's Word.

dwashbur
Sorry about commenting in the post, still getting use to all this new stuff.
Yes it certainly was water (and blood) that flowed from His side. (John 19:34)

God destroyed the world, He just used water to do it. And He wouldn't have done it if their wasn't so much sin in the world. Like baptism, sin was done away with through water.

Of course I'm not saying, that because I have been baptized, I don't sin anymore. No one is without sin. But through baptism we have forgiveness of our sins. Our slate is wiped clean when we are baptized, into Christ, but of course we are going to mess up again, we're human. But God has forgiveness, when we repent.

dwashbur
Sorry about commenting in the post, still getting use to all this new stuff.

Not a problem. I've done it myself.


Yes it certainly was water (and blood) that flowed from His side. (John 19:34)

Actually, basic anatomy and physiology tells us it was serum that accumulated in his pericardium during the intense suffering, not an uncommon phenomenon. After he died, the serum settled in the pericardium and blood pooled in the now-stilled heart. The soldier's spear punctured both, releasing the serum from the pericardium and the blood from the heart. The release of these two body fluids is one of the primary reasons we know he actually died, rather than just passing out like some theories try to claim. There was certainly nothing mystical or spiritual about the fluid that came out. John described it as water because that was what it looked like, nothing more.


God destroyed the world, He just used water to do it. And He wouldn't have done it if their wasn't so much sin in the world. Like baptism, sin was done away with through water.

You're using "through" in a different way than Peter did, as I already mentioned.

I'm also going to splice a couple of things in from another post:


And we're talking about Jesus, the washing the disciples feet may have been what they needed at that time. When Peter said, "Lord, you shall never wash my feet." Jesus said, "You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand. Unless I wash you, you will have no part with me." Peter said, "Then Lord, not just my feet but my hands and my head as well."

Are you trying to say he baptized them in this way? Let's let Jesus himself explain what he was doing:


12 When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. “Do you understand what I have done for you?” he asked them. 13 “You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am. 14 Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. 15 I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. 16 I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. 17 Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them."

Foot washing was done by the lowliest servant, because it was such an icky job. Jesus, their lord and master, stooped down to wash their feet, taking such a role. Why? To illustrate that we are all servants of each other, and should act like it. That's what the foot-washing was all about, as he says in verse 15: "I have set you an example that you should so as I have done for you." It has nothing to do with baptism or salvation or anything else. It has to do with Christian service.


If we are not baptized, how do we receive the Holy Spirit?

That's easy: by believing. That's what happened with Cornelius and his household in Acts 10:


44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.
Then Peter said, 47 “Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” 48 So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

Receiving the Holy Spirit has nothing to do with baptism, either. In fact, in this example, being baptized is a public acknowledgment that they ALREADY received the Holy Spirit. And so it goes.

At this point I'm prepared to drop this subject and agree to be siblings in Christ with a difference of opinion. What do you say?

Donna Mae,

According to Ephesians we are sealed with the Holy spirit when we believe.

Ephesians 1:13

James Bible
In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

I never have changed anyone's mind on the subject but I would like to say that God will never go outside of His word. If baptism IS required for salvation, no one is getting into heaven without it.

Of course I have considered what James has said. Again, it must be put into context and when someone is truly saved... they will produce good works. No two ways about it. Check out the prophecy in Ezekiel

Check it out.:Ezekiel 36:26-27

I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.

The Holy Spirit causes us to WANT to please the Lord Jesus. I think that is just awesome. What a SAVIOR.

My friend that I spoke of earlier was also from the Church of Christ. They had some great teachings.. I learned a lot at the Bible studies. It was such a shame they didn't accept me as saved. I am! I was even baptized, I just refused to admit it had anything to do with my salvation.

Anyway, like Dave said we can still agree to disagree. Heck Donna Mae, NO ONE agrees with everything I say anyway. Ha ha Can't figure it out either?? I think I'm darn smart.

Dave,

Wanted to say I'm still working on the verse in Galatians 6:16 where Paul uses the term Israel of God. I won't be satisfied until the Lord reveals to me why Paul uses that term. I'll let you know if I ever get enlightened but I pretty darn sure it isn't because he is finished with Israel and we are blended.

I better stay on topic... the OP is a stickler for not having her questions hijacked. :D

dwashbur & Classy

I agree. None of us will change our beliefs. I'm ready to drop it. I have to say, I enjoy the discussions and I think you guys are very nice. My prayers are for every one of us to find the true path to Jesus.

Donna Mae,

According to Ephesians we are sealed with the Holy spirit when we believe.

Ephesians 1:13

James Bible
In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

I never have changed anyone's mind on the subject but I would like to say that God will never go outside of His word. If baptism IS required for salvation, no one is getting into heaven without it.

Of course I have considered what James has said. Again, it must be put into context and when someone is truely saved...they will produce good works. No two ways about it. Check out the prophecy in Ezekiel

Check it out.:Ezekiel 36:26-27

When I check it out, I see a very definite relationship between man and God. This relationship is similar to one of the son (or daughter) to the father, a family relationship. In any family, it is through the will of the father that life is given to the children. Throughout their lives he educates and disciplines his brood. The education supplies the knowledge necessary to become productive members of the family; the discipline strengthens the children's steadfastness, resolution, and perseverance to their devotion to the father's will as well as the family.

Christ's life typifies this relationship; a synergy of faith and work. Christ didn't simply listen to God; he was a “doer” of God's words. The same advice James gives us, “[W]ith meekness receive the ingrafted word, which is able to save your souls. But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. For if a man be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he shall be compared to a man beholding his own countenance in a glass. For he beheld himself, and went his way, and presently forgot what manner of man he was.” (James 1:21-24).

An “ingrafted word” is works of a synergistic relationship of faith and work. Not simply a faith that 'produces' robot like responses, repeated over and over, rather a consummated relation - as it were, fulfilling of the law. You do recall, Christ said he didn't “come to destroy the law, or the prophets. Rather he came to fulfill the law (Matthew 5:17). Not a faith that leaves us helpless but to respond like a robot with pre-programmed responses. Rather more like an adopted son of God who merges his relationship with God's will. You've heard it said that any relationship takes two, thus we find ourselves persevering with fear and trembling to work out your salvation.

Check it out.


JoeT

Why did satan try to make Him sin in the desert?

Why did satan try to make Him sin in the desert?

St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica discusses a similar question (Cf. Tertia Pars, Q41 (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4041.htm))

What motivates Satan to tempt Christ we will likely never be known. We do know however that he tempted Adam who ultimately fell in death bequeathing us death. We also know that in His humanity Jesus allowed himself to be tempted, “Then Jesus was led by the spirit into the desert, to be tempted by the devil.” (Matt 4:1) This was done to bequeath life. St. Thomas discusses this issue, i.e. why would Christ allow himself to be tempted which seems more germane in this thread.

