Consider Jack and Joe - who is worse?

[Winman]

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).

But why? What would be the point if he could not sin? There would be no test, no victory. And note that it was the Spirit himself who led Jesus into the wilderness for the intent to be tempted of the devil.

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.

You still haven't gotten it, a sin nature is not required to sin. Adam and Eve were created very good, yet they sinned. The scriptures say Satan was perfect in the day he was created, yet he sinned.

Men do not have to be born with a sin nature to sin, and having a sinless nature does not guarantee that a person will not sin. You seem unable to grasp this, though that is what scripture clearly shows.

Edit- And the one glaring error Sproul made was to say Jesus was born with the same nature as Adam. That is false, the scriptures say Jesus took on the nature of the seed of Abraham, not Adam. And Abraham was born after the so called "fall".

 

[jbh28]

But why? What would be the point if he could not sin? There would be no test, no victory. And note that it was the Spirit himself who led Jesus into the wilderness for the intent to be tempted of the devil.



You still haven't gotten it, a sin nature is not required to sin. Adam and Eve were created very good, yet they sinned. The scriptures say Satan was perfect in the day he was created, yet he sinned.

Men do not have to be born with a sin nature to sin, and having a sinless nature does not guarantee that a person will not sin. You seem unable to grasp this, though that is what scripture clearly shows.

Edit- And the one glaring error Sproul made was to say Jesus was born with the same nature as Adam. That is false, the scriptures say Jesus took on the nature of the seed of Abraham, not Adam. And Abraham was born after the so called "fall".

It's sad the immaturity that is shown in your posting. Instead of seeing where there was agreement, you decided to look at the areas of disagreement(which were not even the topic of my post). You have serious issues. Nothing in your "You still haven't gotten it" did I even say. I did not say a sin nature is required to sin. Didn't I say that Jesus and Adam did not have a sin nature? Yes. Didn't I say that Adam sinned..... you either can't read or have an agenda.

 

[Winman]

It's sad the immaturity that is shown in your posting. Instead of seeing where there was agreement, you decided to look at the areas of disagreement(which were not even the topic of my post). You have serious issues. Nothing in your "You still haven't gotten it" did I even say. I did not say a sin nature is required to sin. Didn't I say that Jesus and Adam did not have a sin nature? Yes. Didn't I say that Adam sinned..... you either can't read or have an agenda.

You have an agenda as well, that is not all you said;

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.

You have no scriptural proof that men after Adam are born with a sin nature, you cannot show a single verse to support this.

You said you agreed with Sproul that Jesus was the second Adam, implying he had the original nature of Adam, when that is pure error. The scriptures are clear that Jesus had the nature of the seed of Abraham, not Adam. HUGE difference.

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.

If you are going to insert your presuppositions as though they are fact, then provide scriptural evidence to prove them.

The scriptures DO NOT say Jesus had the nature of pre-fall Adam, but post-fall Abraham. He was made like unto his brethren the Jews in ALL THINGS, and SUFFERED being tempted.

You insert false doctrine into your statements.

 

[Iconoclast]

Winman





You said you agreed with Sproul that Jesus was the second Adam, implying he had the original nature of Adam, when that is pure error. The scriptures are clear that Jesus had the nature of the seed of Abraham, not Adam. HUGE difference.

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.

If you are going to insert your presuppositions as though they are fact, then provide scriptural evidence to prove them.

The scriptures DO NOT say Jesus had the nature of pre-fall Adam, but post-fall Abraham. He was made like unto his brethren the Jews in ALL THINGS, and SUFFERED being tempted.

You insert false doctrine into your statements.[/QUOTE]

You cannot read or understand a verse correctly....your take on heb 2:16 is wrong, and blasphemous....not that it will stop you. you cannot read it correctly.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Winman





You said you agreed with Sproul that Jesus was the second Adam, implying he had the original nature of Adam, when that is pure error. The scriptures are clear that Jesus had the nature of the seed of Abraham, not Adam. HUGE difference.

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.

If you are going to insert your presuppositions as though they are fact, then provide scriptural evidence to prove them.

