-
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!
the baby Jesus
- Thread starter Helen
- Start date
Music Man --
Music Man, I appreciate your efforts--I really
do--but I do not want to read what an author
says about verses; I want to read BIBLE verses
hat specifically support your point of view and
are not used out of context or misinterpretted.
Not the infant's.
Music Man, I appreciate your efforts--I really
do--but I do not want to read what an author
says about verses; I want to read BIBLE verses
hat specifically support your point of view and
are not used out of context or misinterpretted.
Music Man, when you got your driver's license, you did so as an adult, who had studied, and agreed to be held responsible to the law regarding moving vehicles of which you were in control.
Thus your ignorance is considered legally your fault.
Are you saying all that applies to a baby as well?
Thus your ignorance is considered legally your fault.
Are you saying all that applies to a baby as well?
But sin, as a whole, is the underlying cause.
What do you believe about the Trinity? about the nature of the deity and humanity of Christ?
I don't really need to know, my only point is that I would be willing to bet that a lot of what you believe about those two issues has been influenced by extra-biblical sources. Those two issues are not dealt with in detail in any one passage in Scripture, but rather throughout. So, men have had to come along and say, "this is what the Bible says about ____." It is not adding to the Bible, just expressing what the Bible as a whole has to say about it.
I think it is that way about the nature of our sin nature. There should be no doubt that we have it. Paul has made that clear. The only thing that is a little fuzzy is exactly how it gets passed down.
I would suggest, with all due respect, that since your views are the unorthodox views, that the "burden of proof", so to speak, lies with you.
Respectfully,
Chris
Scott_Bushey
<img src=/scott.jpg>
Abiyah,
The scriptures are primary. However, the establishing of orthodoxy has over the years been established by the Holy Spirit enlightening the leaders in the church. Historically, the church, through the enlightenment of Gods grace and Spirit, has established that which is considerd "orthodox".
The scriptures are primary. However, the establishing of orthodoxy has over the years been established by the Holy Spirit enlightening the leaders in the church. Historically, the church, through the enlightenment of Gods grace and Spirit, has established that which is considerd "orthodox".
What so many people forget is that Yes Jesus was God here on Earth but he chose to disrobe himself
of his deity while here on Earth. This is why the scriptures says HE WAS FULL OF THE HOLY GHOST.
Christ's sacrifice would be meaningless if he was not capable of committing sin. His gospel would not mean anything to anyone if people thought he was not our perfect example.
He was tried and he was tempted but he did not sin. If the fact that he could have sinned but did not make him just a super saint please tell me the name of another super saint??? That comment is way out there.
I think if a something like this taught by Calvinist could be questioned then probably a lot more of their beliefs and teachings can be questioned also.
of his deity while here on Earth. This is why the scriptures says HE WAS FULL OF THE HOLY GHOST.
Christ's sacrifice would be meaningless if he was not capable of committing sin. His gospel would not mean anything to anyone if people thought he was not our perfect example.
He was tried and he was tempted but he did not sin. If the fact that he could have sinned but did not make him just a super saint please tell me the name of another super saint??? That comment is way out there.
I think if a something like this taught by Calvinist could be questioned then probably a lot more of their beliefs and teachings can be questioned also.
I trust no churches to hold to the biblical
doctrines through the ages of time. Anything
truly orthodox would follow the Bible, word for
word, rather than suppositions and the ideas,
conjectures, and maybes of churched humanity
through the ages.
Truly orthodox beliefs passed down through the
ages would not have embraced R. Catholicism,
as was done for centuries. It would not have
backed the Nazis and/or Hitler, as was done. Its
leaders would not have hated Jews and sought
their demise, as was done. It would not have
accepted the Nicene creed, which backed
Cconstantine and his hatred for Jews, the
switch from Sabbath to Sunday, the switch from
Passover to Easter.
Today's truly orthodox are those who embrace,
not some creed and human conjecture, but the
Bible, as it is written, and those who truly strive
to do so. Some of you, then, are orthodox
(whether or not I agree with you) and some of
you are not.
Scott_Bushey
<img src=/scott.jpg>
Abiyah,
Keep in mind that the issue w/ Rome was that the scriptures were not readily available to the layman. Rome took it upon itself to align itsef w/ man made traditionalism, rather than theology based upon scripture and browbeat it's people with ideas rather than truth. In other words, they hid the truth.
Happily, the church is continuing to reform, thanks to many, i.e. Luther, Calvin, Gill, Edwards, Gerstner, Sproul, Piper etc...Rome does not have the masses "in the dark" any longer.
