Consider Jack and Joe - who is worse?

[psalms109:31]

This is where Paul slaps many in their face. Do many think because of this God is unjust in this?

1 Timothy 2

2 I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time. 7 And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying —and a true and faithful teacher of the Gentiles.

It coincides with this verse

Ezekiel 18:
23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?

24 “But if a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked person does, will they live? None of the righteous things that person has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness they are guilty of and because of the sins they have committed, they will die.

25 “Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ Hear, you Israelites: Is my way unjust? Is it not your ways that are unjust? 26 If a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin, they will die for it; because of the sin they have committed they will die. 27 But if a wicked person turns away from the wickedness they have committed and does what is just and right, they will save their life. 28 Because they consider all the offenses they have committed and turn away from them, that person will surely live; they will not die. 29 Yet the Israelites say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ Are my ways unjust, people of Israel? Is it not your ways that are unjust?

30 “Therefore, you Israelites, I will judge each of you according to your own ways, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall. 31 Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, people of Israel? 32 For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live!

This doesn't mean all will be saved, but tells us to go out and tell those who turn to Jesus repent will live.

 

[12strings]

Just to Clarify...

1. God cannot be tempted with evil.
2. Jesus is God. In Fact Jesus is God the Son.
3. Jesus was tempted "in every respect..yet without sin."

What's so difficult about that? :laugh:

 

[12strings]

So, when God saves the soul, and resurrects it from the dead state of sin, into a lively hope, it's(soul) not perfect? The soul has been reconciled to God via the shed blood of Jesus, and placed in Christ. In Christ, and in Christ only, is the soul made perfect.

Don't disagee with this. Our bodies will be made perfect when it's changed at God's returning to gather His children home.

I agree with all of this...but your first post said...

I kinda think the answer to why we will not sin in heaven has to do with our bodies. We were created with corruptible bodies,

So this doesn't answer the question why Adam and Eve sinned... if (1) God created THEM with corruptible bodies, is that not a flaw in creation? (2) if he did not, and the corruptibility came because of sin...then how is the garden of Eden different than our heavenly state? It seems that Something will be different, something that somehow creates a situation in which we WILL NOT SIN...sounds like manipulating people's will to me.

BTW, my question was really only aimed at those who deny that we are born with a sinful nature, such as Winman...I don't think he has a good answer as to why every person sins, other than that God put us in situation where we would all make that first sinful choice...which also sounds like God manipulating our wills, not leaving us to truly free will.

 

[12strings]

I could ask you the same question, only in reverse, why did any angels rebel at all? Two thirds of the angles never sinned, so why did one third sin and rebel? Obviously at least one third of the angels had free will, otherwise they could not have sinned.

This is a common Calvinist tactic, to ask a question that no one can answer. Somehow they feel this supports their doctrine when it does not.

Calvinists often ask if men have free will, why has not one man in history never sinned? Well, the answer is that there is one man who has never sinned, and that was Jesus Christ.

Asking questions that no one can answer does not prove either side in this debate.

To me it is not surprising that all men sin, we live in a wicked world with thousands of temptations. What is remarkable to me is that Jesus could live as a man in this wicked world and never sin.

I said I liked your answer better... not that I agreed with it completely :tongue3:

I still don't see how you can escape the fact that God, due to Adam's and Eve's sin...has cursed the world in such a way that our wills are no longer free NOT TO SIN. Whether you ascribe this to an inherited sin nature (as cals and arms do), or ascribe it to God cursing our environment such that no person has any chance of not sinning...it still sounds like God is influencing our will in an irresistable way.

 

[Skandelon]

Of course you did. Your premise depends upon a view of justice based upon that point.

You made a comment which assumed that because my view is more palatable that it is 'carnal.' If that isn't question begging, nothing is. I simply showed that the palatability of a point of view proves nothing.

Either soteriological dogma, if it is not true, would be the "carnal sense of justice," to assume ours is carnal is no more than saying, "You view is wrong because my view is right," which is text book question begging. You can't go a page without resorting to it.

The biblical revelation of God's holy justice clearly teaches He doesn't even tempt men to sin. Your 'carnal sense of justice' suggests He not only causes the temptation but the choice of the tempted. That is unbiblical and thus carnal.

Your argument is ever and anon, "Why doth He yet find fault, for who hath resisted His will?"

Paul smacked you down 2000 years ago. :jesus:

:laugh:

You really believe that, don't you? I've showed you time and again what issue Paul was addressing in Romans 9 and you have yet to actually take on that debate. Instead you resort back to one liners and put downs. Does that make you feel better about yourself, because it only makes you look unChristlike to the rest of the board.

