Infants in Heaven

[OldRegular]

You would have to ask the man himself. I can only answer for myself.

That would help if you would answer the question, for yourself that is!

Honestly, have you ever been absolutely compelled to sin? Did someone stick a gun to your head and threaten to kill you unless you sinned?

Glad I never had a gun put to my head. Guess that excuse is as good as any!

I have sinned innumerable times in my life, and there are times when I might have a pretty good excuse or reason to do the wrong thing, but truth is, I could have always done the right thing. No one or no thing has forced me to sin.

Is this a long windy "beating around the bush" way of saying you have a natural tendency to sin.

How about you?

Good question!

Actually, it says "very" good.

Thanks for the correction!

Well, since Adam's time men have continued to sin, and things have gotten more and more corrupt. The word "corrupt" means to go from a good state to a bad state, and this is exactly what the scriptures say.

Gen 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

Something must first be good before it can become corrupted, that is the definition of this word.

Adam sinned and the entire world became corrupt! Why did the entire world became corrupt just because Adam sinned. Can you answer that question.

From his heart, but again, scripture shows man has "corrupted" himself (Gen 6:12).

Why O Why would man corrupt himself?

Man is born with fleshly lusts.

Why is man born with fleshly lusts?

Eve demonstrated all the worldly lusts shown in 1 John 2:16 in Gen 3:16. She saw the tree was good for food, this is the lust of the flesh. She saw the tree was pleasant to look upon, this is the lust of the eyes. She saw the tree was desired to make one wise, this is the pride of life.

These are the three worldly lusts (in order) described in 1 John 2:16. Eve had these worldly lusts BEFORE she sinned and became a sinner. Yet God said she was "very good" in Gen 1:31.

You admit that God made Eve very good but say she had "worldly lusts" indicating you believe that fleshly lusts are evil and Eve was then evil. I believe that is what is called "contradicting yourself"!

Scripture does not indicate that Eve lusted after the fruit of the tree and Adam certainly did not lust after the fruit yet we are told that sin entered the world through Adam.

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:

Our fleshly lusts are only sinful if we obey them in a sinful fashion.

That is debatable!

It is not wrong to desire food and to eat, we need to eat to stay healthy. But if we eat too much we harm our health.

It is not wrong to enjoy beauty, there is nothing wrong with a man enjoying his wife's beauty. But if a man lusts after another woman it is sin.

It is not wrong to be wise, the scriptures tell us to study and be wise. But if our only goal is to vaunt ourselves over others, that is pride and a sin.

If Eve would have walked away from this temptation, she would have committed no sin. The reason it was sin is because God had specifically commanded them not to eat of this particular tree. They could lust after and eat from any other tree in the garden.

You are rewriting Scripture. Nothing is said in the story of Adam and Eve about Lust. "Shame" is implied after Adam sinned!

We are designed with fleshly lusts, we need them for survival. It is only when we abuse these lusts or allow them them to entice us to do what is forbidden that they become sinful.

You really need to define your understanding of what "lust" means before you say man was designed with "fleshly lusts". God says that God made man "Very Good"!

Jesus did not sin because he obeyed his Father in the strength of the Holy Spirit. Jesus had to overcome sin in the same manner that a Christian does, by obedience to the word of God, and much prayer.

Jesus overcame "temptation"!

You don't get it, it is no big deal for God to defeat Satan. Jesus had to take on "the same" flesh and nature of man (Heb 2:14-18) to redeem man.

It is you that does not understand why God had to come down from heaven and become flesh to defeat Satan to redeem man.

Winman, you apparently do not understand the incarnation. God did not "become flesh". He took on Himself the nature of man! But you must be careful in using the word "flesh" since sometimes it is used to indicate the sinful nature of man. Of course you don't believe in the sinful nature of man even though you will insist that man will not resist the temptation to sin.

 

[Winman]

That would help if you would answer the question, for yourself that is!

Which particular sin do you want to know about?

