Clearing my name!!

[quantumfaith]

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

I think

 

[kyredneck]

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

Baloney w/colby cheese & garden ripe tomatoe on WW bread with mayo...hmm, hmm good...and a homemade [fermented] dill pickle

 

[Old Union Brother]

Baloney w/colby cheese & garden ripe tomatoe on WW bread with mayo...hmm, hmm good...and a homemade [fermented] dill pickle

....and maybe a slice of vadalia onion too!!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

....and maybe a slice of vadalia onion too!!

And then you should get rid of the baloney & sub with bacon....the government always adds pork so why shouldnt you?

Motto {get rid of the baloney & put in the pork}

 

[preacher4truth]

And then you should get rid of the baloney & sub with bacon....the government always adds pork so why shouldnt you?

Motto {get rid of the baloney & put in the pork}

Fried bologna sammich with thick slice of onion, and mustard.

Sometimes you have to look past the word baloney, as to not, yet once again, miss out on the theological truth contained therein, and perhaps see the false teachings of gnosticism being addressed, and, perhaps even learn something. Heavens sakes, you might even see your mentor as being yet again incorrect, sir protege cheerleader of little substance.

Otherwise you're just continuing upon your road of being chronically contentious.

What was said (to which I aptly replied) was borderline gnosticism, whether one was aware of it or not. Be warned. :wavey:

Oh, btw, this wasn't all addressed at you EWF. You seem squared away and on the right track.

 

[quantumfaith]

Baloney w/colby cheese & garden ripe tomatoe on WW bread with mayo...hmm, hmm good...and a homemade [fermented] dill pickle

I am not quite that fancy, just lettuce, mayo and salt and pepper for me.

 

[Iconoclast]

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!!!

Willis,

I am sorry if you took any unnecessary offence to what I posted. Willis I count you as abrother in Christ. Earlier in the thread the idea that in some way Jesus could sin, or had a sin nature the same as us was being posted .
I could not remain silent with that open error being posted. the language you used in post 79...i have commented on in the other read...when you asked me about who gives man his Spirit/soul???
In that thread I posted this....

I cannot say this in any positive fashion. I am not speaking about any of you as a personal statement about you as people....but this theology is horrendous and getting worse.....you keep repeating the error over and over to where you somehow think it will become true...it will not.
The error remains error......free at last and aaron are trying to reason it out and put out the theological fire before it burns the whole building down.

Willis...I have my own sin and error to work on...I do not need to take on anyone elses. To your own master you stand or fall.
However...I think there is a large error on the condition of man in relation to the fall. It is very serious error.

You did not go as far as the other two on their false view of Jesus..as a matter of fact I am thankful for your clear repudiation of that false position!
What i have seen with you and a few others is the idea that men are alive ...then die later....usually you mis-use romans 7 on this...i was alive without the law once....

What I was attempting to do was what scripture commands ...to admonish one another.....I have seen in the past month this particular error being repeated ,over and over unchecked...as if it were a valid option.

Willis...there have been times we have agreed on issues...and other times we have not been able to agree. I do not want to see you follow a wrong path so I listed you with a few others who have recently agreed in part with teaching that opposes historic church teaching.

I am not your judge Willis.....I will buy breakfast in Huntington, or Louisa..if we get together sometime...because I caused you stress:thumbs:
Sorry...that was not my purpose toward you.

 

[Winman]

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.

Yeah, he included me when I had just posted that Jesus DID NOT have a sin nature.

There are several here who falsely attack and misrepresent those who disagree with them on a regular basis. Since they cannot overcome scriptural arguments (and they know it) they try to smear the poster.

You guys have missed your calling, you should all be lawyers.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Join the crowd, Willis.

I too was slandered. In the "those who have never heard" thread.


Just one of those things that some people do...

 

[Iconoclast]

Yeah, he included me when I had just posted that Jesus DID NOT have a sin nature.

There are several here who falsely attack and misrepresent those who disagree with them on a regular basis. Since they cannot overcome scriptural arguments (and they know it) they try to smear the poster.

You guys have missed your calling, you should all be lawyers.

Winman....why lie?

you said that in post 205,,yes...but here is your post 143;

I do not believe we are born with a sin nature, although I believe every person soon develops one. The word "nature" means our behavior as developed by habit, not instinct.

Yet the scripture teaches we are...


Further, the scriptures clearly teach that Jesus had the same "nature" as us. (Heb 2:16-18)

Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Jesus had the same nature as us, if we have a sin nature, then so did Jesus.

This is wicked falsehood.

I refuse to believe this.

What you refuse to believe is we have a sin nature....but your statement stands as posted is error.

I think it is more accurate and scriptural to say we are born with a "temptation nature".

You can believe what you want...but scripture tells a different story


We are born flesh with lusts and desires that tempt us to sin. But temptation is not sin as explained in James 1:14-15. Only when a man obeys his fleshly lusts does he sin. Jesus was tempted in all points as we are, but he never obeyed these lusts when it would have caused him to sin. (Heb 4:15)

I do believe once we obey our lusts and sin it can become a controlling habit, so we develop a sin nature. But we are not born that way.
__________________

This is a denial of scripture.