The scriptures DO NOT say Jesus had the nature of pre-fall Adam, but post-fall Abraham. He was made like unto his brethren the Jews in ALL THINGS, and SUFFERED being tempted.

You insert false doctrine into your statements.

You cannot read or understand a verse correctly....your take on heb 2:16 is wrong, and blasphemous....not that it will stop you. you cannot read it correctly.[/QUOTE]

Or Icono, perhaps maybe he can but he prefers not to :laugh:

 

[humblethinker]

Below are two scenarios of two lost men. Jack is a lost man in the non-Calvinistic system, while Joe is a lost man in the Calvinistic system. Which of these men is really worse? Which is clearly more deserving of Hell?

​

Calvinists say that God doesn't know Jack!​

 

[Winman]

Winman

You cannot read or understand a verse correctly....your take on heb 2:16 is wrong, and blasphemous....not that it will stop you. you cannot read it correctly.

I can both read and understand Heb 2:16-18 and Heb 4:15 as well. The scriptures say Jesus took on the nature of the seed of Abraham, not Adam.

Even Calvinist scholars admit this.

Here is what Matthew Henry (a Calvinist) wrote on Heb 2:16

Here the apostle proceeds to assert the incarnation of Christ, as taking upon him not the nature of angels, but the seed of Abraham; and he shows the reason and design of his so doing.

I. The incarnation of Christ is asserted (Hebrews 2:16): Verily he took not upon him the nature of angels, but he took upon him the seed of Abraham. He took part of flesh and blood. Though as God he pre-existed from all eternity, yet in the fulness of time he took our nature into union with his divine nature, and became really and truly man. He did not lay hold of angels, but he laid hold of the seed of Abraham. The angels fell, and he let them go, and lie under the desert, defilement, and dominion of their sin, without hope or help. Christ never designed to be the Saviour of the fallen angels; as their tree fell, so it lies, and must lie to eternity, and therefore he did not assume their nature. The nature of angels could not be an atoning sacrifice for the sin of man. Now Christ resolving to recover the seed of Abraham and raise them up from their fallen state, he took upon him the human nature from one descended from the loins of Abraham, that the same nature that had sinned might suffer, to restore human nature to a state of hope and trial, and all that accepted of mercy to a state of special favour and salvation. Now there is hope and help for the chief of sinners in and through Christ. Here is a price paid sufficient for all, and suitable to all, for it was in our nature. Let us all then know the day of our gracious visitation, and improve that distinguishing mercy which has been shown to fallen men, not to the fallen angels.

I guess Matthew Henry did not understand this verse either. :laugh:

You Calvinists are too much.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

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)."

Of course the "Pig" as you so eloquently point out does not start a thread designed to cause conflict. Its the one who willingly builds the pigpen & then slides in to disturb the pigs that deserves his station in the pen as the king hog....truly that is where he belongs.

 

[humblethinker]

You cannot read or understand a verse correctly....your take on heb 2:16 is wrong, and blasphemous....not that it will stop you. you cannot read it correctly.

Denying Winman's point by stating he doesn't have the ability to read scripture correctly does nothing to make your view more convincing.

 

[Skandelon]

Of course the "Pig" as you so eloquently point out does not start a thread designed to cause conflict.

Bro, its a DEBATE forum! It's designed to talk about issues of disagreement (or what you call "conflict"). NOTHING I said in the OP was personally demeaning or inflammatory. If you don't want "conflict" may I suggest you not visit a debate forum...and you may also want to avoid the pithy little one liners while your at it.

 

[Winman]

Bro, its a DEBATE forum! It's designed to talk about issues of disagreement (or what you call "conflict"). NOTHING I said in the OP was personally demeaning or inflammatory. If you don't want "conflict" may I suggest you not visit a debate forum...and you may also want to avoid the pithy little one liners while your at it.

I agree with Skan, his OP did not cause conflict. He simply made a point, and asked others to give their opinion.

I believe Skan was perfectly correct, the Calvinist view shows man in a much better light than the non-Cal view. In the non-Cal view a man has a choice and willingly rejects Christ, he is a rebel and a criminal.

In the Cal view, a man is born unable to choose Christ through no fault or choice of his own, he is an unwilling victim.

