Love requires choice?

[Winman]

The one who is denying that Jesus Christ came in the flesh is the one who denies and questions his impeccability, and, that, Winman, is you. Your views are totally anti-Christ.
First, take a look at the name Jesus CHRIST, Who That is, wherefrom did the Person come from, and show a Scripture that when His body was created for Him by the Father through the Spirit in the womb of Mary and not through seminal processes of intercourse, His deity was totally separated from Him, and if you do, the next thing you are denying is the doctrine of hypostatic union. Is that a big word for you ? Ask the 'rev', maybe he knows.
If you agree that Christ's deity never left Him at conception then you need to agree that He is IMMUTABLE, UNCHANGING in essence (Hebrews 13:8) power, character, attribute. He was and is God, in human form. Scriptures tell us God cannot lie, God cannot sin, and if you agree that God came in the flesh in the Person of Christ, then Christ CANNOT sin as opposed to would not.

I agree that Jesus is God, but the scripture says the Word became flesh and dwelt among men. This does not simply mean he became flesh and blood, but that he could also be tempted as we are, yet he never chose to obey his fleshly lusts and sin.

what a laughable comment.
honestly, I think you can do better than this.
really ?
you think because Christ took on the nature of the seed of Abraham it means he not only put on flesh (in contrast to the nature of angels who are spirits) but he also took on himself the propensity to sin just with a stronger will than fallen humans ?
I don't think you even understand what, or who, the seed of Abraham is.
Now, if you claim you do, you'll have to show by Scripture where it shows that God took away from Jesus His own nature as God which is an abhorrence and absolute disinterest in sin.

The seed of Abraham are believers:

Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

The seed of Abraham are born again believers with the indwelling Holy Spirit. This does not prevent us from being tempted, this does not prevent us from sinning. And this is the nature Jesus took upon himself. You attempt to say Jesus only took on flesh, this is error, he also took on our NATURE, and our nature can sin.

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

The scriptures teach that no Christian HAS to sin, but it does not teach that Christians cannot sin. Jesus like us did not have to sin, and indeed he never did, but that does not mean he was unable to sin. And I believe Jesus himself implied he could sin in scripture like John 8:55.

any implication you derive from this statement is a product of your anti-Christ imagination, winman.

The Lord is rebuking Peter for resorting to weak and puny human violence and power in contrast to the majesty and power available to Him anytime He so required defense but He had, by choice done in eternity past, turned away from in order for Him to do His Father's will.

Yes, he was telling Peter to put his sword away. Nevertheless, Jesus directly implied that he could NOW call on his Father, and his Father would PRESENTLY send more than twelve legions of angels to rescue him.

Now, if your view is correct, this is an absolute lie. According to your view it would have been impossible for Jesus to pray to his Father for rescue, and it would have been impossible for the Father to send angels to rescue Jesus.

You can't get out of this, if your view is correct, then Matthew 26:53 is an out and out lie.

You can say whatever you want, Matthew 26:53 absolutely destroys your view.

Contrary to Mr. Mitchell's assertion that Calvinists here want to convert anyone, since you all cannot wrap it around your heads that PB's are not Calvinists, then let me say I have not the least intention of converting anyone.

I discuss for the sake of discussion and my tenor in discussion depends on the tenor of whoever I am discussing with.

Oh, but you are a Calvinist, although there is much variety in Calvinism, just as there is much variety among non-Cals and Arminians.

What did Shakespeare say? A rose by any other name...

 

[convicted1]

If Christ could sin/lie, how do any of us know He told us the truth?

 

[pinoybaptist]

If Christ could sin/lie, how do any of us know He told us the truth?

Better still, if Christ could lie, but simply chose not to, how can we rely on the integrity of Scripture ?
Yet even this anti-Christ probably believes the Bible was written by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who is Himself God, and of the same essence that Jesus THE CHRIST is.
If the very Being from whom Jesus THE CHRIST came from is capable of lying, winman is correct, Jesus can lie, and so did God, and the Scripture, which unequivocally said God cannot lie, is found to be false.
So, on what basis do we believe that our God, in Christ, and our Christ, in God, is holy, upright, righteous, and truth.
If we believe that Jesus can lie, then on what do we base trust in His statement: I am the TRUTH the way, and the life.
My only conclusion is that winman has the spirit of anti-Christ in him, and he doesn't know it.

 

[pinoybaptist]

I agree that Jesus is God, but the scripture says the Word became flesh and dwelt among men. This does not simply mean he became flesh and blood, but that he could also be tempted as we are, yet he never chose to obey his fleshly lusts and sin.

The word became flesh, is totally different from 'the word became flesh-ly'.
there is nothing to not obey because fleshly lusts are absent from Him.
I would suggest you repent of your heresy.