Paul's diatribe which asks, "Why doth He find fault, for who has resisted his will," is a question both of our views of predestination, election, judicial hardening and salvation would afford...just for different reasons. So, to assume, as you do over and over again, that Paul is asking this question in support of your view is to presume the very point up for debate....yeah, that is right, you are begging the question once again. Why not step beyond you one liners and the "I'm right because your wrong" level of debate and actually make a case for your view once and while?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You made a comment which assumed that because my view is more palatable that it is 'carnal.' If that isn't question begging, nothing is. I simply showed that the palatability of a point of view proves nothing.

Either soteriological dogma, if it is not true, would be the "carnal sense of justice," to assume ours is carnal is no more than saying, "You view is wrong because my view is right," which is text book question begging. You can't go a page without resorting to it.

The biblical revelation of God's holy justice clearly teaches He doesn't even tempt men to sin. Your 'carnal sense of justice' suggests He not only causes the temptation but the choice of the tempted. That is unbiblical and thus carnal. :laugh:

You really believe that, don't you? I've showed you time and again what issue Paul was addressing in Romans 9 and you have yet to actually take on that debate. Instead you resort back to one liners and put downs. Does that make you feel better about yourself, because it only makes you look unChristlike to the rest of the board.

Paul's diatribe which asks, "Why doth He find fault, for who has resisted his will," is a question both of our views of predestination, election, judicial hardening and salvation would afford...just for different reasons. So, to assume, as you do over and over again, that Paul is asking this question in support of your view is to presume the very point up for debate....yeah, that is right, you are begging the question once again. Why not step beyond you one liners and the "I'm right because your wrong" level of debate and actually make a case for your view once and while?

See, I told you that this discussion does not lead to Christian unity, rather the reverse. I would reconsider posting this type of topic in the future if I were you Skan. But then & again, you can take that advise or leave it....no skin off my nose.

Have a good day.

 

[convicted1]

Just to Clarify...

1. God cannot be tempted with evil.
2. Jesus is God. In Fact Jesus is God the Son.
3. Jesus was tempted "in every respect..yet without sin."

What's so difficult about that? :laugh:

I agree wholeheartedly with this. :thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[convicted1]

I agree with all of this...

:thumbs::thumbs:

So this doesn't answer the question why Adam and Eve sinned... if (1) God created THEM with corruptible bodies, is that not a flaw in creation? (2) if he did not, and the corruptibility came because of sin...then how is the garden of Eden different than our heavenly state? It seems that Something will be different, something that somehow creates a situation in which we WILL NOT SIN...sounds like manipulating people's will to me.

Personally, I believe that God made us with the intent of us not living forever w/o Him(living self-sufficiently, seeing that the Tree of Life was placed in the Garden from the get go). What I meant by "corruptible" bodies, was not that they were made already corrupt, but that they were corruptible in the sense that they could become corrupted. Jesus' earthly body, though it was made just like ours, was incorruptible, and could never sin; shoot, I don't even think He could have even entertained the thought of sinning, myself. The only way Jesus could have died was to 1) have sinned(sin bringeth forth death{which is an impossiblity seeing that Jesus is God}), or 2) have the "sin of the world" placed upon Him, and God the Father withdrawing Himself from His Son, and pouring His wrath out on His Son, doing this for our benefit.

BTW, my question was really only aimed at those who deny that we are born with a sinful nature, such as Winman...I don't think he has a good answer as to why every person sins, other than that God put us in situation where we would all make that first sinful choice...which also sounds like God manipulating our wills, not leaving us to truly free will.

Well, since Adam, sin has permeated the whole earth, and universe. We can not escape sin, in and of ourselves. The only remedy for sin, is Christ. He died and was risen to save sinners such as we were Brother 12strings. The reason why babies die in the womb, is because of sin. The reason why the elderly die is due to sin. The reason why a 30 year old dies is because of sin. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. We must all face death. Only those who are saved, will escape eternal death.

 

[Skandelon]

See, I told you that this discussion does not lead to Christian unity, rather the reverse. I would reconsider posting this type of topic in the future if I were you Skan. But then & again, you can take that advise or leave it....no skin off my nose.

Have a good day.

I don't think it has anything to do with the topic, its those who choose to engage in the discussion. For example, I encourage you to read the thread titled "Good Debate" where I and a few others have a very cordial discussion about similar matters. We disagree with each other, but are able to do so without resorting to things like changing the spelling of the others name to try and make it sound demeaning, one line jabs, and immature fallacies etc. These types of posts tend to drag the entire discussion into the mud, where, unfortunately, everyone ends up getting messy.

