Clearing my name!!

[convicted1]

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....

Thanks Bro. Larry!! I know that Bro. Iconoclast is respectful, and also all the other adjectives you used to describe him to be. It's just that we all need to be careful what words we attribute to other people. I am not saying he did this intentionally, for I do not think that, but started this thread as a word of caution to all of us(including me), as to what beliefs we "lump" people with.

 

[convicted1]

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?

Not in the least, Bro. Aaron. As I have stated before, "We are not saved by any 'systematice theology', but by Grace through faith. I will never say that because someone holds an opposing view, makes them any less the CHRISTian I am. We are CHRISTians via the blood of the Lamb.

 

[Winman]

Iconoclast, here are some more in case you are not yet convinced.

Darby

These truths introduce priesthood, As Son of man, He had been made a little less than the angels, and, crowned already with glory and honour, was hereafter to have all things put under His feet. This we do not yet see. But He took this place of humiliation in order to taste death for the whole system that was afar from God, and to gain the full rights of the second Man, by glorifying God there, where the creature had failed through weakness, and where also the enemy, having deceived man by his subtlety, had dominion over him (according to the righteous judgment of God) in power and malice. At the same time he tasted death for the special purpose of delivering the children whom God would bring to glory, taking their nature and gathering them together as sanctified ones around Himself, He not being ashamed to call them brethren. But it was thus that He was to present them now before God, according to the efficacy of the work which He had accomplished for them; He would become a priest, being able through His life of humiliation and trial here below, to sympathize with His own in all their conflicts and difficulties.

People's New Testament

16-18. He took not the nature. He did not lay hold of an angel form in order to save angels, but the human form and nature, in order to be our Savior. He chose to be the seed of Abraham, being the Son of Mary, a descendant of Abraham. 17. It behoved him to be made like his brethren. Hence, for the reasons given above, it was necessary that he take our nature. A merciful and faithful high priest. To be our high priest he must be in full sympathy with us, having experienced our trials and our sufferings. To make propitiation. As our high priest he made atonement for us. Conscious of all our frailties he intercedes for us. In him, the Divine man, all who are found in him are justified before God. 18. In that he suffered, he is able to sympathize with all who suffer and to succor all who have trials and need help.

Adam Clarke

Verse 16. For verily he took not on him the nature of angels
ουγαÏδηπουαγγελωνεπιλαμβανεταιαλλασπεÏματοςαβÏααμ επιλαμβανεται. Moreover, he doth not at all take hold of angels; but of the seed of Abraham he taketh hold. This is the marginal reading, and is greatly to be preferred to that in the text Jesus Christ, intending not to redeem angels, but to redeem man, did not assume the angelic nature, but was made man, coming directly by the seed or posterity of Abraham, with whom the original covenant was made, that in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed; and it is on this account that the apostle mentioned the seed of Abraham, and not the seed of Adam; and it is strange that to many commentators should have missed so obvious a sense. The word itself signifies not only to take hold of, but to help, succour, save from sinking, angels, who sinned and fell from God, were permitted to fall downe, alle downe, as one of our old writers expresses it, till they fell into perdition: man sinned and fell, and was falling downe, alle downe, but Jesus laid hold on him and prevented him from falling into endless perdition. Thus he seized on the falling human creature, and prevented him from falling into the bottomless pit; but he did not seize on the falling angels, and they fell down into outer darkness. By assuming the nature of man, he prevented this final and irrecoverable fall of man; and by making an atonement in human nature, he made a provision for its restoration to its forfeited blessedness. This is a fine thought of the apostle, and is beautifully expressed. Man was falling from heaven, and Jesus caught hold of the falling creature, and prevented its endless ruin. In this respect he prefers men to angels, and probably for this simple reason, that the human nature was more excellent than the angelic; and it is suitable to the wisdom of the Divine Being to regard all the works of his hands in proportion to the dignity or excellence with which he has endowed them.

Geneva Study Bible

2:16 15 For verily he took not on [him the b nature of] angels; but he took on [him] the c seed of Abraham.


(15) He explains those words of flesh and blood, showing that Christ is true man, and not by changing his divine nature, but by taking on man’s nature. He names Abraham, regarding the promises made to Abraham in this behalf.
(b) The nature of angels.
(c) The very nature of man.