There are several here who falsely attack and misrepresent those who disagree with them on a regular basis. Since they cannot overcome scriptural arguments (and they know it) they try to smear the poster

like I said to you the other day...I offered you scripture from a greek teacher....you rejected it then , you reject it now.
Your posts are full of error...I do not have to smear anything,,,just respond to your error.

 

[Winman]

You left out MUCH of my post. I said I REFUSE to believe Jesus had a sin nature, and that I do not like to associate sin with Jesus whatsoever.

Either you are a VERY CARELESS reader or you INTENTIONALLY misrepresent me.

Which is it?

What I said is that the scriptures teach Jesus has the same nature as us, which is true. (Heb 2:16-18)

I said men are not born with a sin nature, but are "flesh" having lusts and desires and this should more accurately be called a "temptation nature". Jesus DID have this nature that he inherited from Mary. Jesus could be tempted. He could not have inherited this ability to be tempted from his Father, as God CANNOT be tempted.

Temptation is not sin. Jesus could be tempted, but he NEVER sinned.

So, you pulled my comments out of context and totally misrepresented me. You should be ashamed, Christians are supposed to be honest.

 

[Winman]

Here is EXACTLY what I said in post #163 of the closed thread.

I like what the scriptures say, they say we are flesh, and that Jesus came in the flesh. I do not like the term "sin nature" applied to Jesus at all. But the scriptures do say he had the same nature as us and was tempted in ALL POINTS as we are, YET WITHOUT SIN. So, I don't like the word sin associated with Jesus at all.
I think it more accurate to say we have a temptation nature.

You conveniently overlooked this post.

 

[Iconoclast]

Winman, you posted this;

Jesus had the same nature as us, if we have a sin nature, then so did Jesus.

We have a sin nature......

3Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

The scripture says we have a sin nature......
so which view are you going to stand by......


Jesus was and is eternally sinless......or he had the same nature as sinful man? You posted it....you can retract it if you want.....or do you stand by it?

 

[Winman]

Winman, you posted this;




We have a sin nature......



The scripture says we have a sin nature......
so which view are you going to stand by......


Jesus was and is eternally sinless......or he had the same nature as sinful man? You posted it....you can retract it if you want.....or do you stand by it?

I do not believe we have a sin nature. The scriptures say we are "flesh" and have lusts and desires. I have said several times now that I think it more accurate to call this a "temptation nature".

Once more, the scriptures clearly say Jesus has the same nature as us.

Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Verse 16 says Jesus did not have the nature of angels, but took on the nature of the seed of Abraham. He had the nature of men.

Verse 17 says IN ALL THINGS it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren. ALL THINGS means ALL THINGS. He is not different from us.

Verse 18 says he SUFFERED being TEMPTED. Jesus could be tempted, but he never sinned.

But notice how it describes us, it says we are also tempted. We are flesh, and our flesh lusts against the spirit. Jesus had these same lusts, but he never obeyed them when it would have caused him to sin. Some lusts are not sinful. It is not sinful to be hungry, but if we allow this natural lust to get out of control we can become a glutton and become obese. It is not wrong to desire sex as long as it is within marriage. It is when we obey our natural sex drive outside marriage that we sin.

You are confusing temptation with sin, they are not the same. It is normal to be attracted to a beautiful woman. That is temptation. But we must not dwell on this and think sinful thoughts. We we willingly entertain sinful thoughts, then it becomes sin.

Let's say you find a wallet on the ground with a thousand dollars in it. No one saw you, you could easily put the money in your pocket and throw the wallet away. That is temptation. But we do not have to do that, we can return the wallet. In fact, I have found a wallet on at least three occasions in my life, and twice there was several hundred dollars in the wallet. But I returned it to the owner. But for a minute there, I did think that I could keep the cash, no one would have known. That is temptation.

The scriptures clearly teach Jesus FELT temptation.

Heb 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.

Jesus wasn't simply tempted. He felt the temptation. When he was hungry in the wilderness and the devil suggested he turn the stone into bread, that tempted Jesus. But he did not do it. He never sinned.

We are born flesh. We have lusts and desires. When we obey these lusts and desires in contradiction to God's commands we sin. Eve was tempted when she looked at the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It looked good to eat, it would make her wise. This is temptation. But that is not sin. Only when she obeyed these lusts and actually ate of the tree did she sin, because God had commanded they not eat of it.

So, man was created flesh. Adam and Eve had lusts and desires before they actually sinned. This is not a "sin nature" it is called the "flesh" and more accurately should be called a "temptation nature".

Now, I can't make it much clearer than that. I think you know quite well what I am saying. Jesus did not have a sin nature, but he had the ability to be tempted. Jesus came in the "flesh"

1 Jn 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

You may think you are honoring Jesus by saying he did not come in the same flesh we have, but you are actually denying the word of God. This is the spirit of antichrist.

 

[Iconoclast]

Winman,

You may think you are honoring Jesus by saying he did not come in the same flesh we have, but you are actually denying the word of God. This is the spirit of antichrist

I did not say Jesus did not come in the flesh.....why lie....