The seed of Abraham are believers:

Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

The seed of Abraham are born again believers with the indwelling Holy Spirit. This does not prevent us from being tempted, this does not prevent us from sinning. And this is the nature Jesus took upon himself. You attempt to say Jesus only took on flesh, this is error, he also took on our NATURE, and our nature can sin.
Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

A seed is ONE, singular. Seeds are many, plural.
If you really do a Bible study, you will see that the word 'seed' is the same word used by Scripture when God told Adam of His Messiah.

The scriptures teach that no Christian HAS to sin, but it does not teach that Christians cannot sin. Jesus like us did not have to sin, and indeed he never did, but that does not mean he was unable to sin. And I believe Jesus himself implied he could sin in scripture like John 8:55.

Unbelievable how you twist Scripture to support your demeaning and belittling of the Savior.
You take Scriptures like John 8:55 and mangle it totally out of its context just so you can satisfy your humanism and ego and put the Savior in your level.

Yes, he was telling Peter to put his sword away. Nevertheless, Jesus directly implied that he could NOW call on his Father, and his Father would PRESENTLY send more than twelve legions of angels to rescue him.

Now, if your view is correct, this is an absolute lie. According to your view it would have been impossible for Jesus to pray to his Father for rescue, and it would have been impossible for the Father to send angels to rescue Jesus.

you are a liar, winman, and I say that in print.
either that, or you're on drugs.
the gist of what I am saying is that the Scripture you are mangling is Jesus telling Peter there is no necessity for violence because the power behind Him is far stronger than anything and any violence any man can inflict.
YOU KNOW IT, AND COULD NOT GET AROUND IT, SO YOU MANGLE WHAT I AM EXPLAINING.
But, then, why should I be surprised ?
why should it be beyond you to lie when you want the Holy God to be just like you, a liar.
LET GOD BE TRUE, AND EVERY MAN A LIAR.

You can't get out of this, if your view is correct, then Matthew 26:53 is an out and out lie.

You can say whatever you want, Matthew 26:53 absolutely destroys your view.

no, YOU can say what YOU want, and everything you've said so far is a terrible handling of the Word of Life, and any honest believer of any persuasion can attest to that.

Oh, but you are a Calvinist, although there is much variety in Calvinism, just as there is much variety among non-Cals and Arminians.

What did Shakespeare say? A rose by any other name...

suit yourself.
I consider it an honor to be among Calvinists and true Arminians, rather than pseudo-Christians.

 

[convicted1]

Better still, if Christ could lie, but simply chose not to, how can we rely on the integrity of Scripture ?
Yet even this anti-Christ probably believes the Bible was written by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who is Himself God, and of the same essence that Jesus THE CHRIST is.
If the very Being from whom Jesus THE CHRIST came from is capable of lying, winman is correct, Jesus can lie, and so did God, and the Scripture, which unequivocally said God cannot lie, is found to be false.
So, on what basis do we believe that our God, in Christ, and our Christ, in God, is holy, upright, righteous, and truth.
If we believe that Jesus can lie, then on what do we base trust in His statement: I am the TRUTH the way, and the life.
My only conclusion is that winman has the spirit of anti-Christ in him, and he doesn't know it.

That's what I meant, Brother Pinoy. The triune God can't lie/sin. In the flesh, Jesus' diety remained intact. If God can't lie...and He can't...unless Christ isn't God...and He is...

 

[convicted1]

We had no more choice in our spiritual birth than we had in our physical....

1 John 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and loveth God.

This birth, regeneration, is solely of God. It causes us to seek Him. Why do we seek Him? Because we love Him...not by choice....but by birth....

 

[convicted1]

John 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

 

[Winman]

That's what I meant, Brother Pinoy. The triune God can't lie/sin. In the flesh, Jesus' diety remained intact. If God can't lie...and He can't...unless Christ isn't God...and He is...

Yes, and God cannot die either, yet Jesus really and truly died on the cross, so this argument is immediately revealed to be a fallacy.

This form of argument is ridiculous. When Jesus became a man, he took on not only our flesh and blood with it's fleshly lusts, but he also took on our NATURE.

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

Read even Reformed theologians and they will tell you this verse means Jesus took on human NATURE. As human beings can die, so Jesus was also able to die, which God in heaven cannot. Likewise, we are able to sin, so likewise, Jesus having true human nature was able to sin, but never did.

If Jesus was unable to sin, then he did not have human nature at all.

 

[Winman]

That's what I meant, Brother Pinoy. The triune God can't lie/sin. In the flesh, Jesus' diety remained intact. If God can't lie...and He can't...unless Christ isn't God...and He is...

God could not possibly lose a wrestling match with a man, yet that is exactly what we are told in Genesis concerning Jacob;

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.