 

[Winman]

Thanks Bro. Larry!! I know that Bro. Iconoclast is respectful, and also all the other adjectives you used to describe him to be. It's just that we all need to be careful what words we attribute to other people. I am not saying he did this intentionally, for I do not think that, but started this thread as a word of caution to all of us(including me), as to what beliefs we "lump" people with.

He's not been respectful to me. He misrepresented my posts to make it say the opposite of what I truly said, and did not apologize when I proved it. Now he is calling me a liar. He says I misrepresent Hebrews 2:16 when I have shown numerous commentaries all agreeing with my interpretation.

I don't know if folks have noticed, but the more hyper a Calvinist is, the worse they treat people.

 

[convicted1]

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....

Hey, Bro., everything is 'cool beans'. I honestly felt that you did not mean to do any harm to me, but the charge you levelled me with, was a pretty big charge, no? I just wanted to let it be known to all who are here in BB-land, that I am in agreement that Jesus never had a sin nature. The verse that keeps coming to my mind is, "Is there any unrighteousness with God? God forbid." Jesus is God manifested in the flesh. So, Jesus never had a sin nature, nor did He ever succumb to any of the temptations that we are bombarded with on a day-to-day basis.

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.

I also have many shortcomings that when He comes to take me home, He will cause them to drop off of me when I get that NEW BODY!!

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....

Paul did state he was alive without the law once. Well, Bro. Iconoclast, our soul comes from one of two sources; either from the union of a sperm and egg, of from God. If the soul came from the sperm-egg, then I'd agree with you thisquick[/]. Now, if the soul comes from God, and it is seperated from Him from the very instant He created it, where does sin originate? Now, I know that the soul comes from God, because there is not one thing that He made/created, that was evil. So to say that the soul is created in an already fallen condition, then sin is laid squarely in God's lap. That is why I believe that we are created alive, and when we willfully sin, and are aware of the consequences of them, we are then in need of being placed back into communion with Him.

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.

Hey Brother, like I stated, your apology is appreciated, accepted, and also wasn't necessary. Listen, if we all agreed, this place would be pretty dull. None of us will ever agree on everything. I use this as my way to get along with people;"Whatever we agree upon, I will rejoice. Whatever we disagree upon, we will see what causes us to see this differently, and if we can not come to an agreement, let's rejoice in being fellow CHRISTians!!" Brother, there is way to much to agree with from Genesis-Revelation, to have a falling out. Have a blessed day at church today Brother Iconoclast.

i am I AM's!!

Willis

 

[convicted1]

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

Pastor Paul

Boy, them words right thar are SHOUTIN's words!!!

 

[preacher4truth]

Winman....why lie?
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.

Good job Iconoclast, but I do believe you are wasting your time, as he does carry much theological error.

That we defend the nature of God against false teaching among Baptists is simply mind-boggling.

The problem with winman is he is using proof-texting yet again. He thinks as long as he can point to a verse and read what it says, then he's right. It all boils down to knowing what it means, not just what it says (which is generally where it stops with winman), and interpreting Scripture in light of dogma.

Please take note that much of what winman teaches (not what the Bible teaches) continues to degrade the Godhead and nature of God (as he has done with Omniscience, Sovereignty, and now saying God has a sin nature, as seen throughout severall threads here) and on the other hand exalts mans goodness (as he does opposed to many Scriptures showing the lost state of man and how God views lost man). This is exactly what he is doing here again, and all of this is a huge red flag warning.

Here is Dogma: God is sinlessly perfect, in Him is no darkness at all, not even a chance of sin. See James 1:17 for instance.

Does God have a sin nature? Absolutely not. Is Christ God? He most certainly is.

The Scriptures say, John 1:14 the Word became flesh, (not "the Word became sin nature") and dwelt among us.

To say He, very God, had a sin nature is blasphemy.

I find it humorous the chief leader of the groupies came here to defend them saying they never said He had a sin nature, that if "we" would just "read through the thread" we'd see it.

Baloney. Like I said. :thumbsup:

I was correct again. They plainly teach this error. :wavey:

Anyhow, is there anything in the nature of God that contains a sin element or possibility to sin? Not at all.

These folks who are in error, such as winman, find a proof-text and attempt to erase established truth (dogma) with it. This is the same protocol of cults. The Christadelphians, SDA, Watchtower, all of these also proof-text, and the Christadelphians also espouse and propagate winmans error. This is not Baptist teaching, and it is not Bible teaching.