I can tell you about one, I remember drinking and getting drunk as a teenager, and I know why I did it, to fit in with all my friends. I did it because of peer pressure. I knew it was wrong. I knew it was against the law, I was underage. I knew my Dad will KILL me if he found out. And I knew that God did not want me to drink or get drunk, but I did it anyway, because at the moment I wanted to be loved by my friends more than my family or God.

No one put a gun to my head, I KNEW what I was doing.

Glad I never had a gun put to my head. Guess that excuse is as good as any!

My younger brother was robbed at gunpoint, he was made to lay on the ground with a pistol pushed to the back of his head. He said he was just waiting for a big flash. Not fun.

Is this a long windy "beating around the bush" way of saying you have a natural tendency to sin.

Yes and no. Your body simply wants to please itself no matter what, but your mind knows better. It is exactly how Paul describes himself in Romans 7;

Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.

Paul is not speaking from the perspective of a Spirit filled born again person here, no Christian is "sold under sin". He also said he was captive to the law of sin in verse 24. No Christian is captive to the law of sin (Rom 8:2).

Paul in his mind loved the law of God and approved of it. He desired to do it, but his flesh warred against his mind and brought him into the captivity of the law of sin, which is, the wages of sin is DEATH. The first moment you sin you are sold under sin, and the wages of that sin is death.

So Paul naturally wanted to obey God and please him, but his flesh warred against his mind.

Good question!

Then why didn't you answer it?

Thanks for the correction!

I think you are being sarcastic here.

Adam sinned and the entire world became corrupt! Why did the entire world became corrupt just because Adam sinned. Can you answer that question.

The scripture I showed did not say one word about the whole world becoming corrupt because of Adam. Your Calvinist indoctrination is making you read falsehood into scripture again. Let's read that verse again.

Gen 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

See how it says "all flesh" had corrupted "his way"? Each man corrupted himself. There is not one word here about Adam.

See, if you pay careful attention to scripture that it clears up false teachings and false doctrine! :thumbs:

Why O Why would man corrupt himself?

Again, you have to ask the man. I gave you one example of my own experience. I could tell you many more, but I would rather not.

But one thing I can tell you is that I was never forced to sin.

Why is man born with fleshly lusts?

Because otherwise you might not eat or sleep and you would die. Our fleshly lusts are good as long as we reign them in to obey God's laws. It is no sin to have sexual desire as long as it is confined within marriage as God designed. When you take that natural desire outside of marriage you sin.

You admit that God made Eve very good but say she had "worldly lusts" indicating you believe that fleshly lusts are evil and Eve was then evil. I believe that is what is called "contradicting yourself"!

No, they are only evil when you go outside God's limits. You can have sex all you want as long as it is with your wife. Go outside marriage and then you sin.

Scripture does not indicate that Eve lusted after the fruit of the tree and Adam certainly did not lust after the fruit yet we are told that sin entered the world through Adam.

Nonsense, read for yourself;

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.

What does the word "desired" mean?

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:

This verse does not say Adam's sin passed on all men, it says DEATH passed on all men, "for that all have sinned". Death passed on all men because all men have personally sinned as Adam did.

That is debatable!

You can debate anything, doesn't mean you are right.

You are rewriting Scripture. Nothing is said in the story of Adam and Eve about Lust. "Shame" is implied after Adam sinned!

I have already showed you that Eve "desired" to be wise. That is lust.

You really need to define your understanding of what "lust" means before you say man was designed with "fleshly lusts". God says that God made man "Very Good"!

And you need to study, the same Greek word translated lust in many NT verses is translated as "desire" when speaking of Jesus.

Luk 22:15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:

Look up "desire" and "desired" here in Strong's, you will find it is the same Greek word translated "lusts" in Jhn 8:44;

Jhn 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

The same Greek word ἐπιθυμία (epithymia) is used in both these verses. Don't take my word for it, look it up yourself.

Why was it not a sin for Jesus to lust? Because this was a good lust, he wanted to have passover with the disciples. Nothing sinful about that. But in John 8:44 these men desired or lusted to kill Jesus. Very bad.

Jesus overcame "temptation"!

