doesn't the fall of Adam show that free will by itself cannot provide salvation?

[steaver]

I believe what the scriptures say. Jesus became flesh. Not like flesh, but actually "the same" flesh. He could die, God cannot. He could be temtped, God cannot. He was subject to the same infirmities and temptations we are, yet he never sinned.

Heb 2:14 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;
15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Jesus took part of "the same" flesh and blood as us. He took on the nature of the seed of Abraham, not Adam as many falsely teach.

He was made like his brethren the Jews "in all things".

He was subject to the very same weaknesses and temptations as us.

Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

As I said, God cannot die, but Jesus could die, and it was through death that he destroyed him who had the power of death, the devil. (Heb 2:14)

The scriptures warn of those who deny Jesus came in the flesh, this is that spirit of antichrist.

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.

I realize the implications of my view, do you realize the implications of yours?

Do you somehow think I am denying Jesus Christ has come in the flesh because I believe He could not sin?? I don't know how you make that connection.

Jesus could not die, i.e. as Adam's race dies a slow death from sin without anyone doing a killing. He could be killed, as He was, because He was in our flesh. It stands to reason that if Jesus would not have been killed He would never have died. But He did not come to live an eternal flesh life, He came with purpose to be sacrificed in allowing Himself to be put to death.

If I was a lost soul and you being a Christian told me that your God could have failed at any point, then I wouldn't have much trust in placing my faith in such a god. Would you? Really? Think about your pov.

 

[Winman]

Do you somehow think I am denying Jesus Christ has come in the flesh because I believe He could not sin?? I don't know how you make that connection.

Jesus could not die, i.e. as Adam's race dies a slow death from sin without anyone doing a killing. He could be killed, as He was, because He was in our flesh. It stands to reason that if Jesus would not have been killed He would never have died. But He did not come to live an eternal flesh life, He came with purpose to be sacrificed in allowing Himself to be put to death.

If I was a lost soul and you being a Christian told me that your God could have failed at any point, then I wouldn't have much trust in placing my faith in such a god. Would you? Really? Think about your pov.

If Jesus could not sin then he would not have been like his brethren the Jews in all things. He would not have the same nature as the seed of Abraham. This is what you are arguing, that he had a different nature than man. Not so.

As I showed before, Jesus himself implied that he could lie. What is important is that he did not lie. I would have no difficulty telling anyone this.

Again, if Jesus could not sin, then the Spirit leading him into the wilderness to be tempted is nonsensical and meaningless.

 

[steaver]

If Jesus could not sin then he would not have been like his brethren the Jews in all things. He would not have the same nature as the seed of Abraham. This is what you are arguing, that he had a different nature than man. Not so.

As I showed before, Jesus himself implied that he could lie. What is important is that he did not lie. I would have no difficulty telling anyone this.

Again, if Jesus could not sin, then the Spirit leading him into the wilderness to be tempted is nonsensical and meaningless.

Jesus absolutely did have a different nature than man, Jesus had the nature of God, the Godman, we have the nature of Adam, sinners.

You are reaching for "implications" that are not there in the text. The text simply states the facts and no more. We are not to go beyond what is written.

Your pov is telling me that it is possible that God the Son could have failed to obey the Father and that God the Father could have failed to keep the Son. Please, you have to understand the Holy Trinity, God could not and can never fail!!!!!

 

[steaver]

I have to get to bed brother, but please think about what you are saying.

Could God have failed? Whether God be in heaven or in the flesh of man, could God fail? Think about that. And if God could have failed then how can we believe God could not fail in the future?

Blessings! God speed! :wavey:

 

[Iconoclast]

http://www.webbmt.org/EnglishHTML/C...E DOCTRINE THAT CHRIST WAS PECCABLE IS HERESY

To say that Christ could have sinned as to His human nature but not as to His Divine nature forces one to conclude that there was a conflict between His two natures. This was impossible because His human nature was united to His Divine Person. Thus, there was never any conflict in Christ as there is in the Christian (Rom. 7:15-25).

The teaching that Christ was peccable has become a popular doctrine among religionists. The following list briefly states the beliefs of some who teach that Christ could sin:

1. One believes that depravity was imparted to Christ in birth making it possible for Him to sin and to suffer for sin. Thus, He was more sympathetic to us in our depravity.

2. Another believes that Christ, as man, could have sinned but did not and was tempted but did not yield. The so-called temptation of Christ is regarded as real with a genuine appeal to Him as a man.

3. Still another believes that it was in God’s plan to give Satan occasion to try to cause Christ to sin. Passing this test would prove that Christ is the qualified God-Man.