 

[convicted1]

I don't think it has anything to do with the topic, its those who choose to engage in the discussion. For example, I encourage you to read the thread titled "Good Debate" where I and a few others have a very cordial discussion about similar matters. We disagree with each other, but are able to do so without resorting to things like changing the spelling of the others name to try and make it sound demeaning, one line jabs, and immature fallacies etc. These types of posts tend to drag the entire discussion into the mud, where, unfortunately, everyone ends up getting messy.

This reminds of someone's signature on here, "Don't wallow with a pig, because both of you will get muddy, and the pig will love it(paraphrasing this)."

 

[12strings]

:thumbs::thumbs:
Personally, I believe that God made us with the intent of us not living forever w/o Him(living self-sufficiently, seeing that the Tree of Life was placed in the Garden from the get go). What I meant by "corruptible" bodies, was not that they were made already corrupt, but that they were corruptible in the sense that they could become corrupted. Jesus' earthly body, though it was made just like ours, was incorruptible, and could never sin; shoot, I don't even think He could have even entertained the thought of sinning, myself. The only way Jesus could have died was to 1) have sinned(sin bringeth forth death{which is an impossiblity seeing that Jesus is God}), or 2) have the "sin of the world" placed upon Him, and God the Father withdrawing Himself from His Son, and pouring His wrath out on His Son, doing this for our benefit.

So let me see if I've got this straight. You believe that Jesus' BODY was different than ours...such that were any one of us born in the type of body Jesus had, we would not sin either? Sorry, but this sounds weird and extra-biblical to me...like the people who think Jesus only had half the normal DNA. In addition...it seems to take away from an important aspect of the incarnation, in that he became one of us...not a super-human with a perfect body.

Was Jesus' body incorruptible as it relates to sin only? or are you saying it was not affected by the fall at all (could he get scratched or hurt...sick?) Would you say that once the whipping and beatings started, it was because the sin of mankind was already being laid on him by the Father?

Well, since Adam, sin has permeated the whole earth, and universe. We can not escape sin, in and of ourselves. The only remedy for sin, is Christ. He died and was risen to save sinners such as we were Brother 12strings. The reason why babies die in the womb, is because of sin. The reason why the elderly die is due to sin. The reason why a 30 year old dies is because of sin. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. We must all face death. Only those who are saved, will escape eternal death.

I think I agree with all of this part...

 

[convicted1]

So let me see if I've got this straight. You believe that Jesus' BODY was different than ours...such that were any one of us born in the type of body Jesus had, we would not sin either? Sorry, but this sounds weird and extra-biblical to me...like the people who think Jesus only had half the normal DNA. In addition...it seems to take away from an important aspect of the incarnation, in that he became one of us...not a super-human with a perfect body.

No, no, no! Sorry 'bout the cornfusion. What I meant is that Jesus' body was incorruptible in sinning only. Sure, he felt the same pains we had, temptations, etc, just that He could not sin, as we do, eventhough He had the same body we have.

Was Jesus' body incorruptible as it relates to sin only? or are you saying it was not affected by the fall at all (could he get scratched or hurt...sick?) Would you say that once the whipping and beatings started, it was because the sin of mankind was already being laid on him by the Father?

To sin only. When the sin of the world was placed upon Him, the beatings, mockings, and crucifixion took place. IOW, God withdrew Himself from His Son, and poured His wrath upon Him, on our behalf. And yes, Jesus suffered ailments such as we do. He got sick, hungry, tired, sleepy, etc.

I think I agree with all of this part...

Good. Again, sorry 'bout the cornfusion.

 

[Winman]

There is not one word about God cursing man's nature in the garden. God chased Adam and Eve out of the garden and away from the tree of life, this is why all men physically die. If they had eaten of the tree of life they would live forever. This is plainly said in scripture.

Adam and Eve (and Satan and the fallen angels) were all created "very good", so scripture proves that a sin nature is not necessary to sin. All that is required to sin is free will and lack of faith in God. If Adam and Eve had believed God's word and not Satan, they would not have sinned and spiritually died.

Our body does not cause us to sin, our body cannot make a choice. The body can pull and tug on the will, but the man himself must make the decision to sin. Jesus was tempted in ALL POINTS as we are because he had a body made of flesh just like ours. But Jesus never gave in and obeyed the lusts of the flesh when they would cause him to sin.

You seem to believe a sin nature is required to sin, Adam and Eve, Satan and the fallen angels prove this view false. They were all created very good, and yet they all sinned.

 

[Winman]

No, no, no! Sorry 'bout the cornfusion. What I meant is that Jesus' body was incorruptible in sinning only. Sure, he felt the same pains we had, temptations, etc, just that He could not sin, as we do, eventhough He had the same body we have.