Orthodoxy is complex. I would imagine, Your pastor has more knowledge than you in this regards. This is not an illicit idea to admit. God has gifted men as scholars. We are blessed to have them. Men with large levels of intelligence that God has used and continues to use to guide his church. It is a great responsibility to be in this position. The bible exhorts us to not be hasty in seeking the position; "To whom is given much, much more will be required." I wouldn't want the responsibility!
Orthodoxy, in many ways has been built by these means. The scriptures, those whom you have spoken of, whom you embrace extensively, are canonized. The concept of canonization is in essence a concept of men gathering together and establishing a foundational orthodoxy of Gods word. It was not always 66 books mind you. The R. Catholics have a gospel of Thomas! History has helped the church form its core tenets. This equates to "orthodoxy". The Apostle's Creed, an excellent example, is a short, concise, statement of faith, that the majority of present, as well as past saints, have embraced. Your church possibly has a statement of faith. If it is biblically sound, this can be considered orthodoxy. The question may be, is all orthodoxy, orthodox? This is where history comes in. The historical church has embraced certain tenets. These tenets are drawn from scripture. They comprise the main fundamentals of our faith. Maybe you've heard of the Westminster Confession?
So.......orthodoxy is "not bad" and whether you want to believe it or not, you embrace it.
Keep in mind that the issue w/ Rome was that the scriptures were not readily available to the layman. Rome took it upon itself to align itsef w/ man made traditionalism, rather than theology based upon scripture and browbeat it's people with ideas rather than truth. In other words, they hid the truth.
Happily, the church is continuing to reform, thanks to many, i.e. Luther, Calvin, Gill, Edwards, Gerstner, Sproul, Piper etc...Rome does not have the masses "in the dark" any longer.
Orthodoxy is complex. I would imagine, Your pastor has more knowledge than you in this regards. This is not an illicit idea to admit. God has gifted men as scholars. We are blessed to have them. Men with large levels of intelligence that God has used and continues to use to guide his church. It is a great responsibility to be in this position. The bible exhorts us to not be hasty in seeking the position; "To whom is given much, much more will be required." I wouldn't want the responsibility!
Orthodoxy, in many ways has been built by these means. The scriptures, those whom you have spoken of, whom you embrace extensively, are canonized. The concept of canonization is in essence a concept of men gathering together and establishing a foundational orthodoxy of Gods word. It was not always 66 books mind you. The R. Catholics have a gospel of Thomas! History has helped the church form its core tenets. This equates to "orthodoxy". The Apostle's Creed, an excellent example, is a short, concise, statement of faith, that the majority of present, as well as past saints, have embraced. Your church possibly has a statement of faith. If it is biblically sound, this can be considered orthodoxy. The question may be, is all orthodoxy, orthodox? This is where history comes in. The historical church has embraced certain tenets. These tenets are drawn from scripture. They comprise the main fundamentals of our faith. Maybe you've heard of the Westminster Confession?
So.......orthodoxy is "not bad" and whether you want to believe it or not, you embrace it.
C
Christian41974
Guest
This is sure an interesting discussion. I think the main question "How was Jesus as a baby?" is not too important. What hrhema said about Jesus Christ having a sin nature that I would label as blasphemy.(Just in case somebody thought that was too strong a term, the definition of blasphemy is"To revile or speak reproachfully of God."Websters 1828)And to say Jesus had a sin nature is to say He was not God. God is perfect. So he had nor has a sin nature. God would cease to be God if He sinned or had a sin nature.Because He would cease to be perfect.With all due respect such a statement is foolish and heresy.
To what the other person said about the virgin birth. The Bible teaches we all die in Adam(Romans 5:17-19). It was Adam's offence that brought the sin nature upon us not Eve's. Jesus was born of the Holy Ghost not Adam so He did not receive a sin nature. So the virgin birth did make a difference. His(Jesus') nature did not come from Mary but from God. The Bible even refers to Christ as the last Adam.(1Corinthians 15:45-48). Adam was born innocent:Jesus was born innocent. The difference was Jesus was perfect and Adam was not. I am not saying they were the same but that both were born innocent. No sin nature. Thank you and have a nice day.
To what the other person said about the virgin birth. The Bible teaches we all die in Adam(Romans 5:17-19). It was Adam's offence that brought the sin nature upon us not Eve's. Jesus was born of the Holy Ghost not Adam so He did not receive a sin nature. So the virgin birth did make a difference. His(Jesus') nature did not come from Mary but from God. The Bible even refers to Christ as the last Adam.(1Corinthians 15:45-48). Adam was born innocent:Jesus was born innocent. The difference was Jesus was perfect and Adam was not. I am not saying they were the same but that both were born innocent. No sin nature. Thank you and have a nice day.