Yes.

Winman, you apparently do not understand the incarnation. God did not "become flesh". He took on Himself the nature of man! But you must be careful in using the word "flesh" since sometimes it is used to indicate the sinful nature of man. Of course you don't believe in the sinful nature of man even though you will insist that man will not resist the temptation to sin.

There you have it folks! This is exactly what I have been saying, people are denying that Jesus came in the flesh.

1 Jhn 4:3 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.

He who has eyes, let him see.

 

[OldRegular]

Winman, you apparently do not understand the incarnation. God did not "become flesh". He took on Himself the nature of man! But you must be careful in using the word "flesh" since sometimes it is used to indicate the sinful nature of man. Of course you don't believe in the sinful nature of man even though you will insist that man will not resist the temptation to sin.

There you have it folks! This is exactly what I have been saying, people are denying that Jesus came in the flesh.

1 Jhn 4:3 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.

He who has eyes, let him see.

Winman
You are a devious person but you should not use that to corrupt what I say. Also you are not nearly as clever as you think you are. I did not deny the incarnation and your insistence that I did is totally false.

Please note what I said in my quote above. I am enlarging the text in case you have poor eyesight.

Winman, you apparently do not understand the incarnation. God did not "become flesh". He took on Himself the nature of man!

In Jesus Christ there are two natures, the divine nature and the human nature. To insist that God actually became a human is a total misrepresentation of the incarnation and was dismissed long ago as a heresy!

Ebionism.
This heresy is the view that Jesus was in nature just a man, denying his divinity altogether. The Ebionites were an offshoot of the specifically Jewish form of Christianity, which was a potent force in the apostolic age. The rapid spread of Christianity among the Gentiles diminish its influence and the dispersal of the Christian community from Jerusalem to the Transjordan on the outbreak of the Jewish War (A.D. 66) isolated it completely. The Ebionites rejected the virgin birth, regarding Jesus as a man normally born of Joseph and Mary; they held he was the predestined Messiah, and in this capacity he would return to reign on earth. Hippolytus and Tertullian connect their name with one Ebion, presumably the apocryphal founder of the sect; but in fact the name is derived from the Hebrew for "poor," probably reflecting the title that the original Jewish-Christian community in Jerusalem liked to be known.

http://www.fromdeathtolife.org/chistory/heresies.html

 

[Winman]

Winman
You are a devious person but you should not use that to corrupt what I say. Also you are not nearly as clever as you think you are. I did not deny the incarnation and your insistence that I did is totally false.

Actually, you did.

Jesus did not just take on man's nature, he also took on the same flesh and blood as man.

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;

Do you know what "the same" means?

This is why Jesus could be tempted at all. God the Father cannot be tempted (Jam 1:13). God is spirit. Jesus inherited his flesh from his mother Mary and was tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin (Heb 4:15)

Please note what I said in my quote above. I am enlarging the text in case you have poor eyesight.

Yes, Jesus took on the nature of the seed of Abraham, not Adam as many falsely teach. And as you know, Abraham was born after the so-called "fall".

But Jesus also took on "the same" flesh as us, and he felt the tug and pull, the weakness of our flesh (Heb 4:15).

In Jesus Christ there are two natures, the divine nature and the human nature. To insist that God actually became a human is a total misrepresentation of the incarnation and was dismissed long ago as a heresy!

I agree Jesus is both God and man. I do not understand this, but I believe it.

But Jesus had to defeat Satan as a man, read carefully.

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;

God in heaven cannot die. Jesus had to fully become man, he had to live under the law without sin, and die on the cross and rise again to defeat Satan.

You ought to be very careful that you do not deny that Jesus came in the flesh. The scriptures warn that this teaching is the spirit of antichrist.

 

[OldRegular]

Winman

You prove once again that you are not as clever as you think.

Do you really think anyone on this Forum is stupid enough to say that Jesus Christ did not have flesh and blood. That is another heresy dismissed long ago.