I don't agree with this Willis, Jesus implied that it was a possibility for him to sin.

Jhn 8:55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.

Jesus said IF he should deny that he knew his Father, then he would be a liar like the men he was addressing. The word IF denotes option and possibility.

The scriptures are clear that Jesus came in the flesh and was tempted in ALL POINTS as we are, not just being hungry or sleepy. The scriptures warn that it is the spirit of antichrist that denies Jesus came in the flesh.

1 Jhn 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
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.

Jesus became flesh and fought sin in the same way a man must fight sin, by trusting in God and obeying him. He had to fight off temptation like any man. His temptation arose within himself like every man.

Jam 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

When Jesus was tempted in the wilderness, his hunger arose within himself like any man, it did not come from the outside. It is our own lusts that tempt us.

Temptation is not sin. It is when you obey temptation and actually transgress God's commandments that you sin. Eve was tempted by the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life when she looked on the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and these passions or lusts came from within her. But if she had obeyed God and walked away, she would have committed no sin.

 

[Benjamin]

No one can reasonably escape the obvious conclusion of the OP....it is so simple...."Jack" is more the non-pitied reprobate deserving of wrath and "Joe" was merely the poor wretched soul God was vicious enough to create in the first place.
It were truly better for poor "Joe" that he were never born. Joe never asked God to make him, Joe never asked God to grant him the "daily graces" that make his misery on Earth palatable, and "Joe" were much better off had God merely left him alone and "passed-over" even creating the poor wretch...than to have made him at all...."Joe" was born irreparably hardened against God, and "Joe" was born irreparably sinful, and "Joe" was born irreparably a child of wrath...The REAL problem for poor "JOE" isn't the Calvinistic twists that he wasn't "willing" to be saved, and therefore he should be blamed...the problem is that the God of Calvinism is vicious and cruel enough to have ever created the poor wretched "Joe" in the first place....GOD were much more merciful to have merely "passed-by" creating poor Joe, than having "passed-by" saving the man. Joe was, in the Calvinistic system, irreparably pre-disposed to sin. Joe was irreparably un-willing (except God make him so via regeneration) to believe in Christ. Joe was given NO option..ZERO, NONE, NADA....whether he simply have never existed, or accept God's "Grace"....God never offered "Joe" grace...and "Joe"....had no ability to accept it, were it offered to him. He had NO choice....

Better the God of Calvinism had never Created poor wretched "Joe" than God created the obstinate toy soldier that he condemned for his crimes.....Crimes, that God has (of his Sovereignty) decreed he commit, and crimes God has (of his Sovereignty) chosen to punish him for. No escape from the obvious...."Joe" has sinned because God has "Sovereignly" decreed he sin...and "Joe" is an object of God's wrath because God made him an object of his wrath...."Joe" was "BORN".. that way, and he has NO CHOICE, or ability to be what he is not, than a robot or puppet can choose to be what they are not. Either God is God, or he is not.... and God chose, to create "Joe" to be a reprobate before he was born with no capacity whatsoever to choose otherwise.....and God will punish "Joe" for having no option other than to "BE" what "Sovereign God" has chosen him to be.

"Jack" deserves his punishment...he has made his choice..."Joe" merely wishes that the "Gracious" god of Calvinism had deferred ever creating him in the first place.

As per the Op, they skipped right by your reply addressing it, didn't they? Shocking!!!

Yes poor Joe. You and I know that it doesn’t line up with God’s character to create a creature in the condition of Joe, with no options as you spelled out. To even imagine God creating Joe in such a hopeless condition sounds ridiculous as you have shown by making light of it by simply using the Determinist view that Calvinist hold to in describing his condition. It is clearly seen that it goes against the Nature of God as well as the nature in which He created man, where man freely chose to gain knowledge and thereby are truthfully judged. The scenario you presented which accurately describes the Calvinist/Determinist position unavoidably amounts to making God’s judgment a lie. But all those issues must okay with the Calvinist, as long they can keep saying God must be Sovereign.

I expect the Calvinists won’t even ethically or rationally address your premise which reasonably spells out the difficulties with the Determinist view as well as serves the purpose to clearly show that the Calvinist’ rhetorical claim that those who oppose the Deterministic system of soteriology hold man in higher regard is false. The fact that they keep repeating these types of typical dogmas like this yet avoid addressing it rationally when it when their rhetoric in taken to the mat is something that is hard for me not to begin to question the motivation of.