You know what is interesting about the 'orthodoxy' argument? That is the EXACT SAME argument I get from Catholics about their beliefs! It is also the exact same argument I have gotten by those who agree with evolution.
I'm not much for the 'orthodoxy' argument either, Abiyah! I do believe it is written that God has used the foolish things of the world to confound the wise, eh? The gospel message is simple and clear, and the call from Jesus is universal: "Come to me all who labor and are heavy-laden...."
To CD -- the reason I question the connection (not disagree with it, but only question it) between the virgin birth and the lack of a sin nature is that Eve was the one who sinned first and became a sinner! All human beings are 'contaminated.' So I don't see that a virgin birth helps the matter at all. It does establish the double heritage of God and man, however, and it does fulfill prophecy as nothing else could do, so it was vitally important. But was it really connected to a lack of sin nature? Speaking as a woman, I have some strong reservations about our ability to NOT pass on a sin nature! And that is not saying that Mary did. The incarnation was miraculous first and foremost, no question about it. But I am somewhat inclined to think that the lack of an inherited sin nature was not due to Mary or the lack of Joseph, but was from God Himself.
Just a thought, not a doctrine...
[ October 23, 2002, 06:51 PM: Message edited by: Helen ]
I'm not much for the 'orthodoxy' argument either, Abiyah! I do believe it is written that God has used the foolish things of the world to confound the wise, eh? The gospel message is simple and clear, and the call from Jesus is universal: "Come to me all who labor and are heavy-laden...."
To CD -- the reason I question the connection (not disagree with it, but only question it) between the virgin birth and the lack of a sin nature is that Eve was the one who sinned first and became a sinner! All human beings are 'contaminated.' So I don't see that a virgin birth helps the matter at all. It does establish the double heritage of God and man, however, and it does fulfill prophecy as nothing else could do, so it was vitally important. But was it really connected to a lack of sin nature? Speaking as a woman, I have some strong reservations about our ability to NOT pass on a sin nature! And that is not saying that Mary did. The incarnation was miraculous first and foremost, no question about it. But I am somewhat inclined to think that the lack of an inherited sin nature was not due to Mary or the lack of Joseph, but was from God Himself.
Just a thought, not a doctrine...
[ October 23, 2002, 06:51 PM: Message edited by: Helen ]
C
Christian41974
Guest
Helen, I have heard of doctors saying(so this is herasay) that a child gets its blood from its father. So that is part of the importance. But again Jesus had no sin nature. I don't believe He could have sinned because He is God. I believe He was temted as we are so we could relate to Him better us knowing He has been where we are. The virgin birth is a imporatnt doctrine because it shows His birth was of a perfect God not a sinful man. His nature was not Adam's but God's because Jesus is God. My comments though was not so much to you Helen but to Abiyah and hrhema.
C
Christian41974
Guest
Helen, Your being a woman, as good as that is, is not the important thing in this discussion but what the Bible teaches ,and the Bible teaches that Christ was not of Adam but of God. His coming was not of man but of God. That is the important part. That He came from God because if He came from Adam He would have a siin nature and He could not be a our perfect Sacrafice,but Jesus did not come from Adam ,in fact, Jesus made Adam.
Scott_Bushey
<img src=/scott.jpg>
Well Helen, whether you or Abiyah or myself want to admit it, we are all part of the orthodoxical equation. It seems that those whom hate the term, misunderstand it's meaning. To exalt orthodoxy is to exalt Christ and by exalting Christ in a biblical, repetitous fashion, we are being orthodox!
I have seen in the past the intentional disregarding of historical saints and their thoughts about God based upon the premise that all that is needed in the believers life are the scriptures. Well, this may be true in many ways, but God has given us teachers and pastors for a reason. It is not sin to sit under Luther, Calvin, Edwards, Owen, Love, etc.
[ October 23, 2002, 07:39 PM: Message edited by: Scott Bushey ]
I have seen in the past the intentional disregarding of historical saints and their thoughts about God based upon the premise that all that is needed in the believers life are the scriptures. Well, this may be true in many ways, but God has given us teachers and pastors for a reason. It is not sin to sit under Luther, Calvin, Edwards, Owen, Love, etc.
