"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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
|
"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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
How so? Besides I didn't quote Grisar, I quoted Luther.
JoeT
I said I STOPPED READING as soon as I saw Grisar's name. I didn't say you quoted him.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Ok, so you can't read?
Insults don't become you. I thought you were better than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
It wasn't an insult. Bad grammar remember.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
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
If the 'possibility' didn't exist then He wasn't a man, He would have been something more than man. Right?Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
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.
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)Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
What does the birth certificate have to do with it? Is the suggestion that we are born Christian?Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
JoeT
Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
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
Gnosticism was a Christian heresy. It grew out of a blending of Christianity with certain Greek forms of mysticism.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
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.Quote:
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 haven't seen anybody say otherwise.Quote:
Christ didn’t sin because he freely cooperated with the will of God, not because he was ‘saved’.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
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
A correction is in order here.Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
Fatalism has many things in common with predestination. Perhaps I should have said fatalism would be rejected by many Christian denominations.
Tut
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
JoeT
Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
I agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
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
Tut,Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
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.
Ephesians 3:10Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
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.
But Jesus was also fully human. What does that mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
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
No, they're a plain description of how salvation comes.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
No.Quote:
Furthermore, by what means do we achieve our seat ~ believe? Isn’t salvation through baptism (a work)
No.Quote:
and isn’t salvation eternal life through communion,
Alice who? If you're trying to reference the Wizard of Oz, you have the wrong girl. Not a very effective attempt at ridicule! ;)Quote:
(By the way ~ I’ve always wanted to ask ~ does one click their heels together like Alice when they ‘believe’?)
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
That’s not very informative; nothing much to chew on.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
JoeT
There was nothing fed to us. What about Alice?Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Quote:
Originally Posted by boogers
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:15 AM. |