In the non-Cal view, a man who rejects Christ deserves damnation, in the Cal view, he deserves pity.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Calvinists say that God doesn't know Jack!

LOL....good ....you have a sense of humor:thumbs:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Bro, its a DEBATE forum! It's designed to talk about issues of disagreement (or what you call "conflict"). NOTHING I said in the OP was personally demeaning or inflammatory. If you don't want "conflict" may I suggest you not visit a debate forum...and you may also want to avoid the pithy little one liners while your at it.

One last one....more an observation, "This is not a debate" ...... Done, I suggest you CLOSE IT!

 

[Iconoclast]

I can both read and understand Heb 2:16-18 and Heb 4:15 as well. The scriptures say Jesus took on the nature of the seed of Abraham, not Adam.

Even Calvinist scholars admit this.

Here is what Matthew Henry (a Calvinist) wrote on Heb 2:16



I guess Matthew Henry did not understand this verse either. :laugh:

You Calvinists are too much.

Winman,

You cannot understand 2:16...or Mt henry's comments on it:laugh::laugh:
I cannot hold your hand a read for you winman..i have told you that.

JESUS did not , never has, and never will have a sinful nature.

 

[Iconoclast]

Denying Winman's point by stating he doesn't have the ability to read scripture correctly does nothing to make your view more convincing.

Winman said;

That is false, the scriptures say Jesus took on the nature of the seed of Abraham, not Adam. And Abraham was born after the so called "fall".

Scripture does not say that Jesus took on fallen human nature....

He took upon himself the form of a servant...in human flesh.....but the virgin birth was so there was no sin nature in Jesus. To suggest such is blasphemy:thumbsup: I cannot read every quote he misunderstands...it is a waste of time in that he does not want truth, but wants to bring Christ down to a human sinful level...that is wicked:
21 These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes.
22 Now consider this, ye that forget God, lest I tear you in pieces, and there be none to deliver.

23 Whoso offereth praise glorifieth me: and to him that ordereth his conversation aright will I shew the salvation of God.

Winman is being delibrately perverse , because the verse is actually speaking about the covenant of redemption and is a lock for particular redemption when understood correctly.

 

[Winman]

Winman,

You cannot understand 2:16...or Mt henry's comments on it:laugh::laugh:
I cannot hold your hand a read for you winman..i have told you that.

JESUS did not , never has, and never will have a sinful nature.

I have NEVER said Jesus had a sin nature. I challenge you to show where I have EVER said that. You can't do it, because I have NEVER said that.

You do not get it, I believe men are born upright (Ecc 7:29). I do not believe men are born with a sin nature, but all men when they mature and understand right from wrong choose to sin and become sinful.

I have no difficulty believing Jesus had the nature of the seed of Abraham. Jesus did not have a sin nature, and neither does a newborn baby.

Folks who believe in Original Sin always ask WHY do men sin, and then assume that having a sin nature is the answer, but scripture proves this assumption false. A person does not have to be born with a sin nature to sin, Adam and Eve were created very good, yet they sinned, and Satan was perfect in the day he was created, yet he sinned as well.

All that is required to sin is free will.

Of course, you will reject this, because the foundation for Calvinism is OS. Without OS your doctrine would collapse like the house of cards it is.

I don't expect YOU to get this.

Skan asked who is worse, a man who has choice and rejects God, or a man who has no choice but to reject Christ. The non-Cal view shows a man as a true rebel and criminal, perfectly deserving of condemnation. The Cal view shows a non elect person as a victim. He never had a chance, he was doomed before he was ever born. He is a victim, not a criminal.

My view makes man more responsible and deserving of condemnation than Skan's view.

 

[Iconoclast]

Winman

I have NEVER said Jesus had a sin nature. I challenge you to show where I have EVER said that. You can't do it, because I have NEVER said that.

Okay...I will try one more time......

You do not get it

Yes...I do get it

I believe men are born upright (Ecc 7:29). I do not believe men are born with a sin nature,

This is exactly the problem ..or most of it....This has to be at least the 60th time you have abused this verse,trying to make it stand up and walk on all fours. You do not get this verse. Your view of this verse is wrong, error, false, mis-guided, a denial of the genesis account, a denial of romans 3 and romans 5.....but you ignore it and give your own gnostic interpretation of it.

