Consider Jack and Joe - who is worse?

[OldRegular]

Jesus took on the nature of Abraham, and yet was sinless. How then did He escape this in His fleshly body? He was tempted in all points such as we are, and yet was sinless. If we are born with a sin nature, then how did Jesus bypass this, seeing that He was born by Mary?

BTW, I do believe that Jesus was tempted, but was not able to sin, because He was/is God manifested in the flesh.

Jesus Christ did not take on the "nature of Abraham"! Scripture tells us:

Hebrews 2:16. For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

That seed was the Virgin Mary. Scripture tells us that sin entered the world through Adam, not Eve the woman.

Romans 5:12. Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Since Jesus Christ had no human father he had no sin nature! Here we have one of the essentials for the truth of the Virgin Birth.

 

[Winman]

AMEN AMEN AMEN!!!

WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE???? These two men are bound for the pits of HELL! You're involved in a worthless spitting contest (not the word I wanted to use but ....).

Isn't it worth the effort to SPEAK to BOTH these men about Jesus? To see if we can open their eyes to truth.

These two camps are man's interpretation of what they THINK God is saying. Of course, each one thinks they're absolutely correct. However, isn't what really matters what GOD thinks, what GOD does??? I read in His Word to ask, to call upon the name of the Lord, that God would that not one be lost....seems to me the wise thing to do is sit down with the two J's and talk to them about salvation and let GOD do the rest.

Your post sounds very reasonable, but correct doctrine truly matters.

Imagine if Jack or Joe asked whether Jesus died for them personally, what would you say? If you were a Calvinist, you would have to tell them you do not know, which is not encouraging. If you are a non-Cal, you can look them in the eye and tell them absolutely YES, Jesus died for you! That is a huge difference.

When you teach folks that Jesus only died for the elect, the natural response is to be fearful and wonder if you happen to be one of those elect. Google "How do I know if I am elect?" and you will see for yourself. This is a very real issue that troubles MANY people. Doctrine that encourages fear and doubt is not the same as doctrine that encourages faith.

It would be nice to all hold hands and sing Kum-ba-ya, but correct doctrine is important.

http://www.opc.org/new_horizons/NH99/NH9912c.html

http://www.reformationtheology.com/2006/07/how_may_i_know_im_elect.php

http://www.gotquestions.org/one-of-the-elect.html

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2011/03/how-to-know-if-youre-elect-sam-storms/

http://www.angelfire.com/ok5/quatsch7/Am_I_Elect.html

This is just a small sample of the sites I came up with when I Googled "How can I know if I am elect?", there were many, many more. As you can see, this is a real issue that troubles many people. Teaching Limited Atonement is not only scriptural error, it encourages fear and doubt, and misrepresents God who loves all people and desires that every man should be saved.

 

[convicted1]

I think you missed the point of the OP (and apparently so did many others). The point wasn't whether or not we should attempt to witness to these individuals. That is a given. The point was to contrast the two systematic views of mankind to demonstrate that the non-Calvinistic view doesn't have a 'higher view of man' as is often the claim of those from the Calvinistic camp. Both of these men don't even exist. They are representations of what a lost man would look like in each of the respective world-views. It is a suppositional argument where we suppose each of the views is correct so as to compare them side by side. Understand?

Well Brother Skan, at the end of the day, it boils down to if they are saved or not. I understand the point of the OP, but, we do need to witness to all regardless of our beliefs. I am not reformed in theology, but all this thread is doing is "spinning it's wheels", and getting nowhere fast. Without God in their life, neither man has a "high view of God", but man destined for hell w/o Him.

 

[humblethinker]

Not really. My response was truthful. It is pointless to attempt a response to remarks such as those by Benjamin!

I understand that I am a thorn in the side of some Skandelon and that is fine but I am not the only thorn on the board. Some moderators, who should be impartial, have exhibited open hostility to my posts because they don't comport with their doctrine. I have questioned no ones salvation, my salvation has been questioned, which is a No! No!, yet that questioning was passed over.

You accuse my post of being inflammatory. I ask you, are the following remarks in Benjamin"s post inflammatory!
....
Is Benjamin questioning my salvation and the salvation of all who believe as I do in a clever deceitful way?

No, nothing inflamatory from Benjamin...