Winman....who is the hippie pictured in your avatar?

You added to scripture when you attempted to twist hebrews 2:16 saying he has our nature

Verse 16 says Jesus did not have the nature of angels, but took on the nature of the seed of Abraham. He had the nature of men.

but this is what it does say;
16for, doubtless, of messengers it doth not lay hold, but of seed of Abraham it layeth hold...is what it says...nice try though.....

so listen...you really are not interested in truth...just argument.....so you can hold on to your error if you like... I would rather spend time with someone who wants to learn truth.....not invent novelties.

 

[Winman]

Winman,


I did not say Jesus did not come in the flesh.....why lie....

Winman....who is the hippie pictured in your avatar?

You added to scripture when you attempted to twist hebrews 2:16 saying he has our nature


but this is what it does say;
16for, doubtless, of messengers it doth not lay hold, but of seed of Abraham it layeth hold...is what it says...nice try though.....

so listen...you really are not interested in truth...just argument.....so you can hold on to your error if you like... I would rather spend time with someone who wants to learn truth.....not invent novelties.

I don't know what you are reading, but I quoted the King James Bible verbatim, look and see for yourself.

You really have no shame, do you?

 

[Iconoclast]

I don't know what you are reading, but I quoted the King James Bible verbatim, look and see for yourself.

You really have no shame, do you?

I don't know what you are reading

I gave you Youngs literal translation.

Really.....

Here is what you posted....verbatim
Verse 16 says Jesus did not have the nature of angels, but took on the nature of the seed of Abraham

The bolded portion is your unscriptural addition....so you once again are not telling the truth.....here is the actual king james;

16For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham

Lying is a sin. rather than admit your error you persist. The text does not say he took on him the nature of the seed of Abraham...you said that because you were trying to get out of your false post....

Then you of course,when you are called on it you accuse me ......When you cannot answer to truth this is always a last resort...Like I said....we are free in America to believe truth or make up error.
I am not interested in interaction with someone who is not being honest even with quoting scripture.

5Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

6Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

 

[Winman]

Really.....

Here is what you posted....verbatim
Verse 16 says Jesus did not have the nature of angels, but took on the nature of the seed of Abraham

The bolded portion is your unscriptural addition....so you once again are not telling the truth.....here is the actual king james;



Lying is a sin. rather than admit your error you persist. The text does not say he took on him the nature of the seed of Abraham...you said that because you were trying to get out of your false post....

Then you of course,when you are called on it you accuse me ......When you cannot answer to truth this is always a last resort...Like I said....we are free in America to believe truth or make up error.
I am not interested in interaction with someone who is not being honest even with quoting scripture.
[/B]

Well, now I will have to quote some commentaries to show you I am quite orthodox in what I believe here. Here is what Matthew Henry said:

That God crowned the human nature of Christ with glory and honour, in his being perfectly holy, and having the Spirit without measure, and by an ineffable union with the divine nature in the second person of the Trinity, the fulness of the Godhead dwelling in him bodily;

Barnes Notes

(a) In Heb. 2: he applies a passage from Psalms 8:1-9 to Proverbs that the Son of God must have had a human nature, which was to be exalted above the angels, and placed at the head of the creation. The passage is, "Thou hast made him a little while inferior to the angels. Hebrews 2:7, margin. In the Hebrew, in Psalms 8:5, the word rendered "angels," is 'Elohiym - God; and the sense of "angels" attached to that word, though it may sometimes occur, is so unusual, that an argument would not have been built on the Hebrew language.

John Gill

not all his posterity, but some individual, as the word seed is sometimes used, ( Genesis 4:25 ) ( 15:3 ) . Christ assumed human nature as derived from Abraham; for the Messiah was to spring from Abraham, and is promised, as that seed of his, in whom all nations should be blessed; and he was particularly promised to the Jews, the seed of Abraham, to whom the apostle was writing; and it was with a view to Abraham's spiritual seed, the children of the promise, that Christ partook of flesh and blood: the word here used signifies to catch hold of anyone ready to perish, or to lay hold on a person running away, and with great vehemence and affection to hold anything fast, that it be not lost, and to help persons, and do good unto them; all which may be observed in this act of Christ's, in assuming an individual of human nature, in Abraham's line, into union with his divine person; whereby he has saved those that were gone out of the way, and were ready to perish, and done them the greatest good, and shown the strongest affection to them: and from hence may be learned the deity and eternity of Christ, who was before Abraham, as God, though a son of his as man; and his real humanity, and that it was not a person, but a seed, a nature he assumed; and also the union and distinction of natures in him: and Christ's taking human, and not angelic nature, shows the sovereignty of God, and his distinguishing grace and mercy to men.

Seen enough, or do I need to show you more? All of these men were Calvinists, and every one of them agree with my interpretation.

I can find more if you like...

 

[righteousdude2]

As Far As I'm Concerned...

....Your name was cleared when He died on the cross! You're alright in my sight! :thumbs:

Pastor Paul

 

[convicted1]

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.

Thank you for the kinds words Brother. I did not start this wanting an apology, but to clear the air, and let people know that I do not believe what was said that I believe.