Docetism.
This heresy is the view that Jesus was in nature divine, eliminating his humanity. The name Docetism (Greek, dokein = "to seem") indicated the distinctive thesis of it that Christ's man hood, hence his sufferings, were unreal, phantasmal, appearing only to be human. It claimed that Christ only appeared or seemed to be a man. This view clearly shows the Graeco-Oriental assumption the divine impassability and the inherent evil nature of matter. The first to mention expressly "Docetists" is Serapion of Antioch (c. 200 A.D.). It was not a simple heresy on its own, but was an attitude which infected a number of heresies, particularly Marcionism and Gnosticism. This is seen in the remark of Justin Martyr, "There are some who declare that Jesus Christ did not come in flesh but only as a spirit, and exhibited an appearance (phantasian) of flesh." Some Docetists even claimed that someone else was crucified in the place of Christ. Polycarp anathematized those who refused to "confess that Jesus Christ came in the flesh" (Compare I John 4:13).

http://www.fromdeathtolife.org/chistory/heresies.html

Educate yourself Winman. The Chalcedon Creed was written to eliminate the confusion that some had about the nature of the Incarnation.

Chalcedonian Creed (451 A.D.)
This creed was adopted at the Fourth Ecumenical Council, held at Chalcedon, located in what is now Turkey, in 451, as a response to certain heretical views concerning the nature of Christ. It established the orthodox view that Christ has two natures (human and divine) that are unified in one person.

________________________

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

http://carm.org/christianity/creeds-and-confessions/chalcedonian-creed-451-ad

 

[Winman]

You are the one who said this;

Winman, you apparently do not understand the incarnation. God did not "become flesh". He took on Himself the nature of man! But you must be careful in using the word "flesh" since sometimes it is used to indicate the sinful nature of man. Of course you don't believe in the sinful nature of man even though you will insist that man will not resist the temptation to sin.

Now you are changing your tune.

It is also obvious from this statement that you think "flesh" means "sinful nature" SOMETIMES. Sometimes???

If you read a version like the NIV I can understand that.

KJB- Rom 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

NIV- Rom 7:18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.fn For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.

Here, the King James Bible says "flesh", while the NIV says "sinful nature". So I can understand if you read the NIV you could be convinced that the flesh means sinful nature.

However, the NIV contradicts itself, because in 1 John 4:2 it translates this same Greek word (sarx) as flesh.

NIV- 1 Jhn 4:2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,

The King James Bible translates "sarx" as the word "flesh" in both Romans 7:18 and 1 John 4:2. The NIV inconsistently translates "sarx" as "sinful nature" in Romans 7:18 when speaking of men, but then translates it "flesh" in 1 Jhn 4:2 when speaking of Jesus.

So maybe you have a messed up version of scripture? :laugh:

Get a good King James Bible and it will straighten you all out. :thumbsup:

And folks say the MVs do not affect doctrine. Right.

 

[OldRegular]

You are the one who said this;



Now you are changing your tune.

I am changing nothing Winman. It seems to me that you are saying that God became, or was changed into, a Human. For example:

God in heaven cannot die. Jesus had to fully become man, he had to live under the law without sin, and die on the cross and rise again to defeat Satan.

If that is what you are saying it is utter heresy. Otherwise I am not sure what you are trying to say except lie about the Doctrines of Election and Sovereign Grace..

It is also obvious from this statement that you think "flesh" means "sinful nature" SOMETIMES. Sometimes???

If you read a version like the NIV I can understand that.

KJB- Rom 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

NIV- Rom 7:18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.fn For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.

Here, the King James Bible says "flesh", while the NIV says "sinful nature". So I can understand if you read the NIV you could be convinced that the flesh means sinful nature.

However, the NIV contradicts itself, because in 1 John 4:2 it translates this same Greek word (sarx) as flesh.

NIV- 1 Jhn 4:2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,

The King James Bible translates "sarx" as the word "flesh" in both Romans 7:18 and 1 John 4:2. The NIV inconsistently translates "sarx" as "sinful nature" in Romans 7:18 when speaking of men, but then translates it "flesh" in 1 Jhn 4:2 when speaking of Jesus.