Reminds me of a Twilight Zone movie... we should not say anything that appears to critique our established understanding of reality... the emporor is obviously wearing clothes, we shoud indeed pay no mind to the man behind the curtain, and we should all think good uncritical thoughts or we will be bad bad people. It really should be just wished away to the corn-field.

 

[convicted1]

Jesus Christ did not take on the "nature of Abraham"! Scripture tells us:

Hebrews 2:16. For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

Ooops. I got caught with my quoting pants down. Anyhow, the seed of Abraham was Isaac, and Jesus came through that geneology.

That seed was the Virgin Mary. Scripture tells us that sin entered the world through Adam, not Eve the woman.

Agree. But, Mary was, or had been a sinner, before she found grace in the sight of God, correct?

Romans 5:12. Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Since Jesus Christ had no human father he had no sin nature! Here we have one of the essentials for the truth of the Virgin Birth.

I agree that Jesus was/is sinless. I agree that He was tempted, but could not sin, seeing that He is God.

 

[Skandelon]

Well Brother Skan, at the end of the day, it boils down to if they are saved or not. I understand the point of the OP, but, we do need to witness to all regardless of our beliefs. I am not reformed in theology, but all this thread is doing is "spinning it's wheels", and getting nowhere fast. Without God in their life, neither man has a "high view of God", but man destined for hell w/o Him.

It may seem to be 'spinning wheels' when no one actually addresses the point, but continue to derail with unrelated issues...like the need to evangelize (a point we've all already conceded to), but it is a valid issue when our side is accused of having a 'high view of man.'

Clearly, when our view of an actual lost man (Jack) is contrasted and compared to an actual lost man in the Calvinistic system (Joe), it is evident that Jack is a far more corrupt and detestable individual. It's like the difference between a man born insane who commits murder because of his mental illness and one who commits deliberate premeditated murder out of rebellion. Both are bad, obviously, but even our own judicial system recognizes the difference between the mentally ill (who can't control their desires and actions) and the truly guilty. This OP points out that distinction quite clearly, if the reader is following the intent.

 

[convicted1]

It may seem to be 'spinning wheels' when no one actually addresses the point, but continue to derail with unrelated issues...like the need to evangelize (a point we've all already conceded to), but it is a valid issue when our side is accused of having a 'high view of man.'

Clearly, when our view of an actual lost man (Jack) is contrasted and compared to an actual lost man in the Calvinistic system (Joe), it is evident that Jack is a far more corrupt and detestable individual. It's like the difference between a man born insane who commits murder because of his mental illness and one who commits deliberate premeditated murder out of rebellion. Both are bad, obviously, but even our own judicial system recognizes the difference between the mentally ill (who can't control their desires and actions) and the truly guilty. This OP points out that distinction quite clearly, if the reader is following the intent.

FTR, I agree with your assessment. But neither side of this continental divide debate will concede their beliefs. That is why I said this thread is spinning it's wheels.


BTW, how are you posting when it shows you being offline? Are you a ninja? Or do you have a "stealth mode"? LOL :laugh: :wavey: :love2: :flower:

 

[Winman]

Jesus Christ did not take on the "nature of Abraham"! Scripture tells us:

Hebrews 2:16. For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

That seed was the Virgin Mary. Scripture tells us that sin entered the world through Adam, not Eve the woman.

Romans 5:12. Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Since Jesus Christ had no human father he had no sin nature! Here we have one of the essentials for the truth of the Virgin Birth.

Jesus did take on the nature of the seed of Abraham, and Abraham was born after the fall. Most Calvinistic scholars agree Jesus took on the nature of fallen men, I have showed quotes in the past.

And saying Jesus came from Mary does not help you.

Job 15:14 What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?

Job 25:4 How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?

Sorry to shoot down your little pet theory, but scripture refutes your view. If the sin nature is inherited, then Job shows it is also passed down by the woman.

Women, including virgins are sinners. The first sin was committed by a woman, not man. And she was a virgin at the time.

 

[OldRegular]

Jesus did take on the nature of the seed of Abraham, and Abraham was born after the fall. Most Calvinistic scholars agree Jesus took on the nature of fallen men, I have showed quotes in the past.

And saying Jesus came from Mary does not help you.

Job 15:14 What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?

Job 25:4 How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?