We are told in verse 24 that Jacob wrestled with a man, in verse 30 we are told this man was God. So, like Jesus, here was an instance of God taking on the qualities of a man.

In this form, Jacob really and truly did prevail over God. The scriptures tell us that in both verses 25 and 28.

Now, no one would ever say that God could be defeated in a wrestling match with a mere mortal man, but that is exactly what scripture tells us did happen here.

I believe this is further evidence that as a man, Jesus COULD sin. The scriptures show that when God appeared as a man that he took on the weaknesses of a man. He got tired, hungry, could be injured or killed, and could even lose a wrestling match to a mere mortal man.

Besides all this evidence, we have statements from Jesus himself such as John 8:55 and Matthew 26:53 that imply he could sin, but chose not to do so.

So, I believe there is much evidence to support that Jesus as a man before he was glorified could have sinned.

 

[Aaron]

Holy . . . freaking . . . cow.

Winman: The Catholic's best argument for forbidding the layman to interpret Scripture.

 

[Winman]

Holy . . . freaking . . . cow.

Winman: The Catholic's best argument for forbidding the layman to interpret Scripture.

Was Charles Hodge an amateur at interpreting scripture?

“This sinlessness of our Lord, however, does not amount to absolute impeccability. It was not a non potest peccare. If He was a true man, He must have been capable of sinning. That He did not sin under the greatest provocations; that when He was reviled He blessed; when He suffered He threatened not; that He was dumb as a sheep before its shearers, is held up to us as an example. Temptation implies the possibility of sin. If from the constitution of his person it was impossible for Christ to sin, then his temptation was unreal and without effect and He cannot sympathize with his people.”

Charles Hodge- Second Volume of Systematic Theology pg. 457

So, this shows how ignorant you are, many notable theologians have agreed with my view in the past.

 

[Winman]

Here is another Reformed theologian who believed Jesus could sin;

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/

So, my view is not unusual or unorthodox in the least.

 

[webdog]

We had no more choice in our spiritual birth than we had in our physical....

1 John 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and loveth God.

This birth, regeneration, is solely of God. It causes us to seek Him. Why do we seek Him? Because we love Him...not by choice....but by birth....

Completely backwards. Our choice resulted in spiritual birth (salvation). Of course salvation / born again is of God, but it makes absolutely no sense for someone who has passed from death to life to need to seek Him at that point since He IS the life.

 

[Aaron]

Was Charles Hodge an amateur at interpreting scripture?



Charles Hodge- Second Volume of Systematic Theology pg. 457

So, this shows how ignorant you are, many notable theologians have agreed with my view in the past.

Sproul and Hodge are both wrong, but their error isn't a result a convoluted reading of the account of Jacob wrestling with the angel.

Anyway. Jesus became weak enough to suffer death, but He did not become corruptible. Adam was corruptible. The second Adam was not.

 

[Winman]

Sproul and Hodge are both wrong, but their error isn't a result a convoluted reading of the account of Jacob wrestling with the angel.

Anyway. Jesus became weak enough to suffer death, but He did not become corruptible. Adam was corruptible. The second Adam was not.

What? God cannot die.

You see, if your argument held water, then Jesus should not have been able to die, but he was able to die. This tends to support that he was also able to sin. Scripture says God cannot be tempted, yet Jesus was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin.

I agree with Sproul that is is pointless for the Spirit to send Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted if he could not sin.

See, you could argue that the Devil was just stupid and believed he could tempt Christ to sin when that is impossible, but it does not make sense that the Holy Spirit would send Jesus to be tempted if he were not able to sin. This would be the Spirit of God doing something he knows to be futile and foolish. And I do not believe God does things that are futile and foolish.

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

But the point I was making to you is that serious theologians have considered that Jesus could sin. So my view is not unusual or unorthodox at all.

 

[kyredneck]

Sproul and Hodge are both wrong....

Pink's not:

The Impeccability of Christ by Arthur W. Pink

"....For thirty-three years He was in immediate contact with sin, yet He was never, to the slightest degree, contaminated. He touched the leper, yet was not defiled, even ceremonially. Just as the rays of the sun shine upon a stagnant pool without being sullied thereby, so Christ was unaffected by the iniquity which surrounded Him. He ‘did no sin’ (1 Pet. 2:22), ‘in Him is no sin’ (1 John 3:5 and contrast 1:8), He ‘knew no sin’ (2 Cor. 5:21), He was ‘without sin’ (Heb. 4:15). He was ‘holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners’ (Heb. 7:26).

But not only was Christ sinless, He was impeccable, that is, incapable of sinning. No attempt to set forth the doctrine of His wondrous and peerless person would be complete, without considering this blessed perfection. Sad indeed is it to behold the widespread ignorance thereon today, and sadder still to hear and read this precious truth denied. The last Adam differed from the first Adam in His impeccability. Christ was not only able to overcome temptation, but He was unable to be overcome by it. Necessarily so, for He was ‘the Almighty’ (Rev. 1:8). True, Christ was man, but He was the God-man, and as such, absolute Master and Lord of all things. Being Master of all things—as His dominion over the winds and waves, diseases and death, clearly demonstrated—it was impossible that anything should master Him.

The immutability of Christ proves His impeccability, or incapability of sinning: ‘Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever’ (Heb. 13:8). Because He was not susceptible to any change, it was impossible for the incarnate Son of God to sin. Herein we behold again His uniqueness. Sinless angels fell, sinless Adam fell: they were but creatures, and creaturehood and mutability are, really, correlative terms. But was not the manhood of Christ created? Yes, but it was never placed on probation, it never had a separate existence. From the very first moment of its conception in the virgin’s womb, the humanity of Christ was taken into union with His Deity; and therefore could not sin.

The omnipotence of Christ proves His impeccability. That the Lord Jesus, even during the days of His humiliation, was possessed of omnipotence, is clear from many passages of Scripture. ‘What things so ever He (the Father) doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise….For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth, even so the Son quickeneth whom He will’ (John 5:19, 21). When we say that Christ possessed omnipotence during His earthly sojourn, we do not mean that He was so endowed by the Holy Spirit, but that He was essentially, inherently, personally, omnipotent. Now to speak of an omnipotent person yielding to sin, is a contradiction in terms. All temptation to sin must proceed from a created being, and hence it is a finite power; but impossible is it for a finite power to overcome omnipotency.

The constitution of Christ’s person proves His impeccability. In Him were united (in a manner altogether incomprehensible to created intelligence) the Divine and the human natures. Now ‘God cannot be tempted with evil’ (James 1:13); ‘it is impossible for God to lie’ (Heb. 6:18). And Christ was ‘God manifest in flesh’ (1 Tim. 3:16); ‘Immanuel’—God with us (Matt. 1:23). Personality centered not in His humanity. Christ was a Divine person, who had been ‘made in the likeness of men’ (Phil. 2:7). Utterly impossible was it, then, for the God-man to sin. To affirm the contrary, is to be guilty of the most awful blasphemy. It is irreverent speculation to discuss what the human nature of Christ might have done if it had been alone. It never was alone; it never had a separate existence; from the first moment of its being it was united to a Divine person....."

 

[Winman]

This is a good article on the subject;

http://drbobgonzales.com/2012/04/23...esus-resisting-temptation-as-the-second-adam/

All we are proving is that theologians disagree. The reason I posted Hodge and Sproul was because Aaron suggested my view was unorthodox. I was simply showing that many serious and notable theologians believed Jesus could sin.

And I still believe Mat 26:53 supports my view. Jesus clearly implied that if he did not want to be taken prisoner in the garden, that he could pray to his Father for rescue. And not only did Jesus imply he could pray for rescue, Jesus also directly implied that his Father would hear his request and send more than twelve legions of angels to rescue him. You cannot deny this if you are honest.

So, even though it was the Father's will that Jesus be taken in the garden and die on the cross, Jesus could have disobeyed. Otherwise Jesus's implication is a complete lie.

And what is more astounding is that Jesus clearly implied God the Father would have abandoned his plan and sent angels to rescue Jesus.

In my opinion this settles the matter, Jesus had the ability to sin, but he always chose to obey his Father. And thank God for that!

 

[kyredneck]

....And I still believe Mat 26:53 supports my view....

Which is that Christ was NOT impeccable, that He COULD have sinned?

….Mat 26:53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?

Probably the angel just moments before had assured Him of that option, you think?

So what blasphemy do you have to say about God the Father being complicit with such a deed?

And why, why in the world would you choose the 53rd verse over the 39th verse to dispute the truth of Christ’s impeccability? To me the 53rd verse reinforces the truth of the impeccability of Christ, not dispute it.

 

[webdog]

Which is that Christ was NOT impeccable, that He COULD have sinned?



Probably the angel just moments before had assured Him of that option, you think?

So what blasphemy do you have to say about God the Father being complicit with such a deed?

And why, why in the world would you choose the 53rd verse over the 39th verse to dispute the truth of Christ’s impeccability? To me the 53rd verse reinforces the truth of the impeccability of Christ, not dispute it.

Christ is impeccable because He didn't sin. Temptation is not temptation without the possibility of doing what is being tempted to do. Words have meanings.

 

[kyredneck]

You mean as in, "Jesus said to him again, `It hath been written, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God".`Mt 4:7?

Christ was tempted to demonstrate that He indeed was impeccable.