4. This person says that Christ, being human, found Satan’s offers attractive; and although He did not, He could have chosen to sin.

5. This final view is more subtle. Although He did not experience sin, He was subjected to the temptation. Thus, His intercession for us is with greater understanding. His power of feeling for our needs is greater because He has experienced the strength of the temptation to sin. How can one feel what he has not experienced?



The Greek word eleluthota is a perfect participle of the verb erchomai which means to come. Thus, the perfect participle means “having come” in the flesh, a past completed act with continuing results. The force of the perfect denotes the oneness of His Divine-human Person as an abiding certainty. To confess Jesus Christ “having come in the flesh” is to confess the Godhead dwelling “bodily” in the second Person in the divine Triunity. The word “flesh” is sarki, locative singular of sarx, which refers to Christ’s human nature. The negative clause in the Greek does not use the name “Christ.” John used “Jesus” with the definite article to stress that it was “the Jesus” whom the apostles preached that the spirit of antichrist rejected.

Confessing that Jesus Christ has come to the inhabited earth in human nature involves a very important subject. Was Christ’s human nature peccable or impeccable? The verb “confesseth” is homologei, present active indicative of the verb homologeo, which means to confess, speak in accordance with, or adopt the same terms of language. One who believes that Christ’s human nature was impeccable speaks in accordance with Scripture which says: “...he was manifested [ephanerothe, first aorist passive indicative of phaneroo, which means to be personally manifested, Col. 3:4; I Pet. 1:20; I John 3:5] to take away our sins; and in him is no sin” (I John 3:5). The word “sin” is a noun, and it means that Jesus Christ was not personally manifested in a sinful nature.

Persons who teach that Christ was peccable do not speak in accordance with or adopt the language of Scripture. They believe He could sin; therefore, they are not of God. The Holy Spirit does not apply the work of a “peccable christ” to the hearts of men. Furthermore, He does not lead unregenerate men to embrace a peccable savior in what religionists call “a salvation experience.”

Truth never appears without its counterfeits. Tares are found mixed with wheat; hypocrites are found among Christians; false teachers are found working among true ones; and the antichrist will mimic Jesus Christ. Many false prophets had gone out into the world in the days of John’s ministry. Therefore, he was led by the Holy Spirit in his general Epistle to warn believers: “BELOVED, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world” (I John 4:1). He said the church in Ephesus had tried them who said they were apostles and found them to be liars (Rev. 2:2). There were many false prophets in John’s day, but their number has increased since that time.

Apart from the Biblical assurance that God’s sheep hear the voice of the true Shepherd and will not listen to the voice of strangers (John 10:1-7), a novice would not know what course to take, which one to adopt, or with which congregation to associate. However, this does not mean that warning is unnecessary. “Beloved,” John interjects, “don’t be believing every spirit [”believe" is a present active imperative of pisteuo, to believe], but test [present active imperative of dokimadzo, to prove, try, test, examine] the spirits." Hence, God has given His people a formula whereby they may test the reality of the Christian message, the Christian messenger, and the Christian life. John was saying that we should try before we trust.

“Don’t be believing every spirit.” There is the spirit of time and the Spirit of eternity. The spirit of time speaks boastfully of man, the w

 

[Winman]

http://www.webbmt.org/EnglishHTML/C...E DOCTRINE THAT CHRIST WAS PECCABLE IS HERESY

To say that Christ could have sinned as to His human nature but not as to His Divine nature forces one to conclude that there was a conflict between His two natures. This was impossible because His human nature was united to His Divine Person. Thus, there was never any conflict in Christ as there is in the Christian (Rom. 7:15-25).

The teaching that Christ was peccable has become a popular doctrine among religionists. The following list briefly states the beliefs of some who teach that Christ could sin:

1. One believes that depravity was imparted to Christ in birth making it possible for Him to sin and to suffer for sin. Thus, He was more sympathetic to us in our depravity.

2. Another believes that Christ, as man, could have sinned but did not and was tempted but did not yield. The so-called temptation of Christ is regarded as real with a genuine appeal to Him as a man.

3. Still another believes that it was in God’s plan to give Satan occasion to try to cause Christ to sin. Passing this test would prove that Christ is the qualified God-Man.

4. This person says that Christ, being human, found Satan’s offers attractive; and although He did not, He could have chosen to sin.

5. This final view is more subtle. Although He did not experience sin, He was subjected to the temptation. Thus, His intercession for us is with greater understanding. His power of feeling for our needs is greater because He has experienced the strength of the temptation to sin. How can one feel what he has not experienced?



