The Leaven of Synergism

[Winman]

Jesus had to be Virgin Born to bypass being born with a sin nature like all the rest of us..

More false doctrine. Jesus was not born of a virgin to escape a sin nature. Jesus was born of a virgin as a sign.

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Jesus was born of a virgin as a sign. There is not one word about needing to be born of a virgin to escape a sin nature.

Jesus was made of the seed of a man, he was made of the seed of David.

Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

The scriptures say Jesus was made of the seed of David. It is a fact that you receive one fourth of your DNA from your grandfather on your mother's side, you receive one eighth of your DNA from your great-grandfather on your mother's side and so on. This goes right back to Adam for every man, woman, and child that has ever lived or been conceived.

The angel that spoke to Mary directly said David was Jesus's father.

Luk 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

The scriptures say Jesus took on himself the nature of the seed of Abraham, not Adam, and that he was made like unto his brethren the Jews in ALL THINGS.

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

Again, Jesus took on the nature of the seed of Abraham, not Adam, and Abraham was a sinner. Jesus was make like his brethren the Jews in ALL THINGS, that would include their "nature".

The scriptures say God cannot be tempted, but Jesus suffered being tempted. Where did he get this quality? From his mother Mary.

You really should think about what you say, it is not wise to go about teaching false doctrines.

 

[Yeshua1]

More false doctrine. Jesus was not born of a virgin to escape a sin nature. Jesus was born of a virgin as a sign.

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Jesus was born of a virgin as a sign. There is not one word about needing to be born of a virgin to escape a sin nature.

Jesus was made of the seed of a man, he was made of the seed of David.

Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

The scriptures say Jesus was made of the seed of David. It is a fact that you receive one fourth of your DNA from your grandfather on your mother's side, you receive one eighth of your DNA from your great-grandfather on your mother's side and so on. This goes right back to Adam for every man, woman, and child that has ever lived or been conceived.

The angel that spoke to Mary directly said David was Jesus's father.

Luk 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

The scriptures say Jesus took on himself the nature of the seed of Abraham, not Adam, and that he was made like unto his brethren the Jews in ALL THINGS.

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

Again, Jesus took on the nature of the seed of Abraham, not Adam, and Abraham was a sinner. Jesus was make like his brethren the Jews in ALL THINGS, that would include their "nature".

The scriptures say God cannot be tempted, but Jesus suffered being tempted. Where did he get this quality? From his mother Mary.

You really should think about what you say, it is not wise to go about teaching false doctrines.

Jesus was born into the likeness NOT sameness of human flesh, for IF he was not Virgin Born as he was, he would have been a sinner!

 

[webdog]

Jesus was born into the likeness NOT sameness of human flesh, for IF he was not Virgin Born as he was, he would have been a sinner!

Wrong. The Bible says He was human in every way we are but without sin.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

No, you misunderstand me...or I fail to communicate effectively. I "proudly" wear the label of "synergist". (but without arrogance) I have not rejected Christ, nor am I "proud" when anyone does. My "heart" is deeply saddened when someone rejects Christ and the message of the gospel. I am "proud" (meaning I am unashamed) to wear the label of "synergist" . Many here love to attach pejorative connotations to anyone who differs from their own position.

OK Thanks.... remember a few yrs ago I asked the board if we could all NOT discuss this but then again I was very young in the faith & extremely Naive.

 

[Winman]

Jesus was born into the likeness NOT sameness of human flesh, for IF he was not Virgin Born as he was, he would have been a sinner!

Baloney, I showed you Romans 1:3 that said he was "made" of the seed of David according to the flesh.

See, if you believe all men are inherit a sin nature through physical birth, then you have a problem believing Romans 1:3 for what it literally says.

Of course, if you understand that men are NOT born with a sin nature, but develop a sin nature when they willingly choose to sin, then it is not a problem to believe Jesus was born with the same nature as men.

Original Sin is false doctrine and just leads to more and more error. This is why the Catholics had to invent the Immaculate Conception, to explain how Jesus could be born of Mary without inheriting sin. So, they teach Mary was born sinless by some special grace given her.

This is why the Catholics baptize babies.

And the biggest error of all, this is where the doctrine of Total Inability originated.