First: "It was not unworthy of our Redeemer to wish to be tempted, since He came also to be slain. By His temptations He conquered our temptations, just as His death He overcame our death. who came also to be slain; in order that by His temptations He might conquer our temptations, just as by His death He overcame our death." (xvi in Evang.):

Second: A perfect lamb, Christ stands as conquer over physical death and spiritual death. “The temptations of the devil assail those principally who are sanctified, for he desires, above all, to overcome the holy. (Hilary, Super Matth. cap. iii.): Hence also it is written (Sirach 2): Son, when thou comest to the service of God, stand in justice and in fear, and prepare thy soul for temptation." Thus St. Thomas suggests that the devil was compelled to tempt the holiest among us, the New Adam. Christ triumphs over sin to show His love for us being an example of our hope.

Third: in order to give us an example "that He might be our Mediator in overcoming temptations, not only by helping us, but also by giving us an example." (De Trin. iv)

Fourth: in order to fill us with confidence in His mercy. Hence it is written (Hebrews 4:15): "We have not a high-priest, who cannot have compassion on our infirmities, but one tempted in all things like as we are, without sin."

Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz, A Shepherd Speaks, 1997, picks up on this theme and warns, “The same order of temptation was used by Satan in tempting Jesus. First, there was the taunt and enticement to pleasure in regard to bread. Then there followed the appeal to vainglory on the pinnacle of the temple and, finally, the appeal to pride in all the kingdoms of the world.” The Bishop continues suggesting that we are not immune to this same approach by Satan through temptation. Satan entices with pleasure then moves to ratchets up the enticements offering power ; notching it up still further, tempts with material gain then our enemy moves us pervert God's will by replacing it with our own.

Christ gives us a living example of supreme valor in a face-to-face battle with evil while placing us behind the defended walls of His Kingdom giving His very Body, Soul and Divinity which sustains us in hope.

JoeT

1 Peter 1:19 calls him a lamb without blemish. Yet in Mark 10:18 and Luke 18:19 he says:"Why do you call me good? No-one is good except God alone." I struggle to know what sin is exactly. How far must you go to be perfect? Jesus was a man too. He often got so drained that he had to take time for himself. And before his death he was scared and pleaded for a way out. So is it sinful to be human? I think he acknowledged that his human capacity to give was limited but he gave everything he had to the point of death. He was a divine being trapped in a human body. When it came to his spiritual and psychological will, he sought nothing for himself short of survival and he even pushed through this last barrier which made him the lamb without blemish.

Fourth:[/B] in order to fill us with confidence in His mercy. Hence it is written (Hebrews 4:15): "We have not a high-priest, who cannot have compassion on our infirmities, but one tempted in all things like as we are, without sin."

Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz, A Shepherd Speaks, 1997, picks up on this theme and warns, “The same order of temptation was used by Satan in tempting Jesus. First, there was the taunt and enticement to pleasure in regard to bread. Then there followed the appeal to vainglory on the pinnacle of the temple and, finally, the appeal to pride in all the kingdoms of the world.” The Bishop continues suggesting that we are not immune to this same approach by Satan through temptation. Satan entices with pleasure then moves to ratchets up the enticements offering power ; notching it up still further, tempts with material gain then our enemy moves us pervert God’s will by replacing it with our own.



JoeT

I'm not arguing with the above, but just want to add a thought or two.

The very fact of temptation shows the possibility of yielding to it. Jesus COULD have sinned, but did not, as has already likely been pointed ouit.

As for the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness, may I add some thoughts?

In the first one, the question is IF you are the Son of God----. Had Jesus yielded and turned stones into bread, it would have been proof that He did not believe what the Father had just told Him, the sin of unbelief. The voice from Heaven at Jesus' baptism said (either) This is my beloved Son, or Thou art my beloved Son.

When God says something, it is not necessary to do something to prove it. Just believe it.

The test on the pinnacle of the Temple again sought to get Jesus to "prove" His identity by the sin of presumption.

Finally, Satan offered Jesus a "shortcut" if He would worship Satan.
After all, Christ will indeed rule all the kingdoms of the world in due time.

What Satan offered in his usual lying manner was a shortcut. No Gesthemane, no beating in Pilate's hall, and no cross to die on.

Satan also tempts believers on the same points from time to time.

The Bible says that Jesus was fully God and fully man. I believe the Bible. We know from the scripture that Jesus lived a perfect life and that he never sinned; not even so much as a wrong thought. So, could he have sinned? Was he capable of sin?

It depends on what you mean by sin. Sin has more than one meaning.

1st and most common meaning is to offend God by going against His Will. Since Jesus is God whatever He does is automatically God's will. So that couldn't happen. Such as, for instance, the law of the Sabbath when He announced to the world:

Matthew 12:8
For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.

2nd meaning of sin is to violate a human law or precept. Since Jesus is God, He is beyond these and could not sin if He violated these precepts. Which in fact, He regularly violated. And this is why He said:

Matthew 15

1Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,

2Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

3But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

4For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

5But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;

6And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

Have I understood your question?

2 Cor. 5:21 "God made Him who had no sin {Jesus} for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God."
Jesus was not born from the sin nature of Adam, but was conceived
by the Holy Spirit. Everyone that was every borned, but Jesus, was borned with the sin nature of Adam. It was Jesus' sinless blood
that washed away our sin, the only one that had no sin and the power.
1 John 3, 5 "But you know that He appeared so that He might take away Our sin. And in Him is no sin."
vs 9, "No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed
remains in him; he has been born of God".

Love and Blessings, Maggie 3

How could Jesus be tempted if it was impossible for Him to fail the temptation? That makes no sense at all.

I submit this for your consideration:

1 John 4:2 tells us that every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the FLESH is of God, and conversely in v.3.

Flesh means just like us.

....

The very fact of temptation shows the possibility of yielding to it. Jesus COULD have sinned, but did not, as has already likely been pointed ouit.....

On the contrary, the fact that Satan tempted Jesus shows that Satan believed Jesus' might succumb to temptation.

The difference is this. You might want to tempt me to eat "caviar". However, I've tasted caviar and I detest the taste. Therefore, no matter how much you tempt me with caviar, I won't be tempted.

Does that make sense?

How could Jesus be tempted if it was impossible for Him to fail the temptation? That makes no sense at all.

I submit this for your consideration:

1 John 4:2 tells us that every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the FLESH is of God, and conversely in v.3.

Flesh means just like us.

Yes, it does. And Scripture also says:
Hebrews 4:15
For we have not an 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.

So, Christ was tempted. But Christ did not sin. We can look at the agony in the Garden for more clues:
Luke 22:42
Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.


Here we see that Jesus Christ had a will of His own. But He subdued His Will to the Father's.

We also see here that He was tempted to do His own Will to the extent that He asked the Father's permission to do so. Apparently, the Father did not grant the request.

So, in my opinion, Jesus could be tempted, but because He is God, He could not fall.

Sincerely,

On the contrary, the fact that Satan tempted Jesus shows that Satan believed Jesus' might succumb to temptation.