 

[Winman]

It all boils down to knowing what it means, not just what it says

If you only realized how foolish this statement is.

and now saying God has a sin nature, as seen throughout severall threads here)

And just like your fellow hyper, you tell a direct falsehood. If this is what Calvinism does to folks, they should run away from it as fast as possible.

 

[mandym]

I don't know if folks have noticed, but the more hyper a Calvinist is, the worse they treat people.

Yep:thumbs:

 

[preacher4truth]

If you notice, people get upset when rebuked for their false teachings, and along comes another to give a thumbsup for being rebuked for false teaching. :laugh:

"You treat us terribly." LOL!!!!!!

It's because false-teaching is not to be tolerated, so you're being treated Scripturally.

:wavey:

 

[Winman]

If you notice, people get upset when rebuked for their false teachings, and along comes another to give a thumbsup for being rebuked for false teaching. :laugh:

"You treat us terribly." LOL!!!!!!

It's because false-teaching is not to be tolerated, so you're being treated Scripturally.

:wavey:

Falsely accusing me of something I have never said is a bigger problem for you than me. You are the one who has to answer to God for that. I have repeatedly said that Jesus did not have a sin nature.

Show where I have EVER said Jesus had a sin nature. I publically challenge you to show where I have EVER said that.

 

[quantumfaith]

People get upset from people rebuking them because they do so in an attitude of "I know more than you do". "What I think about God and scripture is far superior to what you say".

It is the "attitude" that people do not respond well to, not "truth" or "lack thereof".

 

[Iconoclast]

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:



Barnes Notes



John Gill



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...

Winman....if you actually read the quotes you will notice that yes Jesus had a human nature......but not a fallen human nature like those dead in Adam.
You suggested such when you said this;

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

You posted this idea.....We do have a sin nature...so your statement based on your misunderstanding of several texts is error.
I asked you if you wanted to retract your statement...you declined saying you do not believe we have a sin nature.....

That is like someone who says.....well if God killed babies with a flood in Noah's day...I could not worship a god like that. We do not decide or change who God is. He does not change or compromise to make goats feel comfortable.

Now you are whining that you are not being treated fairly

You added to hebrews 2:16.....I quoted the real King James verse that you claim you posted showing a lie....you have no comment???

Here it is again to refresh your mind.

Verse 16 says Jesus did not have the nature of angels, but took on the nature of the seed of Abraham. [winman version]

you then said;

Originally Posted by Winman
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

but again here is the king James version;

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

It does not say as you posted at all.....The winman paraphrase changes the intended meaning completely.....

This verse is a strong proof text for particular redemption. He took upon Himself the actual seed of Abraham...the actual promised people themselves..... It does not say he took upon Himself the fallen nature of Adam,......it does not even say He took upon Himself the seed of Adam
That is what it is actually talking about. I use the King James...and study Hebrews more than any other book...so your error was spotted without much trouble.

Like I said... I would prefer to interact with someone who wants to discuss or learn. If you claim you are quoting a verse and cannot even quote the actual verse where is this all going??? P4T gave a solid description of what is taking place.....take some time and read back through the thread and see if he was correct.
You might not understand what i am saying to you...so i might not be able to help you. Maybe someone else can present it clearer.

 

[Skandelon]

Icon, I'm interested to know if you believe Jesus' nature was corruptible (able to be corrupted), like Adam's was?

If not, what makes his nature "human?"

 

[preacher4truth]

I simply find it amazing that this crew here believes God had a sin nature. The same ones whom I was told did not make this statement, yet clearly have, as it is being well established.

What is the Dogmatic truth in Scriptures about the very nature of God? Sinlessly perfect? Incorruptible? Immutable? Holy? Light?

Since this is dogma, nothing in a proof-text can take from this truth. That is somethign these proof-texters can not understand. One who thinks a dogma can be disanulled by a text is in error in interpretation, and has other issues that raise red flags as to what said understands and thinks about Holy God.

We are not talking about Him being a human as though that had reduced Him to our level and to our corruptible nature. This can never happen as His perfect nature is eternally immutable.

We are talking about the Word, who is God, becoming flesh, not becoming "sin nature," as Skan wrongly asserts to be the same thing as "flesh", which belief and statement in itself is gnostic in nature and premise. That is a fallacious remark filled with error.