This error will prevent you from coming to truth on every other area. When you abuse a verse like this,,,that is exactly what the gnostics did...they were wrong and so are you.
I am not saying you are not a nice guy, or anything about you as to your personal conduct. But spiritually this is a shipwreck.

but all men when they mature and understand right from wrong choose to sin and become sinful.

Obviously this is made up nonsense.

I have no difficulty believing Jesus had the nature of the seed of Abraham

.

The text does not say that at all. It mentions nature....in reference to angels,

he took not on Him the nature of angels...ontologically...he did not come as an angel.....

he took on Him......the seed of Abraham..... NOT THE NATURE OF ABRAHAM AFTER THE FALL..... he took on Him those promised to Abraham in the covenant of redemption.....it does not address His nature only that he came as a man...in flesh.....not the flesh of fallen men....he took on him the seed of Abraham...it is the same word used when Peter was sinking in the water he reached out and seized him

see here;

"Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood He also Himself likewise took part of the same; that through death He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil" (verse 14). "The connection between this verse and the preceding context may be stated thus: Since it became Him for whom are all things and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through suffering; and since, according to Old Testament prophecies, the Sanctifier and the sanctified, the Savior and the saved, must be of the same race; and since the saved are human beings,—the Son of God, the appointed Savior, assumed a nature capable of suffering and death—even the nature of man, when He came to save, that in that nature He might die, and by dying accomplish the great purpose of His appointment, the destruction of the power of Satan, and the deliverance of His chosen people" (Dr. J. Brown).

This does not mean our sin nature we get from Adam....you deny this ..so you can never see the truth in scripture, or any quote about it,because you mis-read it.
again ...Pink-

In becoming Man He did not "partake" of the foul poison which sin has introduced into the human constitution. His humanity was not contaminated by the virus of the Fall. Before His incarnation it was said to His mother, "That Holy Thing which shall be born of thee" (Luke 1:35). It is the sinlessness, the uniqueness of our Lord’s humanity which is so carefully guarded by the distinction which the Holy Spirit has drawn in Hebrews 2:14.[/QUOTE]

The Greek verb here translated "He took on" or "laid hold" is found elsewhere in some very striking connections. It is used of Christ’s stretching out His hand and rescuing sinking Peter, Matthew 14:31, there rendered "caught." It is used of Christ when He "took" the blind man by the hand (Mark 8:23). So of the man sick of the dropsy. He "took" and healed him (Luke 14:4). Here in Hebrews 2:16 the reference is to the almighty power and invincible grace of the Captain of our salvation. It receives illustration in those words of the apostle’s where, referring to his own conversion, he said, "for which also I am (was) apprehended (laid hold) of Christ Jesus" (Phil. 3:12). Thus it was and still is with each of God’s elect. In themselves, lost, rushing headlong to destruction; when Christ stretches forth His hand and delivers, so that of each it may be said, "Is not this a brand plucked from the burning" (Zech. 3:2). "Laid hold of" so securely that none can pluck out of His hand!

Jesus did not have a sin nature

,
Correct....so do not post that he had the same nature as abraham ...post fall

and neither does a newborn baby.

Every conceived person does...this again is what will keep you from truth unless you can see it.

Folks who believe in Original Sin always ask WHY do men sin, and then assume that having a sin nature is the answer, but scripture proves this assumption false.

Now you depart from truth..so what is left,,is your rambling error.

A person does not have to be born with a sin nature to sin, Adam and Eve were created very good, yet they sinned, and Satan was perfect in the day he was created, yet he sinned as well.

You do not know anything about them...except gen 1:31....what they could and could not do...yes they sinned...but you do not know anything about their original condition to specifically address this issue....but that does not stop you:laugh: No..not at all...scripture is silent...but you step in to unleash your wrong ideas on every post....

All that is required to sin is free will.

Scripture does not say free will exists...yet you offer it as if scripture says it directly when in fact this is opposed to scripture....You know, those verses you do not like!