So maybe you have a messed up version of scripture? :laugh:

Get a good King James Bible and it will straighten you all out. :thumbsup:

And folks say the MVs do not affect doctrine. Right.

And your point is what? If you read my posts you would know that I do not use the NIV!

 

[Winman]

I am changing nothing Winman. It seems to me that you are saying that God became, or was changed into, a Human. If that is what you are saying it is utter heresy. Otherwise I am not sure what you are trying to say except lie about the Doctrines of Election and Sovereign Grace..

Yes, God became a human being. He had flesh and bones, he could bleed. He had to eat and sleep. He could feel pain and sadness, joy and love...

He was just like us in every way, that is why he can feel compassion for us. And it is not heresy whatsoever, it is what the Bible teaches.

And your point is what? If you read my posts you would know that I do not use the NIV!

I don't know what version you use, but you said that sometimes flesh is understood to mean sin nature. That is what caused me to wonder if you might use the NIV.

 

[Winman]

Here is John MacArthur himself saying that Jesus became a human being;

Satan really then brought man into the realm of death and he has maintained a dominion over that although subject to the power of God. God has allowed him to maintain that dominion but God has broken the power of death. And how did he do it? Back to verse 14, since the children share in flesh and blood, since that is the children of God, the brothers of Jesus those who belong to him are human then he himself likewise had to become human in order that through death, he might render powerless him who had the power of death that is the devil. What happened is Jesus had to become a man, meet Satan on his own ground, man dealing with death, dealing with the power of death. Jesus had to become a man. He had to face death and conquer death on its own ground. Satan's dominion is in the form of death. He's a killer. He's a murderer from the beginning. And by dying as a man, Jesus entered into death and when he got there, he destroyed death. And he destroyed the dominion of Satan.

http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/80-210

This is basic Christianity.

You don't get it, to redeem man, God had to become a man and defeat Satan as a man.

 

[OldRegular]

Yes, God became a human being. He had flesh and bones, he could bleed. He had to eat and sleep. He could feel pain and sadness, joy and love...

He was just like us in every way, that is why he can feel compassion for us. And it is not heresy whatsoever, it is what the Bible teaches.

It appears from the above that you are denying the divine nature of Jesus Christ. That is the heresy of Ebionism as I said before.

This heresy is the view that Jesus was in nature just a man, denying his divinity altogether. The Ebionites were an offshoot of the specifically Jewish form of Christianity, which was a potent force in the apostolic age. The rapid spread of Christianity among the Gentiles diminish its influence and the dispersal of the Christian community from Jerusalem to the Transjordan on the outbreak of the Jewish War (A.D. 66) isolated it completely. The Ebionites rejected the virgin birth, regarding Jesus as a man normally born of Joseph and Mary; they held he was the predestined Messiah, and in this capacity he would return to reign on earth. Hippolytus and Tertullian connect their name with one Ebion, presumably the apocryphal founder of the sect; but in fact the name is derived from the Hebrew for "poor," probably reflecting the title that the original Jewish-Christian community in Jerusalem liked to be known.

http://www.fromdeathtolife.org/chistory/heresies.html

Here is John MacArthur himself saying that Jesus became a human being;

Originally Posted by John MacArthur
Satan really then brought man into the realm of death and he has maintained a dominion over that although subject to the power of God. God has allowed him to maintain that dominion but God has broken the power of death. And how did he do it? Back to verse 14, since the children share in flesh and blood, since that is the children of God, the brothers of Jesus those who belong to him are human then he himself likewise had to become human in order that through death, he might render powerless him who had the power of death that is the devil. What happened is Jesus had to become a man, meet Satan on his own ground, man dealing with death, dealing with the power of death. Jesus had to become a man. He had to face death and conquer death on its own ground. Satan's dominion is in the form of death. He's a killer. He's a murderer from the beginning. And by dying as a man, Jesus entered into death and when he got there, he destroyed death. And he destroyed the dominion of Satan.
http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/80-210

I doubt that MacArthur is denying the divine nature of Jesus Christ but if he is he is as heretical as you are.