I’d seriously like to hear how a Calvinist/Determinist would answers the following question if face to face with God concerning what they know and understand about His character after spending their life force fitting a systematic Determinist doctrine and preaching that God creates people with the condition of poor Joe, without any hope?

Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?
(Eze 18:23)

 

[Yeshua1]

What? you want me to explain the Trinity? I cannot do that at this time, perhaps never.

All I know is that Jesus was both man and God and the scriptures clearly state he was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin.

At the same time, the scriptures say God cannot be tempted with evil.

The scriptures also say that no man hath seen God at any time, but Jesus is God and many men clearly saw him.

The only way I can reconcile these verses is to understand that the scriptures are speaking of the Father in heaven when they say he cannot be tempted, and that no man has seen him at any time. God is a spirit, he does not have a fleshly body that can be tempted.

Nevertheless, Jesus came in the flesh and could be tempted and seen.

If you can think of a better answer I am all ears.

Unlike any of us though, jesus did NOT have a sin nature, he was born without a sinner nature, and had dual natures of God and sinless man residing in Him!

 

[Yeshua1]

I said I liked your answer better... not that I agreed with it completely :tongue3:

I still don't see how you can escape the fact that God, due to Adam's and Eve's sin...has cursed the world in such a way that our wills are no longer free NOT TO SIN. Whether you ascribe this to an inherited sin nature (as cals and arms do), or ascribe it to God cursing our environment such that no person has any chance of not sinning...it still sounds like God is influencing our will in an irresistable way.

jesus could NOT sin, Period!

he had nothing in him to sin, as he was God incarnate, and His humanity was sinless in its nature!

Could be tempted to do sin, but those thoughts and desires woul;d 'go in one ear, and out the other!"

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't agree with this Willis, Jesus implied that it was a possibility for him to sin.

Jhn 8:55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.

Jesus said IF he should deny that he knew his Father, then he would be a liar like the men he was addressing. The word IF denotes option and possibility.

The scriptures are clear that Jesus came in the flesh and was tempted in ALL POINTS as we are, not just being hungry or sleepy. The scriptures warn that it is the spirit of antichrist that denies Jesus came in the flesh.

1 Jhn 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
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.

Jesus became flesh and fought sin in the same way a man must fight sin, by trusting in God and obeying him. He had to fight off temptation like any man. His temptation arose within himself like every man.

Jam 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

When Jesus was tempted in the wilderness, his hunger arose within himself like any man, it did not come from the outside. It is our own lusts that tempt us.

Temptation is not sin. It is when you obey temptation and actually transgress God's commandments that you sin. Eve was tempted by the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life when she looked on the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and these passions or lusts came from within her. But if she had obeyed God and walked away, she would have committed no sin.

jesus was NOT like ANY other Human!

His Virgin birth allowed him to have sinless nature as to his humanity, and he was fully God and Fully man, both natures in One Body/Being!

 

[Winman]

jesus was NOT like ANY other Human!

His Virgin birth allowed him to have sinless nature as to his humanity, and he was fully God and Fully man, both natures in One Body/Being!

Why would Jesus be led into the wilderness to be tempted if he could not sin? It would be utterly pointless.

Mat 4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

Your view is nonsensical. Of course, it often is.

I hate to say this, but even R. C. Sproul agrees with me.

The best theologians, past and present, have been divided on the question of whether Jesus could have sinned. I believe that since Jesus was fully human, it was possible for him to sin. Obviously, the divine nature cannot sin. But if Christ’s divine nature prevented him from sinning, in what sense did he obey the law of God as the second Adam? At his birth, Jesus’ human nature was exactly the same as Adam’s before the fall, with respect to his moral capabilities. Jesus had what Augustine called the posse peccare and the posse non peccare, that is, the ability to sin and the ability not to sin. Adam sinned; Jesus did not. Satan did everything in his power to corrupt Jesus and tempt him to sin. That would have been an exercise in futility had he been trying to tempt a divine person to sin. Satan was not trying to get God to sin. He was trying to get the human nature of Christ to sin, so that he would not be qualified to be the Savior.

Rest of article;

http://www.ligonier.org/blog/could-jesus-have-sinned/

 

[jbh28]

Why would Jesus be led into the wilderness to be tempted if he could not sin? It would be utterly pointless.

Because it was to show us that he faced all types of temptations like we do(lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, pride of life).

Mat 4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

Your view is nonsensical. Of course, it often is.

I hate to say this, but even R. C. Sproul agrees with me.



Rest of article;

http://www.ligonier.org/blog/could-jesus-have-sinned/

I would agree with Sproul on this. Jesus, the second Adam, did not have a sin nature like we do. Jesus chose not to sin. Adam chose to sin.