Sorry to shoot down your little pet theory, but scripture refutes your view. If the sin nature is inherited, then Job shows it is also passed down by the woman.

Women, including virgins are sinners. The first sin was committed by a woman, not man. And she was a virgin at the time.

You show once again your inability to understand Scripture. And how in the world do you know Eve was a virgin when she disobeyed God?

 

[OldRegular]

This is just a small sample of the sites I came up with when I Googled "How can I know if I am elect?", there were many, many more.

THe answer is simple Winman. You don't have to Google, just study Scripture! All who have been saved or will be saved were chosen by God unto salvation in Jesus Christ before the foundation of the world.

 

[Winman]

You show once again your inability to understand Scripture. And how in the world do you know Eve was a virgin when she disobeyed God?

No, I show that you believe a superstition. Jesus got his flesh from his mother Mary and could be tempted just as we are. He was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin. God the Father cannot be tempted with evil (James 1:13).

When Jesus was in the wilderness, the scriptures say he was very hungry. His hunger and desire for food was just as real as any man's. This is why the devil tempted him to turn the stone into bread. God the Father in heaven does not need to eat, he does not get hungry and therefore cannot be tempted.

Jesus could not have inherited this desire of the flesh from his Father, as God is not flesh. He inherited this fleshly desire from his mother.

And we know that Adam did not know Eve until AFTER the fall.

Gen 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.


This was written after the fall, and is further confirmed when Eve mistakenly thought Cain came from God. She believed the promise God gave her in the garden AFTER the fall.

 

[DiamondLady]

I think you missed the point of the OP (and apparently so did many others). The point wasn't whether or not we should attempt to witness to these individuals. That is a given. The point was to contrast the two systematic views of mankind to demonstrate that the non-Calvinistic view doesn't have a 'higher view of man' as is often the claim of those from the Calvinistic camp. Both of these men don't even exist. They are representations of what a lost man would look like in each of the respective world-views. It is a suppositional argument where we suppose each of the views is correct so as to compare them side by side. Understand?

Skan, I'm very AWARE that these are examples...however you missed the point of what I was saying. The whole thing is ALL we need EVER be concerned about IS witnessing to others, to win them for Christ. We spend so much time debating some silliness or the other instead of spending that time trying to win our loved ones, friends, and even acquaintances to the Lord. The pompous chest-puffing, head butting, and snorting that goes on around here reminds me of a herd of buffalo, we waste precious time...and every minute wasted there's a soul that dies and is bound for hell. So do the different "views" even matter??? I'm not saying fellowship and scholarly discussion isn't important. It is, that's part of how a Christian grows, but to spend so much time arguing this one matter is simply ridiculous.

 

[DiamondLady]

Your post sounds very reasonable, but correct doctrine truly matters.

Imagine if Jack or Joe asked whether Jesus died for them personally, what would you say? If you were a Calvinist, you would have to tell them you do not know, which is not encouraging. If you are a non-Cal, you can look them in the eye and tell them absolutely YES, Jesus died for you! That is a huge difference.

When you teach folks that Jesus only died for the elect, the natural response is to be fearful and wonder if you happen to be one of those elect. Google "How do I know if I am elect?" and you will see for yourself. This is a very real issue that troubles MANY people. Doctrine that encourages fear and doubt is not the same as doctrine that encourages faith.

It would be nice to all hold hands and sing Kum-ba-ya, but correct doctrine is important.

Yes, it would be nice to all hold hands and sing Kum ba ya, and correct doctrine Is important, I agree. HOWEVER, do you, for one second, think that page after page, hour after hour, post after post is changing anyone's mind HERE?

Christ died for ALL...scripture tells us that. Hebrews 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Seems pretty clear and straightforward to me. To believe otherwise is wrong. To use fear is wrong.

However, it is equally wrong to waste my time in such foolishness for very long. If someone wants to spend their life in doubt and fear, not growing in Christ, not living a full life...I guess that's their choice. I prefer the peace and joy in the assurance of my salvation, based upon the promises of Christ given over and over in scripture.

 

[Winman]

THe answer is simple Winman. You don't have to Google, just study Scripture! All who have been saved or will be saved were chosen by God unto salvation in Jesus Christ before the foundation of the world.

Very funny, Ha ha. I have never worried whether I was elect, because I was taught properly from the start that Jesus died for me personally. I was taught Jesus died for all men everywhere, so I knew Jesus died for me and desired I would be saved if I would trust him.