[ October 23, 2002, 07:39 PM: Message edited by: Scott Bushey ]
Scott, I appreciate your history lesson, but
I really am aware of church history, although
I am, admittedly, presently taking another
class in its history. And yes, I have read the
creeds, as well as some of the writings of the
supposed "church fathers," but they are
merely history; they hold no value for me.
I am aware, then, that the R. Catholic church
had basically complete control at one time
in most of the known world. While that is
clearly unfortunate and not the present day's
church's fault, what is unfortunate is the
fact that while the church has moved away
from the R. Catholic church's control, it
remains under its direct historical influence.
Just as an obvious example, tt was the R.
Catholic church that changed the mode of
what the churches call "Eucharist" or
"Communion" or the "Lord's Supper," although
they were not the first to change it but the
ones to change it most significantly. This
has caused much confusion in the churches,
much unrest, much division. If the churches
would just throw out what they consider to
be "orthodoxy," which is effected by the Rr.
Catholic church or confusion caused by it,
and read the Scriptures with open and unef-
fected eyes, they would see how, when, and
why to practice this in the way our Lord
intended.
One other obvious example (although we
could name many): baptism. Should the
candidate be sprinkled? Poured upon?
Dipped? Completely immersed? How many
times at one incident: once? Three? How
many baptisms of one candidate are legiti-
mate? Ddoes a new baptism negate the
previous one? Is it a sin to be baptized more
than once? Is the church down the street's
baptism as legitimate as yours? Should a new
member of your church be baptized over again?
Should the candidate be already saved? Does
baptism save the candidate? Should the
baptism be held at a font? In a river? In an
8 X 8 X 8 heated pool? In a mikveh? Should
the water be still? Running? Have both an inlet
and an outlet? What words should be spoken?
Does it matter? Who should speak them? Who
should officiate? How many should officiate
and/or observe? Should the candidate baptize
her/himself? This has caused much confusion
in the church, must unrest, much division. If
the churches had not carried away misunder-
standings and misinformation from the R.
Catholic church, and had consulted the Bible,
thesee would not be points of contention in
supposed "orthodoxy."
Yes, my synagogue has a creed--one. It is
Scripture from beginning to end, not the words
of some "saint" or "church father." We say it
every week.
8o)
[ October 23, 2002, 07:49 PM: Message edited by: Abiyah ]
I really am aware of church history, although
I am, admittedly, presently taking another
class in its history. And yes, I have read the
creeds, as well as some of the writings of the
supposed "church fathers," but they are
merely history; they hold no value for me.
I am aware, then, that the R. Catholic church
had basically complete control at one time
in most of the known world. While that is
clearly unfortunate and not the present day's
church's fault, what is unfortunate is the
fact that while the church has moved away
from the R. Catholic church's control, it
remains under its direct historical influence.
Just as an obvious example, tt was the R.
Catholic church that changed the mode of
what the churches call "Eucharist" or
"Communion" or the "Lord's Supper," although
they were not the first to change it but the
ones to change it most significantly. This
has caused much confusion in the churches,
much unrest, much division. If the churches
would just throw out what they consider to
be "orthodoxy," which is effected by the Rr.
Catholic church or confusion caused by it,
and read the Scriptures with open and unef-
fected eyes, they would see how, when, and
why to practice this in the way our Lord
intended.
One other obvious example (although we
could name many): baptism. Should the
candidate be sprinkled? Poured upon?
Dipped? Completely immersed? How many
times at one incident: once? Three? How
many baptisms of one candidate are legiti-
mate? Ddoes a new baptism negate the
previous one? Is it a sin to be baptized more
than once? Is the church down the street's
baptism as legitimate as yours? Should a new
member of your church be baptized over again?
Should the candidate be already saved? Does
baptism save the candidate? Should the
baptism be held at a font? In a river? In an
8 X 8 X 8 heated pool? In a mikveh? Should
the water be still? Running? Have both an inlet
and an outlet? What words should be spoken?
Does it matter? Who should speak them? Who
should officiate? How many should officiate
and/or observe? Should the candidate baptize
her/himself? This has caused much confusion
in the church, must unrest, much division. If
the churches had not carried away misunder-
standings and misinformation from the R.
Catholic church, and had consulted the Bible,
thesee would not be points of contention in
supposed "orthodoxy."
Yes, my synagogue has a creed--one. It is
Scripture from beginning to end, not the words
of some "saint" or "church father." We say it
every week.