The Greek word eleluthota is a perfect participle of the verb erchomai which means to come. Thus, the perfect participle means “having come” in the flesh, a past completed act with continuing results. The force of the perfect denotes the oneness of His Divine-human Person as an abiding certainty. To confess Jesus Christ “having come in the flesh” is to confess the Godhead dwelling “bodily” in the second Person in the divine Triunity. The word “flesh” is sarki, locative singular of sarx, which refers to Christ’s human nature. The negative clause in the Greek does not use the name “Christ.” John used “Jesus” with the definite article to stress that it was “the Jesus” whom the apostles preached that the spirit of antichrist rejected.

Confessing that Jesus Christ has come to the inhabited earth in human nature involves a very important subject. Was Christ’s human nature peccable or impeccable? The verb “confesseth” is homologei, present active indicative of the verb homologeo, which means to confess, speak in accordance with, or adopt the same terms of language. One who believes that Christ’s human nature was impeccable speaks in accordance with Scripture which says: “...he was manifested [ephanerothe, first aorist passive indicative of phaneroo, which means to be personally manifested, Col. 3:4; I Pet. 1:20; I John 3:5] to take away our sins; and in him is no sin” (I John 3:5). The word “sin” is a noun, and it means that Jesus Christ was not personally manifested in a sinful nature.

Persons who teach that Christ was peccable do not speak in accordance with or adopt the language of Scripture. They believe He could sin; therefore, they are not of God. The Holy Spirit does not apply the work of a “peccable christ” to the hearts of men. Furthermore, He does not lead unregenerate men to embrace a peccable savior in what religionists call “a salvation experience.”

Truth never appears without its counterfeits. Tares are found mixed with wheat; hypocrites are found among Christians; false teachers are found working among true ones; and the antichrist will mimic Jesus Christ. Many false prophets had gone out into the world in the days of John’s ministry. Therefore, he was led by the Holy Spirit in his general Epistle to warn believers: “BELOVED, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world” (I John 4:1). He said the church in Ephesus had tried them who said they were apostles and found them to be liars (Rev. 2:2). There were many false prophets in John’s day, but their number has increased since that time.

Apart from the Biblical assurance that God’s sheep hear the voice of the true Shepherd and will not listen to the voice of strangers (John 10:1-7), a novice would not know what course to take, which one to adopt, or with which congregation to associate. However, this does not mean that warning is unnecessary. “Beloved,” John interjects, “don’t be believing every spirit [”believe" is a present active imperative of pisteuo, to believe], but test [present active imperative of dokimadzo, to prove, try, test, examine] the spirits." Hence, God has given His people a formula whereby they may test the reality of the Christian message, the Christian messenger, and the Christian life. John was saying that we should try before we trust.

“Don’t be believing every spirit.” There is the spirit of time and the Spirit of eternity. The spirit of time speaks boastfully of man, the w

What a crock, this person teaches that if you believe Jesus came in the flesh then you are the spirit of anitchirst, the EXACT OPPOSITE of what scripture says.

That doesn't surprise me one bit when you consider who provided this article.

Secondly, I do not believe Jesus had a sin nature and I have said this MANY times in the past. I said he was "holy". Of course, I do not believe men are born with a sin nature either, I believe men are born "flesh" and only become sinful when they come of age and knowingly and willingly choose to commit sin.

 

[Winman]

I have to get to bed brother, but please think about what you are saying.

Could God have failed? Whether God be in heaven or in the flesh of man, could God fail? Think about that. And if God could have failed then how can we believe God could not fail in the future?

Blessings! God speed! :wavey:

As God, no, as man, yes. God cannot die, Jesus could as a man (and did). God cannot be tempted with evil (Jam 1:13), Jesus was tempted "in all points" as we are, yet without sin (Heb 4:15).

When God came to earth and appeared as a man, he took on the qualities of a man. A good example is when God wrestled with Jacob, and Jacob prevailed over God.

Gen 32:24 And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day.
25 And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him.
26 And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me.
27 And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob.
28 And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.
29 And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there.
30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

Here the scriptures say Jacob wrestled with God himself. Did God fail? According to this passage, the answer is YES. Jacob prevailed against God, it is said twice.

Note also God was not omniscient here, he asked Jacob's name.

I personally believe when God appeared before men, that he did not appear in his "glory" as man cannot look on God and live. This is shown in Exodus 33 where Moses spoke to God face to face, but then later in the chapter he is only allowed to look on God's backside lest he die.

Exo 33:11 And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.