Of course, you will reject this, because the foundation for Calvinism is OS. Without OS your doctrine would collapse like the house of cards it is.

It is rejected because as i said earlier...you reject the scripture on this...to your own peril. If man did not die we need no redemption Winman....

I don't expect YOU to get this.

No..I will never get that because it is falsehood,plain and simple . Why do you think many of us cannot say much to support your posts....you are opposed to truth as we know it:thumbsup: What do you think I will say Winman.....give four thumbs up to false teaching as some do...nope, not anytime soon!

Skan asked who is worse

Yes...and he has an anti cal agenda, and makes up scenerios that do not exist, flawed strawmen, that do not exist...then wonders why Aaron is on His case ,like white on rice:laugh:

a man who has choice and rejects God, or a man who has no choice but to reject Christ. The non-Cal view shows a man as a true rebel and criminal, perfectly deserving of condemnation. The Cal view shows a non elect person as a victim. He never had a chance, he was doomed before he was ever born. He is a victim, not a criminal.

This is a wicked falsehood against the truth of scripture...Aaron has been all over this like a steamroller on asphalt.

 

[humblethinker]

misrepresentation and slander

Winman,
...
JESUS did not , never has, and never will have a sinful nature.

...it is a waste of time in that he does not want truth, but wants to bring Christ down to a human sinful level...that is wicked:
....
Winman is being delibrately perverse ,

I have NEVER said Jesus had a sin nature. I challenge you to show where I have EVER said that. You can't do it, because I have NEVER said that.

Icon,
In your post directly above you have not proven or provided evidence to support your accusation against Winman. It appears that you are either genuinely confused about Winman's specific position on the matter or you are maliciously obfuscating his words and intent. Either way accusation is worse than unfair, regardless of how incorrect his opinion may be in yours or God's eyes.

 

[Winman]

Icon said;

This does not mean our sin nature we get from Adam....you deny this ..so you can never see the truth in scripture, or any quote about it,because you mis-read it.

Your own man just said that Jesus took on himself the nature of man, read again.

"Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood He also Himself likewise took part of the same; that through death He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil" (verse 14). "The connection between this verse and the preceding context may be stated thus: Since it became Him for whom are all things and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through suffering; and since, according to Old Testament prophecies, the Sanctifier and the sanctified, the Savior and the saved, must be of the same race; and since the saved are human beings,—the Son of God, the appointed Savior, assumed a nature capable of suffering and death—even the nature of man, when He came to save, that in that nature He might die, and by dying accomplish the great purpose of His appointment, the destruction of the power of Satan, and the deliverance of His chosen people" (Dr. J. Brown).

Dr. Brown admits Jesus came in the nature of man. Do the scriptures say Jesus came in the nature of pre-fall Adam? NO, they say he came in the nature of post-fall seed of Abraham.

Pre-fall Adam would neither suffer or die. Jesus was capable of both.

As for Pink, he is correct that Jesus did not inherit sin, but he inserts his own presupposition that all other men did. God said the son shall not "bear" the iniquity of his father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of his son (Eze18:20). This is scripture you ignore.

Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

This is the whole point of Skan's thread, if a man is born guilty of Adam's sin and with a nature so depraved he cannot possibly choose Christ, should this man be considered a criminal? NO, he should be considered a victim, just as all decent persons consider a child born addicted to drugs because his mother used drugs a victim. No just person would judge and condemn such a child for having this depraved condition imposed upon him without his knowledge or consent.

But let's say that Total Depravity is true, but a man retains the ability to choose Christ as non-Cals believe, does this make the man who rejects Christ a rebel and criminal? Yes.

Skan was correct, the non-Cal view does not exalt man or give him excuse, while the Cal view gives every man the perfect excuse. The non-Cal view of man is much worse than the Cal view. Aaron or you, nor any other Calvinist has refuted this, because it is not possible you could refute this. It is common sense that even a child could understand.

 

[psalms109:31]

Genesis 3:22
And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

Adam did not have the knowledge of good and evil pre-fall and sinned, Jesus had the knowledge of good and evil and did not sin.

What does that mean to you?