The difference is this. You might want to tempt me to eat "caviar". However, I've tasted caviar and I detest the taste. Therefore, no matter how much you tempt me with caviar, I won't be tempted.

Does that make sense?

In the discussion at hand, no, it doesn't make sense to me, at least.

Heb. 4:15 tells us that Jesus was tempted in all points like we are, but that He did not sin. The temptations here had to be a solicitation to evil, otherwise the "yet without sin" has no meaning.

In an earlier post you said that we may never know why Satan tempted Jesus. The answer is not that difficult to understand.

According to the Bible, scripture cannot be broken. If Satan could break the Word of God in any point, he (Satan) could claim victory and avoid being sent to the Lake of Fire. When Satan tempted Jesus, he was fighting for his life. Satan lost, praise God!!

In the discussion at hand, no, it doesn't make sense to me, at least.

Heb. 4:15 tells us that Jesus was tempted in all points like we are, but that He did not sin. The temptations here had to be a solicitation to evil, otherwise the "yet without sin" has no meaning.

In an earlier post you said that we may never know why Satan tempted Jesus. The answer is not that difficult to understand.

According to the Bible, scripture cannot be broken. If Satan could break the Word of God in any point, he (Satan) could claim victory and avoid being sent to the Lake of Fire. When Satan tempted Jesus, he was fighting for his life. Satan lost, praise God!!!!

That just means that you are looking at Jesus from Satan's point of view. I agree that Satan thought that Jesus could succumb to sin. Therefore, he acted in accordance with his belief and tempted Jesus.

However, from our point of view, Jesus is God and beyond sin. Therefore God is made flesh and like us in every BUT SIN. This is why Scripture says:
James 1:13
Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

However, Satan does not know God as we do, that is why Scripture says:
James 2:19
Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

They know He exists but do not know that He is ALL GOOD.

God is all good.
Jesus is God.
Jesus is all good.

Therefore Jesus can not sin.

How could Jesus be tempted if it was impossible for Him to fail the temptation? That makes no sense at all.

I submit this for your consideration:

1 John 4:2 tells us that every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the FLESH is of God, and conversely in v.3.

Flesh means just like us.

Sir Nitpick sez:

Um, no. In its historical context, this verse was addressing a fairly new heresy that said Jesus wasn't really man, he only seemed to be. When John said "has come in the flesh" he's saying Jesus was truly human and truly God at the same time. That doesn't really mean "just like us."

I sez: oh, shut up, Nitpick!

Sir Nitpick sez:

Um, no. In its historical context, this verse was addressing a fairly new heresy that said Jesus wasn't really man, he only seemed to be. When John said "has come in the flesh" he's saying Jesus was truly human and truly God at the same time. That doesn't really mean "just like us."

I sez: oh, shut up, Nitpick!

I see you use a tongue-in-cheek method to point out the fact that spiritually, Jesus certainly is NOT like us.

I think you got that I am saying that he was actually a human being in His incarnation, and therefore overcame sin while He was in the flesh. Since He has sent the HOLY GHOST to us, to be with us and within us, that makes us able to overcome sin while in OUR flesh.

I see you use a tongue-in-cheek method to point out the fact that spiritually, Jesus certainly is NOT like us.

I think you got that I am saying that he was actually a human being in His incarnation, and therefore overcame sin while He was in the flesh. Since He has sent the HOLY GHOST to us, to be with us and within us, that makes us able to overcome sin while in OUR flesh.

Sir Nitpick is my alter ego who doesn't know when to shut his yap!

I'm divided on the question of whether Jesus could have sinned or not. I can see good points and bad points in both sides. I therefore take shelter in my all-time favorite answer:

Idunno.

De Maria, I think you are missing something in the incarnation.

God the Son became Man. In doing so, He temporarialy gave up the attributes of Deity, that is, He was no longer omnipresent. This is obvious.

What is less obvious is that He also gave up omniscience, and omnipotence.

Jesus consistently said that He was giving the Father's words and doing the Father's works.

Peter tells us that he was a MAN full of the Holy Ghost.

Jesus said at the start of His ministry that the Spirit of the Lord was upon Him.

If He had the attributes of Deity within Himself at that time, He did not need the Holy Spirit to empower Him.

He became a man so that we could becme the sons of God, and with the giving of the Holy Ghost on that day of Pentecost, the same power that Jesus relied on become available to the most humble believer.

galveston, I think Part of what you are saying is in Phi. 2:5-8 and
Col. 1:17-20

De Maria, I think you are missing something in the incarnation.

God the Son became Man. In doing so, He temporarialy gave up the attributes of Deity, that is, He was no longer omnipresent. This is obvious.

What is less obvious is that He also gave up omniscience, and omnipotence.....


galveston, I think Part of what you are saying is in Phi. 2:5-8 and
Col. 1:17-20

Hi Maggie and Galveston,
Colossians 1:17-20 (King James Version)

17And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

18And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

19For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;

20And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

Colossians 2:9
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

The same author says both that Jesus emptied Himself and that the fullness of God dwelt in Jesus. The same author also says that Jesus was made perfect by suffering on the Cross.

So, I don't try to interpret this set of facts myself. They appear contradictory. Therefore I go by the teaching of the Church through the centuries. And the Church has consistently taught that Jesus could not sin because He is God.

Sincerely,

De Maria

I go with the part of what Jakester said in a very early post in this thread (my bolding) --

...was it possible for Jesus to sin? I think that since the opportunities to sin for Jesus were presented through the trials of Satan, the "possibility" for Jesus to sin must have been a reality...if not, why would the temptations of Satan to Christ have even occurred? I think it was possible for Jesus to sin but if he had sinned, the rest of God's story would not be what it is...he would have told a different story.

Another question may be raised at this point. If Jesus were not capable of sin and yet the possibility of Jesus sinning were a reality, what was the point of the trials Jesus faced? Hebrews makes the case that in order for Jesus to be a qualified high priest, he needed to be able to empathize with us in our struggles against sin. He can be a more effective High Priest because he has come face to face with temptation, felt the stings of it (consider how Jesus was hungry and weak while Satan came to tempt him), and yet was able to still do the right thing and obey God.

And I might add that the high priestly quality of Jesus is what sets him apart from all other "Gods." No other religion can boast of a God who was so thoroughly intimate with the human experience that he became human, faced the temptations of sin, knew sorrow and pain, and in the end chose to be merciful to those who killed him.

Hi Maggie and Galveston,
Colossians 1:17-20 (King James Version)

17And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

18And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

19For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;

20And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

Colossians 2:9
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

The same author says both that Jesus emptied Himself and that the fullness of God dwelt in Jesus. The same author also says that Jesus was made perfect by suffering on the Cross.

So, I don't try to interpret this set of facts myself. They appear contradictory. Therefore I go by the teaching of the Church through the centuries. And the Church has consistently taught that Jesus could not sin because He is God.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Those Scriptures are not contridictory at all.