I promise you, all those folks that are scared and in doubt came from the Reformed camp. They were taught that Jesus only loved some men, and only died for the elect, and now they are concerned whether they happen to be one of these fortunate people.

What is laughable is that when a person does ask this question, all of a sudden Calvinists become Arminians and tell folks if they will believe then they are elect. Now that is funny. :laugh:

 

[OldRegular]

No, I show that you believe a superstition. Jesus got his flesh from his mother Mary and could be tempted just as we are. He was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin. God the Father cannot be tempted with evil (James 1:13).

You are misrepresenting Scripture!

James 1:13. Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

When Jesus was in the wilderness, the scriptures say he was very hungry. His hunger and desire for food was just as real as any man's. This is why the devil tempted him to turn the stone into bread. God the Father in heaven does not need to eat, he does not get hungry and therefore cannot be tempted.

We are not discussing Jesus Christ getting hungry!

Jesus could not have inherited this desire of the flesh from his Father, as God is not flesh. He inherited this fleshly desire from his mother.

So you are saying hunger is a sin?

And we know that Adam did not know Eve until AFTER the fall.

Gen 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.


This was written after the fall, and is further confirmed when Eve mistakenly thought Cain came from God. She believed the promise God gave her in the garden AFTER the fall.

Nonsense!

Genesis 1:27, 28
27. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

So you are saying that Adam and Eve disobeyed God and sinned before the Bible tells us they did!:laugh:

 

[OldRegular]

Very funny, Ha ha.
What is laughable is that when a person does ask this question, all of a sudden Calvinists become Arminians and tell folks if they will believe then they are elect. Now that is funny. :laugh:

Not funny Winman, glorious! All the elect will believe and all who truly believe are elect. I posted Scripture from the Gospel of John earlier that teach this very thing which you promptly ignored.

John 6:37. All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

John 6:65. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

You continue to show your ignorance of the Doctrines of Grace. I have shown you repeatedly that Faith is an essential part of Salvation. Have you ever heard of the doctrine of Justification by Faith alone?

 

[Skandelon]

Skan, I'm very AWARE that these are examples...however you missed the point of what I was saying. The whole thing is ALL we need EVER be concerned about IS witnessing to others, to win them for Christ.

So we need not be concerned with sound doctrine, or discipleship of believers, or church polity or anything except winning the lost? Surely that is not what you mean to say. Surely, you allow room for discussing other topics except evangelism, right? I'm just not sure your point is clear.

We spend so much time debating some silliness or the other instead of spending that time trying to win our loved ones, friends, and even acquaintances to the Lord.

I resent the implication that because I enjoy spending a relatively small amount of time on this forum discussing soteriology that I am not 'trying to win loved ones, friends, and even acquaintances.' The truth is that I've devoted my life and career to just that cause.

Should I find you shopping, fishing, exercising, watching a movie, playing, or engaging in any other hobbies of life; would it be appropriate for me to presume that you spend all your time doing that to the neglect of evangelism? Of course not. That is how your comment comes across to me.

The pompous chest-puffing, head butting, and snorting that goes on around here reminds me of a herd of buffalo,

How sweet. Edify much?

we waste precious time...and every minute wasted there's a soul that dies and is bound for hell.

If you really believe that then why are you hear talking to me? And I best not see you enjoying any hobbies. Stop reading this forum and get to work! Another soul just slipped into hell because you stopped to rebuke me. How dare you.

How does that feel?

So do the different "views" even matter???

What does shopping, catching a fish or riding a bike around block even matter when compared to winning the lost? I'd say a discussion about the doctrines of God's Grace in Salvation ranks much higher than most things Christians spend time doing in this world, wouldn't you? How many tv shows are being watched, websites being surfed, lawns being mowed or windows being washed? Get out there and tell them to stop wasting their time...or better yet, stop wasting yours!

I'm not saying fellowship and scholarly discussion isn't important.

Good, because it kind of sounds like it....

to spend so much time arguing this one matter is simply ridiculous.

I average about 2-3 posts a day at 15-20 minutes, discussing the doctrines of how we are saved. Don't you think there may be some bigger fish to fry out there? Go on Facebook and guilt them into winning more lost people for a while. I've got some more chest-puffing, head butting, and snorting to do. :laugh:

 

[Winman]

You are misrepresenting Scripture!