This is basic Christianity.

You don't get it, to redeem man, God had to become a man and defeat Satan as a man.

I get it. If you deny the divine nature of Jesus Christ you are a heretic. Scripture teaches both the divine nature and the human nature of Jesus Christ. That is basic Christianity.

The Apostle Paul writes as follows of the divine nature of Jesus Christ:

Colossians 2:8, 9 KJV
8. Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
9. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily

The Apostle Paul writes as follows of the human nature of Jesus Christ:

Philippians 2:6-8, KJV
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

The Chalcedon Creed is the best expression of this truth that man has been able to derive.

 

[Winman]

Yeah, yeah, I get it, everybody is a heretic except you.

Is this the only argument they teach you guys at Reformed churches? The Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses come up with better arguments than you guys. All you guys do is call everybody a liar or Pelagian. Lame.

And no, I do not deny Jesus is God. But he put off his glory and became a man. If he had appeared in his glory everybody would have dropped dead.

You still don't get it, Jesus had to defeat Satan as a man to redeem man.

And as much as I hate to admit it, I agree with John MacArthur on this one. Don't let that go to your head, I think Calvinism is false doctrine and he is absolutely a Calvinist.

 

[OldRegular]

Yeah, yeah, I get it, everybody is a heretic except you.

Is this the only argument they teach you guys at Reformed churches? The Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses come up with better arguments than you guys. All you guys do is call everybody a liar or Pelagian. Lame.

And no, I do not deny Jesus is God. But he put off his glory and became a man. If he had appeared in his glory everybody would have dropped dead.

You still don't get it, Jesus had to defeat Satan as a man to redeem man.

And as much as I hate to admit it, I agree with John MacArthur on this one. Don't let that go to your head, I think Calvinism is false doctrine and he is absolutely a Calvinist.

It is impossible to tell what you believe about the incarnation. You appear to be totally confused about the divinity of Jesus Christ. You keep saying he became a man. God did not become a man. Did you even read the Scripture I posted that shows both the deity and the humanity of Jesus Christ? Just for a little while try not to be overcome with bitterness, Winman. For your edification if that is possible I post it again.

The Apostle Paul writes as follows of the divine nature of Jesus Christ:

Colossians 2:8, 9 KJV
8. Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
9. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily

The Apostle Paul writes as follows of the human nature of Jesus Christ:

Philippians 2:6-8, KJV
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

The Chalcedon Creed is the best expression of this truth that man has been able to derive.

 

[percho]

It appears from the above that you are denying the divine nature of Jesus Christ. That is the heresy of Ebionism as I said before.




I doubt that MacArthur is denying the divine nature of Jesus Christ but if he is he is as heretical as you are.



I get it. If you deny the divine nature of Jesus Christ you are a heretic. Scripture teaches both the divine nature and the human nature of Jesus Christ. That is basic Christianity.

The Apostle Paul writes as follows of the divine nature of Jesus Christ:

Colossians 2:8, 9 KJV
8. Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
9. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily

The Apostle Paul writes as follows of the human nature of Jesus Christ:

Philippians 2:6-8, KJV
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

The Chalcedon Creed is the best expression of this truth that man has been able to derive.

Is the following heretical?

It appears to me that, man (Adam) was created as the conduit> (Rom 5:14) by which the Son of God, the Christ, foreordained before the foundation of the world,> (1 Peter 1:20) could come into the world to die the death> (Heb 2:6,7,9) that would be assigned the first man Adam,.(Gen 2:17 YLT) for the purpose of God. >(Heb 2:14)

For this to take place would the Son of God, the Christ actually die. Die in the very context of Gen 2:17 in the context of Romans 6:23.
And if the Son of God, the Christ, the Son of man, is actually dead in the context of the wages of sin, and for death to be defeated and to be able to destroy him who had the power of death that is the devil would that one who is as dead as dead can be have to be raised from the dead? Would his soul have to be raised from Hades in flesh incorruptible?

And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ. Acts 17:2,3