Think about the role that the Holy Ghost played in the life of Jesus and you should be able to see how Jesus could be actually a man and yet have the fullness of the Godhead dwelling in Him.

The Scriptures do say that Jesus had the Holy Spirit without measure.

King James Version--Phi 2:7 "but made himself of no reputation..."
This phrase in Greek is Kenoo, or literally, "he empitied Himself."
When Jesus came as a Man, He was still divine. He emptied Himself
Of His divine powers.The implication of the "doctrine of kenosis"
Are huge, because this means that everything Jesus did, the miracles,
The prayers He prayed, the teaching He gave was not done in His own
Power. Jesus healed and prayed and taught through the power of
Holy Spirit as He followed the Father's directives. I did not
Comperhend that Jesus came to earth and empitied Himself of His
Divine abilities, which means everything Jesus did, He did as a man
Just like us. Before He did anything, Jesus had to be obedient to the
Father, pray to put Himself on line to be empowered by the Spirit,
Or nothing would happen. That's why He said, "Of my own self, I can do nothing" {John 5:30] and neither can we. This has changed how I think
About the things Jesus did, no big deal to hear Jesus walked on water,
This was irrelevant to me. But He was doing this in the
Power we all can have, the Holy Spirit. This is an example for us.
Jesus could have sinned, and things could have been different, but
I know He did not because things would be different today if He did.
Phi. 2:7, 'And took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in
The likeness of men." This is the mind that's to be in us, where we
Empty ourselves of our rights, and become servants or slaves of God.
Maggie

Those Scriptures are not contridictory at all.


I didn't say they were. I said they appear contradictory. Two different things.


Think about the role that the Holy Ghost played in the life of Jesus and you should be able to see how Jesus could be actually a man and yet have the fullness of the Godhead dwelling in Him.

The Scriptures do say that Jesus had the Holy Spirit without measure.

Ah, yes. But Galveston, I believe the Church. And the Church says that Jesus is fully God and fully man and that He resurrected Himself of His own power.

And the Church teaches that Jesus Divinity can't be separated from His humanity.

Phil 2:7-8 Douay Rheims

[7] But emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man. [8] He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross.

Philippians 2:7-8 (King James Version)

7But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

If we go by the adage that Scripture interprets Scripture and read the next line, I believe the meaning is clear. Jesus HUMBLED Himself. He did not leave His Divinity behind. He is both man and God but He took on the role of a man. But since He is also God, Jesus can not sin.

He is both man and God
Because He was a man, He could sin. Otherwise, His life here on earth and His sacrifice on the cross were pointless.

King James Version--Phi 2:7 "but made himself of no reputation..."
This phrase in Greek is Kenoo, or literally, "he empitied Himself."
When Jesus came as a Man, He was still divine. He emptied Himself
Of His divine powers.

Philippians 2:7-8 (King James Version)

7But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

8And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

I think "emptied Himself" simply means "humbled Himself".


The implication of the "doctrine of kenosis"
Are huge, because this means that everything Jesus did, the miracles,
The prayers He prayed, the teaching He gave was not done in His own
Power. Jesus healed and prayed and taught through the power of
Holy Spirit as He followed the Father's directives. I did not
Comperhend that Jesus came to earth and empitied Himself of His
Divine abilities, which means everything Jesus did, He did as a man
Just like us.

I also believe He did everything as a man just like us. But He didn't empty Himself of His Divinity.


Before He did anything, Jesus had to be obedient to the
Father,

You are not under the impression, I hope, that while Jesus is Divine He can be disobedient to the Father?


pray to put Himself on line to be empowered by the Spirit,
Or nothing would happen. That's why He said, "Of my own self, I can do nothing" {John 5:30]

Because God is a Trinity. Jesus is always accompanied by the Trinity. He is never alone.


and neither can we.

No we can't. But for different reasons. Have you not heard that "in Him we live, move and are"?


This has changed how I think
About the things Jesus did, no big deal to hear Jesus walked on water,
This was irrelevant to me. But He was doing this in the
Power we all can have, the Holy Spirit. This is an example for us.
Jesus could have sinned, and things could have been different, but
I know He did not because things would be different today if He did.

I disagree. Jesus could not have sinned. He has always been God.


Phi. 2:7, 'And took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in
The likeness of men." This is the mind that's to be in us, where we
Empty ourselves of our rights, and become servants or slaves of God.
Maggie

Those are great goals. I'm not kidding. Catholicism teaches that one can seek the Goodness of God because it is worthwhile. And God promised it to those who obey. And God keeps His promises. Therefore, to look at oneself as a servant who works to obtain the promises is just fine.

And Catholicism teaches that fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom. Therefore to seek the Goodness of God because one consider himself God's slave is equally good.

But there is one which excels all others. To seek God because one loves God. This excels over all other ways and makes one a child of God.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Because He was a man, He could sin. Otherwise, His life here on earth and His sacrifice on the cross were pointless.

Why? He showed us the way to heaven. Obedience.

1 Peter 2:21
For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:

Philippians 2:8
And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Hebrews 5:9
And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Why? He showed us the way to heaven. Obedience.
None of the verses you posted say we are saved by obedience. We are saved only by Jesus' blood, and not by any activity that we do. Eph.2:8,9 says grace is a gift of God and not of our own doing.

I go with the part of what Jakester said in a very early post in this thread (my bolding) --

...was it possible for Jesus to sin? I think that since the opportunities to sin for Jesus were presented through the trials of Satan, the "possibility" for Jesus to sin must have been a reality...if not, why would the temptations of Satan to Christ have even occurred? I think it was possible for Jesus to sin but if he had sinned, the rest of God's story would not be what it is...he would have told a different story.

I believe it was to show Satan's arrogance and God's power over Satan. He knew who Jesus was. The Son of God. But still believed that he could cause Him to sin. But the Godman proved that Satan could not tempt Him.

You know, temptation is a funny word. For example, you can tempt me with some hot tea. The kind they give you at Chinese restaurants. But I am not tempted by hot tea. I find it disgusting.

So, Satan may have tempted Jesus in the sense that he offered something to Jesus. But Jesus was not tempted by the offers.


Another question may be raised at this point. If Jesus were not capable of sin and yet the possibility of Jesus sinning were a reality, what was the point of the trials Jesus faced? Hebrews makes the case that in order for Jesus to be a qualified high priest, he needed to be able to empathize with us in our struggles against sin. He can be a more effective High Priest because he has come face to face with temptation, felt the stings of it (consider how Jesus was hungry and weak while Satan came to tempt him), and yet was able to still do the right thing and obey God.

Hebrews says "in everyway but sin".
Hebrews 4:15
For we have not an 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.

Hebrews 7:26
For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;


And I might add that the high priestly quality of Jesus is what sets him apart from all other "Gods." No other religion can boast of a God who was so thoroughly intimate with the human experience that he became human, faced the temptations of sin, knew sorrow and pain, and in the end chose to be merciful to those who killed him.