Even if we are talking about Him being human, He is still God, and perfect in His nature. At all times.

 

[percho]

I find it amazing, well no I don't, that only in the New Living Translation, New International Version and once in the Revised Standard Version. is sin and or sinful and nature found in the same verse. I know no Greek but would bet my last dollar you will not find them in the Greek either. We create in our minds concepts and assign them to the word of God.

 

[Robert Snow]

I simply find it amazing that this crew here believes God had a sin nature.

Who exactly are you talking about? Don't be shy, name names, and show proof!

 

[psalms109:31]

I find it amazing, well no I don't, that only in the New Living Translation, New International Version and once in the Revised Standard Version. is sin and or sinful and nature found in the same verse. I know no Greek but would bet my last dollar you will not find them in the Greek either. We create in our minds concepts and assign them to the word of God.

Strong's #4561: sarx (pronounced sarx)

probably from the base of 4563; flesh (as stripped of the skin), i.e. (strictly) the meat of an animal (as food), or (by extension) the body (as opposed to the soul (or spirit), or as the symbol of what is external, or as the means of kindred), or (by implication) human nature (with its frailties (physically or morally) and passions), or (specially), a human being (as such):--carnal(-ly, + -ly minded), flesh(-ly).



Thayer's Greek Lexicon:

́

sarx

1) flesh (the soft substance of the living body, which covers the bones and is permeated with blood) of both man and beasts

2) the body

2a) the body of a man

2b) used of natural or physical origin, generation or relationship

2b1) born of natural generation

2c) the sensuous nature of man, "the animal nature"

2c1) without any suggestion of depravity

2c2) the animal nature with cravings which incite to sin

2c3) the physical nature of man as subject to suffering

3) a living creature (because possessed of a body of flesh) whether man or beast

4) the flesh, denotes mere human nature, the earthly nature of man apart from divine influence, and therefore prone to sin and opposed to God

 

[Skandelon]

P4T, I've stopped responding to your posts (for the most part) because doing so seems fruitless as you have the tendency to read what you want to see rather than what is being said. If you go back and re-read what I wrote you will see that I asserted nothing. I merely presented an objective observation as to what another poster may have been attempting to say while disagreeing with his choice of words. I've not even participated in this debate except to clarify what I believed to be the intent of another poster and to ask a clarifying question.

So, I'd appreciate you not misrepresenting me or my views. Thank you.

 

[preacher4truth]

P4T, I've stopped responding to your posts (for the most part) because doing so seems fruitless as you have the tendency to read what you want to see rather than what is being said. If you go back and re-read what I wrote you will see that I asserted nothing. I merely presented an objective observation as to what another poster may have been attempting to say while disagreeing with his choice of words. I've not even participated in this debate except to clarify what I believed to be the intent of another poster and to ask a clarifying question.

So, I'd appreciate you not misrepresenting me or my views. Thank you.

No one including myself is misrepresenting your views, OK? Not quite, you're the one misrepresenting me, as I do and have read what others have said, including yourself, and clearly the non-cal crew has those who say Jesus has a sin nature. Also, you didn't merely present an observation, that's a false statement, instead you implied they didn't say it and that "we" need to go back and re-read it. That's just condescending nonsense right there.

You've protected others who have clearly said Jesus had a sin nature, and falsely advised that they hadn't if one would go read the thread.

Like I said: Baloney.

Can you see it plainly and clearly now? Yes? No? There is no need to pretend that what was clearly stated means something other.

It has been said and is being said contrary to what you want others to think.

The main reason you don't respond to me is due to the last time you did or were engaged in responding to me, you claimed you hadn't said something, sent me on one of your "prove it!!!" routines, which I did, then after I did you wanted to pull the "I'm exhausted and need to get off the merry-go-round" excuse of yours to get out of it.

I've proven what you and others have said against your word that "you and/or they haven't ever said that!" so many times that you can't handle it.

There is no need to say I've misrepresented you, that is blatantly false. It's you mirepresenting me right here and now.

If you don't like to be proven in error, then don't ask me to prove what is clearly stated.

If you can't handle debating with me, and not being able to run roughshod over me (among others) with your false theories and out of context quotes of theologians, and proof-texts then I don't know what to say other than you just can't handle being challenged and proven incorrect on a routine basis here.