Clearing my name!!

[convicted1]

In another thread that is now closed, I read something that rubbed me raw. I have been falsely charged with believing something so heretical, that Jesus had a "sin nature". Not once have I even alluded to this. Jesus was just as perfect in the flesh as He is in the Spirit, as He sits on the right hand of the Father in heaven. Jesus died as the One perfect Sacrificial Lamb, that paid the "sin debt" in full. If Jesus had a "sin nature", there could have been a chance for Him to succumb to those temptations, so no, He did not EVER have a "sin nature". If Jesus had a "sin nature", He would not have been the One perfect Sacrificial Lamb.

Here is what was posted about me in the aforementioned closed thread:

It is reprehensible...because it is heretical, Your turning from truth leads you to more error and a heretical view of Jesus person and work.
Those who follow your error here...winman, willis, benjamin,amy g,in the light, are not far behind.

The one who posted this, I will keep anonymous, but PLEASE, whenever you post something this slanderous, that it impugns(sp?) someone's CHRISTian character, make sure you have your facts straight before posting!!!

 

[Crabtownboy]

In another thread that is now closed, I read something that rubbed me raw. I have been falsely charged with believing something so heretical, that Jesus had a "sin nature". Not once have I even alluded to this. Jesus was just as perfect in the flesh as He is in the Spirit, as He sits on the right hand of the Father in heaven. Jesus died as the One perfect Sacrificial Lamb, that paid the "sin debt" in full. If Jesus had a "sin nature", there could have been a chance for Him to succumb to those temptations, so no, He did not EVER have a "sin nature". If Jesus had a "sin nature", He would not have been the One perfect Sacrificial Lamb.

Here is what was posted about me in the aforementioned closed thread:




The one who posted this, I will keep anonymous, but PLEASE, whenever you post something this slanderous, that it impugns(sp?) someone's CHRISTian character, make sure you have your facts straight before posting!!!

I am sorry you had this experience. I know the feeling. A number of times I have been falsely holding a belief. When I responded stating that this was not my belief and I have asked for an apology, but have yet to receive one. So, don't no hold your breath that anything will change.

Just consider the source and pray or them.

Have a blessed day.

 

[Amy.G]

Hey Willis, I'm a heretic too! :wavey:


I have NEVER said nor implied in ANY way that Jesus had a sin nature. I challenge anyone on this board to produce a statement where I said this.

But I've also been called unsaved, ignorant, uneducated.....you name it. Jesus knows me, that's the important thing.

 

[Robert Snow]

Hey Willis, I'm a heretic too! :wavey:


I have NEVER said nor implied in ANY way that Jesus had a sin nature. I challenge anyone on this board to produce a statement where I said this.

But I've also been called unsaved, ignorant, uneducated.....you name it. Jesus knows me, that's the important thing.

I'm upset that Iconoclast left me off the list. Probably just an oversight on his part. :laugh:

 

[preacher4truth]

I looked back at the post to which Willis refers and there is one that claims Jesus had a sin nature. That's blasphemous and shows a thoroughly deficient view of Holy God. Why do we have to defend the nature of God, and His being purely Holy and without ANY darkness against Baptists????? This just blows my mind, this to me is unbelievable.

I have a serious issue with such an error.

Does God have a sin nature? Absolutely not.

Is Christ God? He most certainly is.

Is there anything in the nature of God that contains a sin element or possibility to sin?

Not at all.

To believe this and entertain such fallacy is certainly bewildering to say the least, is certainly false teaching contrary to sound doctrine, and is misrepresentative of the true God of the Scriptures.

This same false teaching is found in the teachings of the Christadelphians, a break off from Campbellites, which came about the same time period as Watchtower, SDA, and Christian Science. Each of these groups sought new truths, or revelation, and combined religion (or true Christian belief) with personal reason and opinion. When one cannot be satisfied with the Lord Jesus Christ of Scriptures and is seeking new truths or revelation, they truly have not drank of the living water, as they are still thirsty. I say this of the cults I've named above, not of "the one" who has said Christ had a sin nature (which is hard for me to even type this nonsense here).

Obviously this still goes on today, this reason above revelation, and the outcome of those who trust in their reason above Scriptural revelation ends in error as we see here.

 

[kyredneck]

....The one who posted this, I will keep anonymous....

Willis, I believe we would all agree that by far and away he is mannerly, respectful, courteous, knowledgeable, etc. (as you are), and definitely is an asset to us here on the BB, so give him a break, we're all prone to get a little over zealous for our point of view and say things the wrong way.

This is just a thang, and your name didn't need clearin' in my book....

 

[Aaron]

In another thread that is now closed, I read something that rubbed me raw. I have been falsely charged with believing something so heretical, that Jesus had a "sin nature". Not once have I even alluded to this. Jesus was just as perfect in the flesh as He is in the Spirit, as He sits on the right hand of the Father in heaven. Jesus died as the One perfect Sacrificial Lamb, that paid the "sin debt" in full. If Jesus had a "sin nature", there could have been a chance for Him to succumb to those temptations, so no, He did not EVER have a "sin nature". If Jesus had a "sin nature", He would not have been the One perfect Sacrificial Lamb.

...

PLEASE, whenever you post something this slanderous, that it impugns(sp?) someone's CHRISTian character, make sure you have your facts straight before posting!!!