Well that's true. But that doesn't mean that Jesus could have committed sin. And in the end, the proof is in the pudding. Jesus did not sin. So the question is moot.

Sincerely,

None of the verses you posted say we are saved by obedience. We are saved only by Jesus' blood, and not by any activity that we do. Eph.2:8,9 says grace is a gift of God and not of our own doing.

So, then everyone is saved. Party and do what you want. You don't have to obey God to be saved.

So, then everyone is saved. Go ahead and party and do what you want. You don't have to obey God to be saved.
That was a leap in logic!

No, you don't have to obey God in order to be saved. Obedience isn't to get saved; obedience is our thank-you to God for His grace and mercy in saving us.

That was a leap in logic!

No, you don't have to obey God in order to be to be saved. Obedience isn't to get saved; obedience is our thank-you to God for His grace and mercy in saving us.

But that isn't what Scripture says. Scripture says:
Hebrews 5:9
And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

He doesn't say that we must obey after we are saved. That says we must obey to be saved. Besides, what does that do with everyone who doesn't ever obey? Is there salvation revoked?

Look at another verse:
2 Thessalonians 1:7-9 (King James Version)

7And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,

8In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

9Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

Gal. 2:21, "... if justification were through the law [i.e. obedience], then Christ died to no purpose."

Rom. 5: "1 "Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand."Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand."16Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ."16Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ."18Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men."

Hebrews 5:9
And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
Please read the entire chapter as context. The grace and the sacrifice on the cross came first, and the obedience follows. Faith causes and inspires obedience, and not the other way around.

what does that do with everyone who doesn't ever obey? Is there salvation revoked?
The Bible says point-blank that faith without works is dead. There is no faith if there are no works.

2 Thessalonians 1:7-9 (King James Version)
7And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
8In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:9Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
Now you are cherry picking. It doesn't say obey first, then you get salvation. It's telling us to follow ("obey") the Gospel, the word of the Lord.

Gal. 2:21, "... if justification were through the law [i.e. obedience], then Christ died to no purpose."

That's not what that means. St. Paul wrote Galatians. And you need to read his stuff carefully. He is the only author of Scripture about which Scripture says:
2 Peter 3:16
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood,.

But we can see other things which he wrote which put his words in perspective:
Romans 2:13
(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Only those who keep the law are justified. That means obedience. But we can look elsewhere and see that St. Paul was keen on obedience:
Romans 6:16
Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? 17But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.


Rom. 5: "1 "Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand."

That's Catholic teaching. Without faith, we can't please God. It is only with faith that we can please Him and can seek to be justified:
Hebrews 11:6
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.


Rom. 5: "16Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ."

That's talking about Baptism:
1 Peter 3:21
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

And the gift which we receive when we are Baptized:
Acts 2:38
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.


Rom. 5: "18Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men."

That speaks of Jesus death on the Cross and the word "all" is not meant to be taken as an absolute. Because although all men could have been saved by even one drop of blood which Jesus shed. Not all men accepted that sacrifice and many are therefore lost.

Please read the entire chapter as context. The grace and the sacrifice on the cross came first, and the obedience follows. Faith causes and inspires obedience, and not the other way around.


I have read it and I have compared it to other Scriptures and my reading is perfectly in line with them all.



The Bible says point-blank that faith without works is dead. There is no faith if there are no works.

But you didn't go far enough. If there are no works, there is no faith and without faith there is no justification. Therefore by works a man is justified and not by faith only.


Now you are cherry picking. It doesn't say obey first, then you get salvation. It's telling us to follow ("obey") the Gospel, the word of the Lord.

Or what? Answer this question PLEASE. What happens if we DO NOT obey the Gospel?
1 Peter 4:17
For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? 18And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear? 19Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator.

"Could Jesus have sinned"? This is one of those questions that takes people around and around in circles.

If it were possible for Jesus to have sinned, you simply can't get around the logical conclusion that therefore God could have sinned. That is, if you hold that Jesus is God.

Saying that Jesus temporarily "discarded" his divinity to allow the possibility of sinfulness is the worst kind of deus ex machina argument. It is an argument created out of whole cloth to support a false proposition.

If Jesus could sin, then God could sin. What does that mean? God sinning? It just doesn't make sense.

If Jesus could sin, then God could sin. What does that mean? God sinning? It just doesn't make sense.
But Jesus was also fully human along with being God, and turned out to be the PERFECT Adam (vs. that other one).

A god who couldn't sin and then gets himself killed by humans sounds like a real wimp and accomplishes nothing, is nothing we can (or want to) relate to. His death is just a vainglorious and glitzy activity, so much celestial flash and dash. "Oh, yeah, He's God. No big deal."

A god who couldn't sin and then gets himself killed by humans sounds like a real wimp and accomplishes nothing, is nothing we can (or want to) relate to. His death is just a vainglorious and glitzy activity, so much celestial flash and dash. "Oh, yeah, He's God. No big deal."

I have no idea why you feel this way. Apparently, you feel that being capable of sin is essential to living a "real" human life. That may be true for humans, but God is a different matter. Goodness, or sinlessness, is not simply an aspect of God - it IS God. Maybe if you saw sin as evil, and not just a fall from grace that is easily atoned for, you might get a different take. God can not be good AND evil at the same time. It's a contradiction in terms.

The nature of Jesus is a very complex matter that the Church has been grappling with since the earliest days when the notion of his divinity first arose. Yes, he was human, but he was never not divine. We don't have any examples other than Jesus to think about how this works. So the question, maybe, at best, is unanswerable.

I admit to approaching this from a philosophical point of view, but De Maria has approached it from a Biblical point of view and I think his scriptural references are definitive.

Btw, we know that Jesus was conceived without sin unlike any other human being that ever lived, (putting aside the question of Mary for the moment - I don't want to divert this thread) so maybe that's an indication of how to approach his human nature.

[edit - later thought - Adam was made in the "image" of God. Adam sinned. Does that mean God could have sinned? Just a thought].

I have no idea why you feel this way. Apparently, you feel that being capable of sin is essential to living a "real" human life.
Why then is Jesus described as being fully human too? Apparently, it makes not one lick of difference (to you) that He was. He was really fully God and the other is just window dressing.

God can not be good AND evil at the same time. It's a contradiction in terms.
I didn't say God was good and evil at the same time.

[edit - later thought - Adam was made in the "image" of God. Adam sinned. Does that mean God could have sinned? Just a thought].
That's exactly my (our) point -- Jesus was also fully human and COULD HAVE sinned, but didn't -- and therein lies the glory of it all.

Second Adam

1 Cor. 15:22, 45

22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. . . . 45 And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

Romans 5:12-21 KJV

12 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: 13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. 17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

18 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. 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. 20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: 21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romans 5:12-21 NIV

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-- 13 for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the One to come.

15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.

17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. 18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.