8o)
[ October 23, 2002, 07:49 PM: Message edited by: Abiyah ]
Scott_Bushey
<img src=/scott.jpg>
Abiyah,
And I bet every Lords day you faithfully sit under "a man" as pastor. I wonder, do you find him acceptable to expound on the scriptures and if so, why is it that you find him acceptable and not the past faithful?
[ October 23, 2002, 08:21 PM: Message edited by: Scott Bushey ]
And I bet every Lords day you faithfully sit under "a man" as pastor. I wonder, do you find him acceptable to expound on the scriptures and if so, why is it that you find him acceptable and not the past faithful?
[ October 23, 2002, 08:21 PM: Message edited by: Scott Bushey ]
Um, Scott, ...
orthodox: conforming to or holding the official, accepted, or standard opinions, not heretical or independent.
The New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary
it seems we are dealing with different meanings of orthodox. I was referring to the Webster's definition meaning.
No, but it is a sin to equate their writings with Scripture. Their thoughts may be considered, but to quote them as proof of anything other than what they wrote simply doesn't fly with me. I admire all those men and more. There are other 'historical saints' who have written differently whom I consider very intelligent and learned in biblical matters as well! But none of them rank with Bible, and when we are discussing Bible, then that is what we are discussing.
Use thoughts from these men, if you like, and reference them for honesty to these men, but don't expect me, in particular, to think you have proved a point because you quote Spurgeon, Calvin, Edwards, or anyone else.
Sola Scriptura has real meaning for me.
=========
edit: CD, sorry I forgot you. The only reason I mentioned being a woman was that, being one, I find myself as sinful as any man and being thus infected do not see how a sinless nature could be bequeathed by a woman. That was just experience talking, not a theological argument at the core of it!
[ October 23, 2002, 09:37 PM: Message edited by: Helen ]
On Sundays, if this is what you mean by "Lord's
Day," I occasionally attend my husband's church.
Usually, I stay home and study my Bible--or
get on Baptist Board. 8o)
Scott, I sit in a congregation where one of my
two pastors take the pulpit each week. We know
weeks in advance what Scriptures will be read.
We stand as they are read---as many as four
chapters from what we call the Tanakh and
several verses from the Apostolic writings. As
our God's word, they mean something to us.
But all the while the pastor speaks, there is a
microphone held by someone at the back of
the congregation. If the pastor says anything
is wrong, unclear, or questionable, invariably,
someone in the congregation will put their
hand up. The microphone will be passed to
herr or him, and the pastor will listen and
answer for what he has said. Both Hebrew
and Greek are explored, as well as the most
trusted Bibles. If he was wrong, or if he can
not fully support his statement, the congrega-
tion continues to deal with the problem until it
is either taken care of or we admit that we
just do not know.
Invariably, there are a minimum of two question
and answer periods--long ones--for each
sermon. These, with the sermon, go from about
12 p.m. until 1:45 p.m., and hardly a stone goes
unturned.
This would be intimidating to some pastors and
teachers, I know, but it is necessary for me. You
see, I spent over 50 years in a church where no
one dared to challenge the pulpit, and pastors
got by with grievous error. My lasst pastor
would tell how he cheated people in his business
before becoming a pastor and laugh about it--
from the pulpit! That church went from well over
200 people to approximately 25 on a Sunday or
Wednesday night and not enough to teach the
Sunday school.
Why did I stay? Because I was literally Afraid to
go.
Finally, the pastor who told about his
cheating from the pulpit kicked me out for
refusing to take off my wedding ring anymore
when I entered his church, even though another
woman wore hers and was not challenged. He
also got rid of a fine young effective youth
pastor, because the young people asked him
about what was being said from the puilpit by
him and this young man tried to explain.
Another of the ministers there lied about me
and refused to either make amends or take it
back. The same one threatened my husband
with a harassment lawsuit because he sent him
an e-mail of humorous things said in churches,
which my husband had seen on the internet and
sent to several people.
There is more, much more, but this will suffice.
Because of what I have gone through, I MUST
have integrity and accountability in the pulpit.
That is why I love my pastors who submit to
challenges in order to maintain integrity and
honesty before our God. This is precious to me.
[ October 23, 2002, 10:02 PM: Message edited by: Abiyah ]
T
TaterTot
Guest
If the "no crying" is probably a true description of the baby Jesus, how does one KNOW that he was asleep on the hay?? Maybe his mother put cloth down to pad the feed trough. That argument was ludicrous.
And if Jesus couldnt have chosen to sin, then he was like a robot.
Yall are getting nowhere in this argument.
And if Jesus couldnt have chosen to sin, then he was like a robot.
Yall are getting nowhere in this argument.