James 1:13. Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

How did I misrepresent scripture? the scripture says God cannot be tempted with evil. The same scripture says Jesus was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin, so this is speaking of God the Father in heaven, who is spirit and not flesh.

We are not discussing Jesus Christ getting hungry!

The FIRST thing that tempted Eve was that the forbidden fruit looked good for food.

Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

So you are saying hunger is a sin?

No, I am not saying hunger is sin. Adam and Eve had hunger before the fall as Jesus did in the wilderness, yet God said they were very good. What became sin is when Eve obeyed this natural lust and ate the forbidden fruit.

This is what I have been trying to explain for months, being born flesh with lusts and desires does not make one evil. Jesus had these same lusts and desires, he was very hungry. The difference is that men obey their lusts in disobedience to God, Jesus never did this. It is not wrong to desire sex, and sex is perfectly good in marriage. But if a man obeys his lust for sex outside of marriage, then it is sin.

So, it is not our desires that tempt us that make us evil, it is when we actually transgress God's law that we become evil. Jesus was tempted in all points as we are, but he never obeyed these lusts when they would have transgressed God's laws.

Nonsense!

Genesis 1:27, 28
27. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

So you are saying that Adam and Eve disobeyed God and sinned before the Bible tells us they did!:laugh:

Adam and Eve had fleshly lusts and desires. The fruit looked good for food (lust of the flesh), was pleasant to look upon (lust of the eyes), and was desired to make one wise (the pride of life). Eve had all of these worldly lusts before she ate the forbidden fruit, yet God called them "very good".

1 Jhn 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

These three lusts are described in their exact order in the temptation of Eve.

Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food (lust of the flesh), and that it was pleasant to the eyes (lust of the eyes), and a tree to be desired to make one wise (the pride of life), she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Eve had all of these lusts, yet she was very good. It was only when Adam and Eve actually disobeyed God and ate the forbidden fruit that she sinned and became sinful or evil.

 

[12strings]

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, but in heaven, we will have a body likened unto Jesus' most glorious body. Our bodies there will be incorruptible.

I actually think Winman's answer is better. I have heard this answer before, but I don't buy it...it sounds like I have this perfectly sinless spirit that happens to be stuck inside a sinful body that makes me sin, as if the body is somehow evil. This kind of thinking (in more extreme forms than yours) has led people to do harmful things to their body trying to purge out the sin.

I believe our bodies are decaying, yes, and affected by sin, yes...but I think sin comes from the immaterial part of us...(because again...angels sinned without flesh).

 

[reformed_baptist]

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?

Jack: Is a sinful and depraved man who is born an enemy of God and in need of reconciliation with his Creator, God. He is genuinely loved and chosen by God. God provides a way for Jack to be saved and sends him messengers to appeal for him to be reconciled. Jack trades in the truth for lies, by his OWN independent free will. He spits in the face of God's mercy and grace. He rebells against God's love and provision over and over until eventually his heart grows hardened and is given over to his defiled mind. He is lost and condemned to hell for an eternity.

Joe: Is a sinful and totally depraved man who is born an enemy of God and in need of reconciliation with his Creator, God. He is not loved or chosen by God and so God doesn't provide a way for Jack to be saved. Jack hears the truths of the gospel but never really understands them nor can he because his innate natural condition from birth prevents it. He is born unable to willingly be reconciled to God despite God's appeal to do so. He is born virtually hardened without hope of ever been saved and is condemned to hell for an eternity.​

Given this scenario, how can anyone claim that the non-Calvinistic view has a 'higher' view of man? It appears to me that Jack is much worse than Joe. Jack is provided all he needs and still rejects God, where as Joe is doing as he was created from birth to do and never provided the means to turn to God. Jack is clearly the worse of the two and clearly the Calvinistic view is the one who gives men excuse for their rebellion and thinks too highly of unbelievers.

The biggest problem with the scenario is that it is man centered and not God centered, and that is the problem with non-reformed views of salvation the elevate man above his created status and demands that we derserve something from God other then his wrath - ie a chance at salvation.

Tell me, how does your system handle the one who has never heard the gsopel in his entire life, does he still have an equal chnace of choosing to believe the gospel as Jack does?