19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. 20 The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

http://www.presenttruthmag.com/verses-noframes/second-adam.htm

The nature of Jesus is a very complex matter that the Church has been grappling with since the earliest days when the notion of his divinity first arose. Yes, he was human, but he was never not divine. We don't have any examples other than Jesus to think about how this works. So the question, maybe, at best, is unanswerable.

[paragraph removed]

Btw, we know that Jesus was conceived without sin unlike any other human being that ever lived, (putting aside the question of Mary for the moment - I don't want to divert this thread) so maybe that's an indication of how to approach his human nature.
Yeah, and the inability of us humans to wrap our finite minds around Jesus' dual nature is why it's called a mystery.

Apparently, it makes not one lick of difference (to you) that He was. He was really fully God and the other is just window dressing.

I don't think there's any call for you to be nasty about this question. Better to BE Christ-like than to KNOW everything about his essence which is certainly unknowable.

Again, I'll post something Jakester said early in this thread (bolding is mine) --

"... was it possible for Jesus to sin? I think that since the opportunities to sin for Jesus were presented through the trials of Satan, the 'possibility' for Jesus to sin must have been a reality...if not, why would the temptations of Satan to Christ have even occurred? I think it was possible for Jesus to sin but if he had sinned, the rest of God's story would not be what it is... he would have told a different story.

Another question may be raised at this point. If Jesus were not capable of sin and yet the possibility of Jesus sinning were a reality, what was the point of the trials Jesus faced? Hebrews makes the case that in order for Jesus to be a qualified high priest, he needed to be able to empathize with us in our struggles against sin. He can be a more effective High Priest because he has come face to face with temptation, felt the stings of it (consider how Jesus was hungry and weak while Satan came to tempt him), and yet was able to still do the right thing and obey God.

And I might add that the high priestly quality of Jesus is what sets him apart from all other "Gods." No other religion can boast of a God who was so thoroughly intimate with the human experience that he became human, faced the temptations of sin, knew sorrow and pain, and in the end chose to be merciful to those who killed him."

I didn't say God was good and evil at the same time.

That's exactly my (our) point -- Jesus was also fully human and COULD HAVE sinned, but didn't -- and therein lies the glory of it all.

Second Adam

1 Cor. 15:22, 45

22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. . . . 45 And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

Romans 5:12-21 KJV

12 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: 13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. 17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

18 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. 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. 20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: 21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romans 5:12-21 NIV

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-- 13 for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the One to come.

15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.

17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. 18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.

19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. 20 The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Second Adam (http://www.presenttruthmag.com/verses-noframes/second-adam.htm)

My eyes glaze over when I see oodles of Bible verses. Everybody seems to find a Bible verse no matter their position. Better to save them for De Maria.

"...was it possible for Jesus to sin? I think that since the opportunities to sin for Jesus were presented through the trials of Satan, the 'possibility' for Jesus to sin must have been a reality...if not, why would the temptations of Satan to Christ have even occurred? I think it was possible for Jesus to sin but if he had sinned, the rest of God's story would not be what it is...he would have told a different story.[/B]"

This was answered, satisfactorily in my opinion, by De Maria.

I don't think there's any call for you to be nasty about this question. Better to BE Christ-like than to KNOW everything about his essence which is certainly unknowable.
Huh? I was debating, not being nasty.

And I did post that Jesus' dual nature is a mystery (to ALL of us). How that could be done without losing His "godness" and yet while retaining His humanness is something none of us can understand. But He did it!

This was answered, satisfactorily in my opinion, by De Maria.
I disagree. His explanation didn't satisfy.

My eyes glaze over when I see oodles of Bible verses. Everybody seems to find a Bible verse no matter their position. Better to save them for De Maria.
Piffle! De Maria has no corner on Bible verse quoting, plus I bolded the parts that are especially important. I can isolate them further for you, if that would help.

Piffle! De Maria has no corner on Bible verse quoting, plus I bolded the parts that are especially important. I can isolate them further for you, if that would help.

Piffle yourself.

Yeah, that's all I need - for you to start bolding verses. If you do, I'll start quoting the Bhagavad-Gita.

I see you had your raw meat this morning. And you used to be so nice going around baking cupcakes for everybody.

Want to dance?

De Maria has no corner on Bible verse quoting,

What I like about De Maria is that it's refreshing to see a Catholic out-bibling all the Biblicists here (not you, of course). Catholics get their Bible at Mass with the Gospels and the epistles and certain brief quotations from the Psalms or Amos or some other OT book. At least, they used to. These days it's all guitars and kumbaya. (Just kidding, just kidding).

What I like about De Maria is that it's refreshing to see a Catholic out-bibling all the Biblicists here (not you, of course)
And you chided me for being nasty? For all the Bibling he does, he has been incorrect in his interpretation.

Piffle yourself.

Yeah, that's all I need - for you to start bolding verses. If you do, I'll start quoting the Bhagavad-Gita.

I see you had your raw meat this morning. And you used to be so nice going around baking cupcakes for everybody.

Wanna dance?
So if I show a little backbone, I get patted on the head and whirled around the dance floor (and sent to the kitchen -- barefoot and pregnant, I presume?). Never mind that what I said had some merit. After all, De Maria is the hero here.

And you chided me for being nasty? For all the Bibling he does, he has been incorrect in his interpretation.

So say you.

Anyway, where's the nasty?

Anyway, where's the nasty?
Lurking in your parens.

So if I show a little backbone, I get patted on the head and whirled around the dance floor (and sent to the kitchen -- barefoot and pregnant, I presume?). Never mind that what I said had some merit. After all, De Maria is the hero here.

Whoa. Slow down, girl. Barefoot and pregnant? Where did THAT come from?

My attempt at lightening the dialogue has fallen with a great big THUD. My apologies.

Have a nice day.

[edit - later thought - Adam was made in the "image" of God. Adam sinned. Does that mean God could have sinned? Just a thought].
So, back to the topic of the thread -- any further thoughts on this (after pondering the bolded portions of the Bible verses I had posted earlier)?

lightening the dialogue
Oooops, silly me. I took it as patronizing. My bad.

So, back to the topic of the thread -- any further thoughts on this (after pondering the bolded portions of the Bible verses I had posted earlier)?

Athos left. I'm his long-lost brother, Aramis.

He said to tell you he's sorry for anything he ever said or did in the past, sorry for anything now in the present, and sorry for anything he is yet to do in the future.

He went to Tibet to join a monastery.

He went to Tibet to join a monastery.
Is he allowed to eat cupcakes?

Now, let's get back to the topic of this thread. (Sheesh.)

Is he allowed to eat cupcakes?

Now, let's get back to the topic of this thread. (Sheesh.)

I have said all I have to say on the topic. If you want to sling Bible verses back and forth like a sword, I'm not your man for that.

I don't believe God limits his creation to a series of 60-70 books written by as many authors two thousand plus years ago with almost as many interpretations.

But that's just me.

In relation to the original question.

I think when discussing this topic it may be helpful to look at identity in terms of its empirical base and its metaphysical base. Athos' account seems to be empirical account. In other words, we need to specify the types of statements we are using when talking about identity

Athos seems to be largely doing this so I would say that he is correct in many of the things he has pointed out.