So, you're saying the view that Christ had a sin nature is heretical and blasphemous, and to hold such a view casts doubt upon one's standing as a Christian?

 

[Skandelon]

While I agree that it is an error to suggest that Jesus had a sin nature, I think if one reads back through the thread you will see the intent SEEMED to be the issue of defining a "sin nature" and how that relates to the "flesh."

No one has a problem saying Jesus was "flesh" (fully man) yet often the term "flesh" is used interchangeably with the term "sin nature," in reference to us. Thus, the post in question SEEMED to be referring to Christ being fully man (in flesh) and thus facing the same temptations as we do. It may have been just poorly worded.

 

[preacher4truth]

While I agree that it is an error to suggest that Jesus had a sin nature, I think if one reads back through the thread you will see the intent SEEMED to be the issue of defining a "sin nature" and how that relates to the "flesh."

No one has a problem saying Jesus was "flesh" (fully man) yet often the term "flesh" is used interchangeably with the term "sin nature," in reference to us. Thus, the post in question SEEMED to be referring to Christ being fully man (in flesh) and thus facing the same temptations as we do. It may have been just poorly worded.

Here we go with the "if you read back through the thread" pretentiousness.

Baloney.

And "flesh" and "sin nature" aren't interchangeable terms. To even suggest this is akin to, and bordering gnostic doctrine, making natural physical things into evil just due to them being physical. You are aware of this within gnosticism, correct, and know this is true, right?

"The Word became "sin nature" and dwelt among us?" Uh. Not quite.

The person clearly stated He had a sin nature. This is error, and there is no excuse for this.

 

[JesusFan]

While I agree that it is an error to suggest that Jesus had a sin nature, I think if one reads back through the thread you will see the intent SEEMED to be the issue of defining a "sin nature" and how that relates to the "flesh."

No one has a problem saying Jesus was "flesh" (fully man) yet often the term "flesh" is used interchangeably with the term "sin nature," in reference to us. Thus, the post in question SEEMED to be referring to Christ being fully man (in flesh) and thus facing the same temptations as we do. It may have been just poorly worded.

think though that some here DO allude/hold that jesus indeed was born in the Flesh SAME nature as us, that he chose NOT to sin against God, and they hold that view as refuse to accept the biblical view of original sin/born sinners/ ect!

 

[JesusFan]

Here we go with the "if you read back through the thread" pretentiousness.

Baloney.

And "flesh" and "sin nature" aren't interchangeable terms. To even suggest this is akin to, and bordering gnostic doctrine, making natural physical things into evil just due to them being physical. You are aware of this within gnosticism, correct, and know this is true, right?

"The Word became "sin nature" and dwelt among us?" Uh. Not quite.

The person clearly stated He had a sin nature. This is error, and there is no excuse for this.

jesus was born in "likeness" not "sameness" of human flesh, as he had a perfect sinless humanity just as adam did when he was created!

 

[psalms109:31]

Romans 7:18
For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[Or my flesh] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature[Or in the flesh] a slave to the law of sin.

1 Corinthians 9:
27 No, I strike a blow to my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize.

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.

I think most are trying to reconcile Jesus being tempted like as we are and what He could be tempted by without having a flesh like ours?

 

[Aaron]

I think most are trying to reconcile Jesus being tempted like as we are and what He could be tempted by without having a flesh like ours?

He did have flesh like ours. Our meat and bones are not evil. Our bodies are not evil. They're good. It's what animates them that is evil.

 

[psalms109:31]

He did have flesh like ours. Our meat and bones are not evil. Our bodies are not evil. They're good. It's what animates them that is evil.

Gal 5-6,

Ephesians 2:3
Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.

 

[percho]

Gal 5-6,

Ephesians 2:3
Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.

And James 1:14,15 tells us why.

Jesus was tempted just as we are but his lust was for the Father instead of his own.

 

[psalms109:31]

And James 1:14,15 tells us why.

Jesus was tempted just as we are but his lust was for the Father instead of his own.

Did Jesus flesh have lust that was not for the Father that He had to fight?

 

[percho]

Did Jesus flesh have lust that was not for the Father that He had to fight?

I will ask the same thing here I asked in another thread.

Do theses verses contrast the striving of Christ to that of others? I will post the verses in reverse.

Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin.
For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds.
Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of the faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
Edit/Delete Message

So I would say he overcame any lust that he had in the flesh.

Along this same line of thought in John 3:1-7 is there any implication that the flesh spoken of is sinful flesh?

Jesus was without sin yet he died this very death, dying thou shall surely die, He was paid the wages of our sin in our stead. Christ died for us.
How?
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

The sinless one, the living soul Jesus begotten of the Father, Spirit, God of the virgin Mary that did come through water and blood -- Jesus the Christ, not in the water only, but in the water and the blood;

He died for the ungodly.

 

[quantumfaith]

I sure do wish that "baloney" would cease to be used as a disparaging and pejorative term. I really do enjoy my bologna sandwiches.

 

[quantumfaith]

Willis, Winman, Amy G and In the light, your name and reputation are just fine. As solid as anyone else here in BB land. Blessings to you all.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I sure do wish that "baloney" would cease to be used as a disparaging and pejorative term. I really do enjoy my bologna sandwiches.

Your sins are forgiven you my son....go in peace.:thumbsup: