:thumbsup::thumbsup:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Love requires choice?
- Thread starter Luke2427
- Start date
- Status
now you are saying what we have been saying.
You said love IS action.
We said love reveals itself in action.
Now you are saying what we have been trying to tell you.
I rest my case.
He thinks because regeneration means to be made alive again that it means to be saved.
He can't get it. He is incapable of letting terms stand on their own. It is too complicated for him.
Again, the concept of immediate and ultimate is too deep for Winamn.
You;re wasting your time trying to explain to him that God, like us, has immediate and ultimate wills.
He can't think past one will at a time. He is unable to grasp that a person can will something and at the same time, to a greater degree will something else.
Numerous members on this board have tried to teach him that, but he can't get it. You might as well try to teach calculus to a 4 year old.
Non sequitur.
Why do you think that love being a command means that love is a choice?
And, BTW, the point of this thread was never that there is NO KIND OF LOVE which has choice.
The point has been that the GREATEST kind of love is without choice.
Do you think, like Winman does, that God can sin?
If you are not a heretic, then you confess that the love that God has is without choice. God cannot BUT love his Son and the Son cannot BUT love God.
That's exactly right.
Why are we talking to a man who thinks GOD CAN SIN?
I don't know why we keep trying.
Who in the world knows what the op is about. It is only full of man made philosophy. It was unclear and had no scriptural support. Pretty convenient now that scripture has been given to show your op wrong. You can claim non sequitur all you want to. It means nothing coming from someone who has yet to prove his point with one single ounce of evidence.
OH and all of the sudden pulling the heretic word out of the blue because your op has been defeated by scripture is nothing but a cheap shot. Seriously.. Grow up.
Last edited by a moderator:
no, he did not. Like fallen man in Adam whose will is bound, and not free, to whom He chooses to obey, Christ's will was bound to the Father whose will (the redemption of His people) He chose to obey in eternity past.
John 4:32 - Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.
Romans 6:16 - Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey ; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
It is not about being hard-wired. It is about nature. The natural ability to fear God, prefer God, obey God, not sin. A few threads back you asked about the relevance of some scriptures I quoted.
Here it is, at this point of this thread.
The earthy man's nature is to sin. His desire is for sin. His nature is to oppose, question, debate God. His natural inclination is to blame God for his own suffering which may or may not be his (man's) doing.
I don't care if ALL THE ANGELS IN HEAVEN came down to earth and testified to anyone being regenerate, that regenerate will still sin. That regenerate could, and will, sin, because of his old nature, and he will at times both willingly and unwillingly ignore the new man added to him.
Jesus Christ did not have that nature.
If he did have that nature in Him, then how do we know He did not sin, and the writers of the Bible just ignored it and chose not to report it or record it, ergo, the Holy Spirit LIED, and if the Holy Spirit did lie on this regard, YOU AND I ARE STILL IN OUR SINS.
The heavenly man (Christ) on the other hand, can not sin, not just that He would not, as your favorite Calvinist said. Can not implies the ability to NOT SIN, would not implies the ability to sin.
If God needed somebody whom He could hard wire to not sin, then He would've simply created a man born of both human father and human mother, and controlled that man's will from day one in this world.
No.
He sent His Only Begotten, One who came from Him, of His own substance, fathered by Him, nurtured by Him, because only ONE OF HIS OWN NATURE AND SUBSTANCE, will not, and cannot, sin.
and here I depart. Let the Calvinists reply for themselves.
Last edited by a moderator:
You contradict yourself. It is impossible to "choose" without option. If Jesus could not lie, then he was not obedient, he did not "choose" to obey. Matthew 26:53 proves Jesus did have option, he himself said he could pray to his Father, and his Father would send more than twelve legions of angels to rescue him. He didn't have to allow those soldiers to take him, he said so himself. And if it was impossible for him to pray to his Father for rescue, then he lied when he implied he could have. Your view is absolutely refuted.
This verse does not prove your view at all. Jesus "chose" to do his Father's will.
This verse argues against your view, if you "yield" to God, then you could have chosen not to yield, just as you could refuse to yield when you enter a highway in your car and force someone off the road. Happens all the time.
And by the way, the words "whether" and "or of" show man has option, he is not forced or compelled to either serve sin or righteousness, he can choose whom he obeys.
Oh, I get it, you Calvinists believe Jesus could not have sinned because of his nature. You believe man MUST sin because of his nature, but Jesus Christ himself refutes this view.
Mat 12:33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.
Calvinists love to quote the scripture that says a corrupt tree cannot give good fruit, but they conveniently ignore Matthew 12:33 where Jesus shows a man can determine whether he is a good tree that bears good fruit, or a corrupt tree that bears corrupt fruit.
The words "either make" and "or else make" show that man has both option and ability to determine which kind of tree he is, and what kind of fruit he bears. This verse absolutely refutes your false doctrine.
There is also much other scripture that refutes your superstitious view. Satan was not created with a sin nature, scripture says he was created "perfect", yet he was able to sin. The fallen angels were "very good", yet they were able to sin. Adam and Eve were created "very good" and yet they were able to sin. So, this belief of yours that a person with a "perfect" nature cannot sin is easily refuted by MUCH scripture.
If they believe as you do, they would be wrong just as you are. Your view is easily refuted by the word of God.
Last edited by a moderator:
The other thing that makes this thread ridiculous is the punishment of those who do not love Christ and the truth. The Cal's are so quick to say man is punished justly for freely rejecting (not loving). Such hypocricy.
And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people didn't choose to love the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. They were born into such a state devoid of choice. Poor saps.
Calvin 3:19
And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people didn't choose to love the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. They were born into such a state devoid of choice. Poor saps.
Calvin 3:19
Last edited by a moderator:
You can't get it because you reject the biblical explanation of new birth equating to salvation. It is just too simple for you. You must rely on education, human wisdom and pride.
agreed. and there was an option the Son exercised, but not in time. when the eternal God (the Father, Son, Spirit) covenanted with Himself to save a people unto Himself, the Son had an option to say no to the Father. But He, the Son, entered into that covenant with the Father, with whom He is One both in Spirit, essence, and will, and therefore, His choice was fixed at that point in eternity past.
When He said "yes" to being the Savior of God's people, He put His entire faith in His Father, that He will not leave His body in corruption, and the Father put His entire faith in the Son, that His Son will not waver.
Because for the Son to waver and the Father not know it destroys the WHOLE ATTRIBUTE OF GOD'S OMNISCIENCE.
That is why modern translations have it wrong when they changed the words of Galatians 2:20,f which read "I live by the faith OF the Son of God" to "faith IN the Son of God", in keeping with their soteriology that it is THEIR faith in the Son of God that made their redemption.
The Word of the Lord is FIXED, both in heaven and in earth. There is NOT THE LEAST IOTA of an option to waver, as you would like to put in the Creator's mouth when you cite Matthew 26:53.
Jesus could not, can not, and will not lie.
I lay your arguments at the feet of God's Omniscience.
If there was a possibility that He would lie, His Father would know.
If there was the slightest iota of possibility that Jesus would waver in His mission, the Father would know.
And if the Father would know, why would He send His Son to a cruel death on the cross for worms ?
And why would God take Enoch home to Him, if there was the iota of an iota of an iota that He would still have to kick Enoch out of heaven, after all, because His Son would falter and turn back ?
But the redemption of His people is a DONE DEAL, ALL OF THEM, not one are lost, because the Son, in eternity past, set His face to go to the cross, not out of love for worms like you and I, but out of His love and devotion to the father, and grace and mercy for us.
True, He didn't HAVE TO, but they must, because His role as Savior is FOREORDAINED, and agreed to by the Great One-in-Three, and there is no turning back, for the same reasons I stated above.
That is what Christ wanted to drill into the thick, rabble-rousing head of Peter, and to all thick-headed worms down in time who will view Him as someone who would tuck his tail at the last moment and call out to His Father to forget this whole thing, and just let everybody rot in hell.
His Father did not have to watch from Heaven while His Son in that body suffered cruelly for dirty, rotten sinners, but He TRUSTED HIS SON'S WORD given to Him during their covenant that He will not falter.
No, your view is absolutely refuted and proven by everything that is written in Scripture about the character and attributes of God to be totally unscriptural and humanist.
Your attempt to portray the Creator and Savior as having the ability to sin but would not is totally refuted by the fact that the Savior Himself explained that adultery is not just the act but the thought, the slightest interest in another man's wife, or another woman's husband, and that EVERY THOUGHT AND INTENT OF A MAN'S HEART is open to God, INCLUDING HIS (JESUS').
and what I see is your inability to grasp what I am saying. Yes, Jesus CHOSE to do His Father's will. But the choice what not made here in time. It was mad in eternity past. I dare say that based on that covenant, and the Great One-in-Three's agreement, the Father wrote the names of His people in His mind (the Book of Life).
and your view of how Matthew 26:53 is to be interpreted shows how low of an opinion you have of the Eternal Son of God by comparing His highway decisions to man's highway decisions, His temper to man's temper.
When Christ entered the human freeway to His cross, He had one goal in mind: JERUSALEM. And guess what ? It wasn't because of you, or I, primarily, it was because He is here to do what the first Adam could not do, absolute, total obedience to the Father, of whose essence He is. (Hebrews 1).
And if man had only obeyed in the garden, from the get-go, there would have been no need for Christ.
and WHO, pray tell, is the tree ? you are completely out of context.
and where did I say that man MUST sin because of his nature ?
Man sins because thatis who he is: a sinner, unholy.
Jesus Christ CANNOT sin because He is OF GOD, and FROM GOD, and while He does have a human body, His nature is holy and sinless, and if sinless, then He CANNOT sin.
and humanists like to quote the above to show that they have the intrinsic ability to obey God and to choose God.
Even if I agree with you on this, I will still have to say that only the regenerate is given that ability.
none of it did. The verses you cited only served to highlight your humanism
whoever said Satan was created with a sin nature.
I didn't, so don't revert to your silly tactics of putting words into the other person's mouth.
I said, in essence, CREATED BEINGS HAVE THE PROPENSITY TO SIN.
And God is SELF-EXISTING, UNCREATED.
And Jesus Christ is FROM GOD, and HIMSELF GOD, therefore, He does not have the SIN NATURE WE INHERITED FROM ADAM.
And if He does not have that sin nature, therefore, it is not just simply that He would not sin, as your favorite Calvinist says, notwithstanding his caveat about "would not", Jesus Christ WILL NOT and CANNOT SIN.
which only highlights what I am saying, created beings have the propensity and the ability to sin. which is why even among angels, God exercised His Sovereign right to elect those who are His.
Adam and Eve were only part of the entire creation which God said was very good. Read Genesis 1:26-31.
This belief of mine is backed up by much Scripture, particularly those that pertain to God's attributes and character.
I am sorry to learn, after all this time, that your view of Jesus, God and Man, is so low as to actually believe He is capable of sinning and violating the will of His Father if He chooses to.
I just contradicted the view of at least one Calvinist you agreed with, so apparently, our beliefs do not agree.
And with all due respects to Calvinists here, I do not believe every elect child of God will hear the gospel, and obey it, in order to be saved, eternally, as they do, or at least I understand they do.
So, there.
my views are grounded on the impeccability of Christ, and everything it means, yours are not, so your views are not only unscriptural, they are totally anti-Christ.
Last edited by a moderator:
pinoybaptist said:
All your arguments come down to this, whether Christ was peccable (capable of sinning) or impeccable (incapable of sinning). And I say scripture refutes your view.
I believe scripture shows Jesus could sin, but that he would not. He was able to sin, but he chose not to sin.
Some examples;
Jhn 8:55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.
Jesus told the Jews that "if" he were to deny that he knew his Father, then he would be a liar like them. The word "if" implies possibility. If Jesus could not lie, then it is a lie itself to imply that he could. Jesus could easily have said, "I cannot lie", but he did not say that, he implied he could lie.
Again, we have Mat 26:53
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?
If you are honest, you must admit that Jesus directly implied to Peter that he could NOW pray to his Father, and he would PRESENTLY give him more than twelve legions of angels to rescue him. This refutes your view that everything was set in stone before the foundation of the world. The words "now" and "presently" showing Jesus could have prayed to his Father at the very instant he made this statement, and his Father would positively grant his request.
If your view is correct, this statement is an outright lie. In your view, it would be impossible for Jesus to pray to his Father for rescue, and his Father would not send angels to rescue him.
There are a few other scriptures that imply Jesus "could" sin (peccable).
Jhn 5:31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
This is another scripture where Jesus implies it is possible for him to lie. The word "if" denotes possibility.
The fact that the Holy Spirit drove Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted argues he could sin, else what is the point in tempting him, it proves nothing.
Mat 4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.
The fact that Jesus could be "touched" with the feeling of our infirmities (weakness) and was tempted in all points as we are argues he could sin. If he could not sin, then how could he be tempted to sin? Temptation comes from within.
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.
Jam 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:
14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
The scriptures say "every man" is tempted when he is drawn away of his "own lust" and "enticed". Jesus came in the flesh and had fleshly lusts that pulled and tugged him toward sin just like every other man. This argues that he could sin.
So, you argument is nothing more that a theory, many theologians have argued that Jesus did have the ability to sin, but chose not to. I believe the scriptures clearly support this view.
Outstanding post brother! :thumbsup:
Matthew 26:53 refutes his theory.
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?
If your theory is correct, then the only possible answer to this question is NO. NO, Jesus could not pray to his Father, and NO, his Father would not send more than twelve legions of angels.
But this question demands a YES answer, it cannot be denied. Jesus directly implied he COULD pray to his Father and that his Father WOULD send angels to rescue him.
If Jesus could not have done this as you believe, then this statement itself is misleading at best and an outright lie at worst.
You can't get around this verse. And if you are truly honest you know this.
Last edited by a moderator:
You guys jabber jaw about far to many things you know nothing of and you would turn a one celled amoeba into something so complex God could not understand it.
Things are not really this complicated.
Things are not really this complicated.
In a way, I tend to agree with you. What is important is that Jesus never sinned, and so could die for our sins to save us.
That said, the scriptures are very careful to warn us of those who would deny Jesus came in the flesh. I believe the scriptures show Jesus had a human nature and could have possibly sinned, but in obedience chose not to.
If Jesus could not sin, then he was not a human being. If he could not sin, he was not like Adam, for Adam could sin.
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.
The scriptures warn us about those who deny that Jesus came in the flesh. So I believe this is a very important doctrine.
I am not disagreeing with everything else you said but really? How does this doctrine change anyone's salvation?
What I believe you do not get is that the many of the cals on this board come here to proselytize. They come here to convert everyone. They are not here for reasonable discussion between fellow Christians. If you do not believe as they do then they do not see you that way. After all in their mind Calvinism is the gospel as has been posted on this board many many times.
And if you oppose them they want you destroyed. Kind do reminds me if Muslim behavior. And if you doubt that statement just ask James White.
Last edited by a moderator:
LOL, I have to agree with a lot you said there. :laugh:
I do think we are commanded to contend for the faith. We are warned against those who deny Jesus came in the flesh. I believe this doctrine of impeccability denies that Jesus truly was a man. The scriptures say Jesus took on the nature of the seed of Abraham. If that is so, then he could sin, as Abraham and all his seed (believers) could and do sin.
Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
Pinoybaptist denies this very scripture, he claims Jesus had a different nature from man, and therefore could not sin. But scripture says Jesus took on the nature of the seed of Abraham and therefore could sin, but chose in obedience not to do so.
So, I think it is very important and should be defended.
And I believe Mat 26:53 without question shows that Jesus could have chosen not to go to the cross. If he could not have chosen this, then his implied statement to Peter was a lie.
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.
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.
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.
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.
- Status