Tut

In relation to the original question.

I think when discussing this topic it may be helpful to look at identity in terms of its empirical base and its metaphysical base. Athos' account seems to be empirical account. In other words, we need to specify the types of statements we are using when talking about identity

Athos seems to be largely doing this so I would say that he is correct in many of the things he has pointed out.

Tut

Thank you, but I have no idea what you are talking about.

If you can put it plain language, I would be happy to read it.

I have said all I have to say on the topic.
I'm sorry to read that.

If you want to sling Bible verses back and forth like a sword, I'm not your man for that.
The verses were first slung as proof that works are needed for salvation. I countered that with a reasonable interpretation of the "slung" passage.

I don't believe God limits his creation to a series of 60-70 books written by as many authors two thousand plus years ago with almost as many interpretations.
I don't either, but we are on the Christianity board discussion a topic in the Christian faith. Quoting the Bhagavad Gita won't help.

Thank you, but I have no idea what you are talking about.

If you can put it plain language, I would be happy to read it.


Hi Athos,

No problem, but I won't be able to do it until late this afternoon.

Regards

Tut

I'm sorry to read that.

The verses were first slung as proof that works are needed for salvation. I countered that with a reasonable interpretation of the "slung" passage.

I don't either, but we are on the Christianity board discussion a topic in the Christian faith. Quoting the Bhagavad Gita won't help.

My Bhagavad Gita was a joke (obviously). I don't doubt your counter interpretations were reasonable. Counter interpretations always are - wherein lies the problem.

Any collection of books reaching three quarters of a million words written over several centuries will always lend itself to various interpretations. That is why I shy away from "slinging" verses.

I believe I could take any 70 books, about any topic, and "prove" any agenda I may have at the moment. It's simply a matter of finding (cherry picking - your excellent phrase, not patronizing) what you want.

"My" God, for what it's worth, is not limited to a book. That is one reason why I can appreciate Catholicism which has historically tried, not always successfully, to expand the understanding of God through its Magisterium and even through its patronage of the arts over the centuries. I am not a spokesman for that faith - others will do it much better than I.

I can even see God's hand in the clarity of Islam (not the radical variety so in the news today), the beauty of Hinduism, and the simplicity of Buddhism.

So, for me, exchanging Bible verses is a "chasing of the wind", to quote Ecclesiastes.

exchanging Bible verses is a "chasing of the wind"
We weren't exchanging; we were untangling.

Hi Wondergirl,

Still waiting for a response:

What happens if we DO NOT obey the Gospel?
1 Peter 4:17
For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? 18And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear? 19Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator.

Hi Wondergirl,

Still waiting for a response:

What happens if we DO NOT obey the Gospel?
1 Peter 4:17
For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? 18And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear? 19Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator.
I went back a number of pages but could not find your original question about this. I am not familiar with the term "obeying the Gospel." What is there to obey? The Greek means literally "refusing to be persuaded by."

I went back a number of pages but could not find your original question about this.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/could-jesus-have-sinned-481881-17.html#post2512472


I am not familiar with the term "obeying the Gospel." What is there to obey?

You ask, "What is there to obey?" Is that a serious inquiry?


The Greek means literally "refusing to be persuaded by."

In other words, "refusing to believe". Whom do you think this is in reference to?

Piffle yourself.

Yeah, that's all I need - for you to start bolding verses. If you do, I'll start quoting the Bhagavad-Gita.

I see you had your raw meat this morning. And you used to be so nice going around baking cupcakes for everybody.

Wanna dance?

Don't rub her nose in it.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/could-jesus-have-sinned-481881-17.html#post2512472
The link took me somewhere else. I've found that such links don't really help as a way to recall older posts. Even referencing the number of the post doesn't always work; the numbering in my computer may not be the same as in yours.

You ask, "What is there to obey?" Is that a serious inquiry?
Sorry. It was a rhetorical question.

In other words, "refusing to believe". Whom do you think this is in reference to?
In this case, it refers to James' audience.

The question of Jesus being separated into divine and human is important to the original question. That being along the lines of the possibility of someone who is fully divine and fully human being capable of sin.

My apologies to Athos. I think it is Wondergirl who has adopted the correct position in relation to this question. In future I will try and not be so sloppy with my responses.

Can we talk in an intelligible way about divinity and humanity being one and the same. We can say they are but what types of arguments can we put forward for such a synthesis? I think we are pretty much limited to the conclusion that we can't talk about it in an intelligible way. All we can say is that it is a 'divine mystery'

What we can talk about is God using various logical and ontological arguments. At the same time we can also talk about Jesus as a man using empirical arguments. On this basis I think that it makes sense to talk about the real possibility that Jesus could have sinned. The fact that he didn't doesn't detract from the empirical possibility.



Tut

Why would God have taken on a human nature if He wouldn't have been able to sin? What would have been the point?

The link took me somewhere else. I've found that such links don't really help as a way to recall older posts. Even referencing the number of the post doesn't always work; the numbering in my computer may not be the same as in yours.

Sorry. It was a rhetorical question.

In this case, it refers to James' audience.

But weren't we talking about something St. Peter said? How did St. James audience get into this?

Previously, on this thread:

What happens if we DO NOT obey the Gospel?
1 Peter 4:17
For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? 18And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear? 19Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator.

Why would God have taken on a human nature if He wouldn't have been able to sin?

He came to give us an example to follow:
1 Peter 2:21
For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:

In order that we might be saved. He didn't come to give us an example of sin.


What would have been the point?

The point is that we must be like Jesus, constantly united to the Father in the Holy Spirit.

He came to give us an example to follow:
1 Peter 2:21
For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:

In order that we might be saved. He didn't come to give us an example of sin.



The point is that we must be like Jesus, constantly united to the Father in the Holy Spirit.
I don't follow His example to get saved.

And if He wasn't human like I am, there's no way I could follow His example -- and I wouldn't even try.

The question of Jesus being separated into divine and human is important to the original question. That being along the lines of the possibility of someone who is fully divine and fully human being capable of sin.

My apologies to Athos. I think it is Wondergirl who has adopted the correct position in relation to this question. In future I will try and not be so sloppy with my responses.

Can we talk in an intelligible way about divinity and humanity being one and the same.

Huh? You lost me there. Better check your logic.


We can say they are but what types of arguments can we put forward for such a synthesis? I think we are pretty much limited to the conclusion that we can't talk about it in an intelligible way. All we can say is that it is a 'divine mystery'

Oh, OK.


What we can talk about is God using various logical and ontological arguments. At the same time we can also talk about Jesus as a man using empirical arguments. On this basis I think that it makes sense to talk about the real possibility that Jesus could have sinned. The fact that he didn't doesn't detract from the empirical possibility.

If it is possible that He could have sinned, then you can't call Him God.


Tut

Sincerely,

I don't follow His example to get saved.