Exo 33:17 And the LORD said unto Moses, I will do this thing also that thou hast spoken: for thou hast found grace in my sight, and I know thee by name.
18 And he said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory.
19 And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy.
20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

As you see here, there almost seems to be a contradiction in this same chapter, verse 11 says Moses spoke to God face to face as a man speaks to his friend, but verse 20 says no man shall see God's face and live.

Is this a direct contradiction in scripture? NO. In verse 11 God appeared as a man and put off his glory. He was limited in this form. In verse 20 he appeared in his glory, no man can look at God like this and live.

When Jesus came to earth as a man, he also put off his glory. In this form he was limited. He got hungry, he got tired, he could die, and I believe he could have sinned.

Jesus had to defeat Satan as a man to redeem man. It is no test for God to defeat Satan, none at all.

Articles like Icon posted sound nice and pretty, oh, they are worshiping and honoring God they say. How lovely. Problem is, it is total falsehood and denies what scriptures really say.

 

[steaver]

Secondly, I do not believe Jesus had a sin nature and I have said this MANY times in the past. I said he was "holy". Of course, I do not believe men are born with a sin nature either, I believe men are born "flesh" and only become sinful when they come of age and knowingly and willingly choose to commit sin.

I always try to take the approach to Scripture that I could be misunderstanding something. I want to be sure of what I teach/preach to others. I know I can make mistakes. I would ask you to consider the application of your pov here with Jesus able to sin. God cannot lie and God cannot sin, thus, the only way your pov on this can be correct is if Jesus ceased from being God when He became flesh, or, Jesus' Divine nature somehow was separate from His human nature when walking this earth. If the pov does not work in application, then the pov must be abandoned and further study must be done.

Blessings!

 

[Winman]

Look at what the author of Icon's article says. Here is the title;

CHRIST COULD NOT BE TEMPTED

Does that sound correct folks?

Here is the first two paragraphs;

The title to this book may startle the reader. However, the evidence for Christ’s untemptability should be considered before one closes his mind. The author has never believed that Christ was peccable; but like many others, he has taught that the incarnate Son of God was tempted but due to His two holy natures He never yielded. The reason for the incorrect usage of the verb “tempted” was the incorrect translation of the Greek verb peiradzo when considering Christ. This verb can mean to test, try, or tempt. However, a study of the noun peirasmos and the verb peiradzo will prove there is no justification for translating these words as “temptation” or “to tempt” when they are used in reference to Jesus Christ.

The idea that Jesus Christ could be tempted is unfounded in the Biblical concept of Christ’s Person. Since Christ did not have a sin nature, solicitation to do something contrary to God’s will could not be entertained in His holy thought. Therefore, He could not be tempted. A study of James 1:2-15 proves that temptation has no power over a perfect Person, but it does over a depraved person.

This writer says Jesus COULD NOT be tempted. Is that what the Bible says?

Heb 2:18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

This is what happens when you do not read the scriptures and rely upon the writings of men to tell you how to think.

 

[Sapper Woody]

I always try to take the approach to Scripture that I could be misunderstanding something. I want to be sure of what I teach/preach to others. I know I can make mistakes. I would ask you to consider the application of your pov here with Jesus able to sin. God cannot lie and God cannot sin, thus, the only way your pov on this can be correct is if Jesus ceased from being God when He became flesh, or, Jesus' Divine nature somehow was separate from His human nature when walking this earth. If the pov does not work in application, then the pov must be abandoned and further study must be done.

Blessings!

By the same token, God cannot change. Yet Jesus grew from a baby to a man. I'm exploring this topic for myself, but at first glance it seems to me that there is no victory without a chance of defeat. There is no example to resist temptation if He was unable to give in.

 

[Winman]

By the same token, God cannot change. Yet Jesus grew from a baby to a man. I'm exploring this topic for myself, but at first glance it seems to me that there is no victory without a chance of defeat. There is no example to resist temptation if He was unable to give in.

Look what happened when God appeared as a man and wrestled Jacob. Did God fail? According to scripture God lost the match and had to bless Jacob before Jacob released God.

Folks create their own image of God that is not in sync with scripture. It is difficult to understand how God could become a man and lose a wrestling match to a mortal man, yet that is exactly what the scriptures say.

Likewise, I believe Jesus had to endure temptation as a man and defeat Satan as a man. Without the possibility of sin there would have been no test.

 

[Reformed]

For he and Eve were perfect moral agents, no sin natures, perfect conditions , yet still sinned against God!

So free will by itself insufficient to save us, correct?