And if He wasn't human like I am, there's no way I could follow His example -- and I wouldn't even try.

Love is His example. You don't follow it?

If it is possible that He could have sinned, then you can't call Him God.
That was the wonderful and amazing mystery of it all -- that Jesus was not only God, but was also human just like us and was able to be tempted and fall just like we do -- but He said no and didn't sin! What an example for us to follow!

Love is His example. You don't follow it?
It would be a God-love so impossible for me to reach for that I wouldn't even try to emulate it.

That was the wonderful and amazing mystery of it all -- that Jesus was not only God, but was also human just like us

Jesus had two natures and two wills. The Divine and the human will. Which do you think is stronger?


and was able to be tempted and fall just like we do -- but He said no and didn't sin! What an example for us to follow!

Not committing sin is a great example no matter whether He was capable or not. But He didn't come to show us how not to sin. Jesus came to show us how to love.

Jesus had two natures and two wills. The Divine and the human will. Which do you think is stronger?
They were equal.

Not committing sin is a great example no matter whether He was capable or not. But He didn't come to show us how not to sin. Jesus came to show us how to love.
He came to show us both.

They were equal.

They were equal? Think about that for a minute. The Divine Will rules the cosmos. The human will rules the human body.

At least, that's how I understand it.


He came to show us both.

True. But I think he did the showing us how not to sin by showing us how to love:
Romans 13:10
Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

They were equal? Think about that for a minute. The Divine Will rules the cosmos. The human will rules the human body. At least, that's how I understand it.
Okay. I thought about it for a minute. Yes, they were equal. Remember, no one like Jesus has ever existed. There was a definite tension between His human and divine natures, just like the tension between Law and Gospel. What wondrous mystery!

But I think he did the showing us how not to sin by showing us how to love:
Romans 13:10
Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
And Jesus did both very nicely.

Okay. I thought about it for a minute. Yes, they were equal. Remember, no one like Jesus has ever existed. There was a definite tension between His human and divine natures, just like the tension between Law and Gospel. What wondrous mystery!

Ok, I give. But I still believe my Church. Jesus could not have sinned.


And Jesus did both very nicely.

Yes, He did.

Ok, I give. But I still believe my Church. Jesus could not have sinned.
Think about it while you're falling asleep tonight.

Think about it while you're falling asleep tonight.

I've already thought about it for several nights that we've had these conversations. I can't fathom where God can sin or even be tempted.

I've already thought about it for several nights that we've had these conversations. I can't fathom where God can sin or even be tempted.
Keep on thinking about it. Remember the points I brought up.

Keep on thinking about it. Remember the points I brought up.

I've thought about it and it remains clear that we can't call Jesus God if He can sin. And that is for more than one reason.

You're thinking of Jesus as though His Divinity is separate from His humanity. But His humanity was always subject to His Divinity.

When Jesus was born of Mary, it isn't as though His humanity passed through the birth canal and the Divinity went around. The Divinity is part and parcel of Jesus person. And mothers give birth to persons. Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God. And therefore, Jesus could not have sinned. Because Jesus is God.

You're thinking of Jesus as though His Divinity is separate from His humanity. But His humanity was always subject to His Divinity.
I don't agree. I've always heard they were co-existent, in equal measure.

And Mary wasn't the mother of God.

I don't agree. I've always heard they were co-existent, in equal measure.

You can't measure Divinity. You are either Divine or not. Jesus wasn't a piece of God. Jesus is God.


And Mary wasn't the mother of God.

If Jesus is God. Then Mary is the Mother of God. Because Jesus was God from all eternity. And God humbled Himself to be born of a woman.

God passed through Mary's birth canal and was born.

You can't measure Divinity. You are either Divine or not. Jesus wasn't a piece of God. Jesus is God.
When Jesus was born and while He walked this earth, He was both God and man, in equal measure. He was unique, and a mystery.

If Jesus is God. Then Mary is the Mother of God.
Jesus was both God and man. Mary was Jesus' (not God's) mother. Upon Resurrection, Jesus assumed the fullness of His God-ness.

God passed through Mary's birth canal and was born.
Good grief!

When Jesus was born and while He walked this earth, He was both God and man, in equal measure. He was unique, and a mystery.

The mystery is that God would become man. But that doesn't mean that God equals man.


Jesus was both God and man. Mary was Jesus' (not God's) mother. Upon Resurrection, Jesus assumed the fullness of His God-ness.

Yes, Mary is God's mother. God was carried in her womb, God was born of Mary, God sat on her knees and suckled at her teat. God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity was Mary's little boy.


Good grief!

What? That's what happens when children are born.

The mystery is that God would become man. But that doesn't mean that God equals man.
The state of Jesus Christ was divine, yet he did not cling to equality with God but emptied himself to assume the condition of a slave, and became as we are: and being as we are, he was humbler yet, even to accepting death, death on a cross.. . (Philippians 2:6-11)

Yes, Mary is God's mother.
Mary was Jesus' mother.

What? That's what happens when children are born.
I missed that part and used Lamaze. (P.S. We don't suffer "grief." They're called contractions.)

The state of Jesus Christ was divine, yet he did not cling to equality with God but emptied himself to assume the condition of a slave, and became as we are: and being as we are, he was humbler yet, even to accepting death, death on a cross.. . (Philippians 2:6-11)

That doesn't address the question Wondergirl.

The mystery is that God would become man. But that doesn't mean that God equals man.

Divinity is greater even then all men combined. Divinity is that God in whom we live, breathe and are. Divinity is not constrained by time or space. Divinity is greater than the entire cosmos and yet smaller than the smallest atom.

This is the Divinity which Christ "shares" with the entire Trinity. There is only one Divinity. One God.

And Jesus is God and God can't sin.


Mary was Jesus' mother.


And Jesus is God.


I missed that part and used Lamaze. (P.S. We don't suffer "grief." They're called contractions.)

Yeah, I was the one holding the watch and telling her to breathe.
My wife also used Lamaze and our children (4) all were born through the birth canal.

It is you who said, "good grief"

That doesn't address the question Wondergirl.
WG doesn't recall the question and is too tired to scroll back however far to find it (if it's even in this thread).

And Jesus is God and God can't sin.
Jesus was also human and was capable of sinning, else all He did was in vain and is nothing to which we can relate.

Yeah, I was the one holding the watch and telling her to breathe.
You got off easy.

our children (4) all were born through the birth canal.
Which means what?

I said "good grief" because of what YOU said. I could have said, "Ach, du lieber!"

WG doesn't recall the question and is too tired to scroll back however far to find it (if it's even in this thread).

Jesus was also human and was capable of sinning, else all He did was in vain and is nothing to which we can relate.

You got off easy.

Which means what?

I said "good grief" because of what YOU said. I could have said, "Ach, du lieber!"

Schlaf gut Say good night WG

Schlaf gut Say good night WG

Don't rub her nose in it.

Don't rub her nose in it.

She don't like it.