Even most Arminians will confess that it is impossible for a person not to sin. It is full blown Pelagians that believe infants are not born with a sin nature and can, at least theoretically, live a sinless life that merits salvation.

Also, Adam and Eve were not perfect moral agents. If they were perfect they would have been non posse peccare (not able to sin).

 

[Winman]

Even most Arminians will confess that it is impossible for a person not to sin. It is full blown Pelagians that believe infants are not born with a sin nature and can, at least theoretically, live a sinless life that merits salvation.

Also, Adam and Eve were not perfect moral agents. If they were perfect they would have been non posse peccare (not able to sin).

Of course, no thread is complete without the Pelagian scare.



Boo!

 

[Benjamin]

Even most Arminians will confess that it is impossible for a person not to sin. It is full blown Pelagians that believe infants are not born with a sin nature and can, at least theoretically, live a sinless life that merits salvation.

Agreed. Although, I'm not convinced Pelagius' theology came to conclusions that some say it did.

Also, Adam and Eve were not perfect moral agents. If they were perfect they would have been non posse peccare (not able to sin).

I’d put it that they were perfectly divinely designed to have the human volition which allowed for them to sin and God considered that design to be “very good”, this being part of His loving plan in creating such creatures in His likeness and image with these miraculous attributes of sense, reason and intellect, thus the human volition to enable sin but also to enable repentance of the desire to be as God which can only come through our freely responding to His influences.

 

[steaver]

Folks create their own image of God that is not in sync with scripture. It is difficult to understand how God could become a man and lose a wrestling match to a mortal man, yet that is exactly what the scriptures say.

Is it really difficult to understand? Did God fail? Absolutely not, Jacob did not defeat God, let's stay in the realm of reality here. Jacob overpowered God?? Really? Do you think Jacob believed that he wrestled with God and won? Jacob wrestled with God until God decided Jacob had learned God's purpose for the wrestling.

Did Jesus Christ cease to be God when He became flesh?

 

[Winman]

Is it really difficult to understand? Did God fail? Absolutely not, Jacob did not defeat God, let's stay in the realm of reality here. Jacob overpowered God?? Really? Do you think Jacob believed that he wrestled with God and won? Jacob wrestled with God until God decided Jacob had learned God's purpose for the wrestling.

Did Jesus Christ cease to be God when He became flesh?

I posted the scripture, you can read, what does it say?

Gen 32:24 And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day.
25 And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him.
26 And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me.
27 And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob.
28 And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.
29 And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there.
30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

It might offend you, but this passage said Jacob wrestled with God and PREVAILED. Jacob won the wrestling match. He would not let go of God even after God crippled him. Jacob would not let go until God blessed him, and that is just what God did.

I didn't write this passage, God did.

 

[Iconoclast]

Winman

As far as being able to sin, Jesus implied he could sin;

Arguing that God cannot sin is not a valid argument,

How can it be called temptation if it is impossible to sin?

This is non christian thought.

 

[Winman]

Winman

This is non christian thought.

No it's not, and Christians through the ages have asked this question.

Your man R.C. Sproul believes Jesus could have sinned.

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.

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

 

[steaver]

I posted the scripture, you can read, what does it say?

Gen 32:24 And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day.
25 And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him.
26 And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me.
27 And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob.
28 And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.
29 And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there.
30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

It might offend you, but this passage said Jacob wrestled with God and PREVAILED. Jacob won the wrestling match. He would not let go of God even after God crippled him. Jacob would not let go until God blessed him, and that is just what God did.

I didn't write this passage, God did.

Brother, in your quest to stamp out Calvinism (which you, nor anyone, will ever do) you are going to an extreme that just isn't true.

You are trying to stress to us that God could fail in Jesus Christ, then you go to Jacob and try to prove that God did fail with Jacob.

What was Jacob's conclusion? Did Jacob believe he defeated God? Jacob said, "I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." Hardly a victory cry.

And what was the lesson for Jacob? God said, "for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed." As you can see, it does not say Jacob hast power OVER God.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

For he and Eve were perfect moral agents, no sin natures, perfect conditions , yet still sinned against God!

So free will by itself insufficient to save us, correct?

Are you implying that if you don't believe in the Calvinist doctrine of predestination and election that you must believe man's free will alone is enough for salvation?

This is a straw man.

Just because Man's free will is a part of salvation does not mean that God's grace and drawing of his Holy Spirit is not also necessary for Salvation.

Calvinist seem to think that just because we have a sin nature does not mean God cannot give the grace to thus allow man to make his own individual decision to accept or reject Christ.