So, I understand that no Calvinist will ever let go of Original Sin, without OS Calvinism would collapse like the house of cards it really is.

 

[salzer mtn]

Wrong. The Bible says He was human in every way we are but without sin.

Wrong. The Bible says He was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. If Christ was in human flesh just exactly like mankind then he would have had sin and he would not have been qualified to die for mankind because of this sin in the flesh and he would first have to die for himself which would have disqualified him. St. John 14:30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh and hath no part IN ME.

 

[Winman]

Wrong. The Bible says He was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. If Christ was in human flesh just exactly like mankind then he would have had sin and he would not have been qualified to die for mankind because of this sin in the flesh and he would first have to die for himself which would have disqualified him. St. John 14:30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh and hath no part IN ME.

But that is exactly what the scriptures say, he was made of "the same".

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

Jesus partook of THE SAME flesh and blood that we are made of. He took on the nature of the seed of Abraham, not Adam. He was made like unto his brethren the Jews in ALL THINGS.

The scriptures say to try the spirits whether they be of God. Those who deny that Jesus came in the flesh are the spirit of antichrist.

1 Jhn 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Jesus came in "the same" flesh that you and I were born with. He was "made" of the "seed" of David.

Jhn 7:42 Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?

2 Tim 2:8 Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:

 

[Herald]

Wrong. The Bible says He was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. If Christ was in human flesh just exactly like mankind then he would have had sin and he would not have been qualified to die for mankind because of this sin in the flesh and he would first have to die for himself which would have disqualified him. St. John 14:30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh and hath no part IN ME.

You have addressed an important distinction. Praise God that Jesus was not in all points human like us for the very reason yo articulated.

 

[webdog]

You have addressed an important distinction. Praise God that Jesus was not in all points human like us for the very reason yo articulated.

The reasons he listed mirror first century gnosticism. Temptation and humanity go hand in hand...distinction without a difference. Jesus was / is fully man as well as God.

 

[quantumfaith]

OK Thanks.... remember a few yrs ago I asked the board if we could all NOT discuss this but then again I was very young in the faith & extremely Naive.

Sorry, I am not understanding...you asked that we not discuss what?

 

[quantumfaith]

The reasons he listed mirror first century gnosticism. Temptation and humanity go hand in hand...distinction without a difference. Jesus was / is fully man as well as God.

I agree with you WD, it does sound like how some of the gnostics believed. The whole "hypostasis" thing is indeed a mystery for me....another one of many.

 

[Herald]

The reasons he listed mirror first century gnosticism. Temptation and humanity go hand in hand...distinction without a difference. Jesus was / is fully man as well as God.

This is not about whether Jesus is fully man. He is. The issue, at least for me, is whether Jesus is as your described Him. You said, "The Bible says He was human in every way we are but without sin." As salzer pointed out the passage actually says, "For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin" (Heb. 4:15). I think it is the way you phrased it. Jesus is fully human and fully God. But is He fully human in every way we are? Since He is without sin "every way" would not apply. He is like us in the human experience. He was tempted, hungry, thirsty, felt pain, etc.

 

[Herald]

No, you misunderstand me...or I fail to communicate effectively. I "proudly" wear the label of "synergist". (but without arrogance) I have not rejected Christ, nor am I "proud" when anyone does. My "heart" is deeply saddened when someone rejects Christ and the message of the gospel. I am "proud" (meaning I am unashamed) to wear the label of "synergist" . Many here love to attach pejorative connotations to anyone who differs from their own position.

I appreciate that you are not being arrogant in your use of the term Synergist. I actually prefer Monergist to Calvinist since, as a Baptist, I reject Calvin's stance on baptism and ecclesiology. I also read your preferred definition of the term Synergist. McKim describes it this way, "Theologically the term is used for views of salvation, particularly Semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism, where the human will cooperates with the divine will in achieving salvation."

Synergism posits that God "self-limits" Himself in the process of salvation. He "leads the horse to water" but stops there. It is up to man whether he wants to drink or not. The Monergist would respond by saying that Synergism allows man to take partial credit (boast) about his salvation. While the Synergist would deny it, the Monergist would point out that Synergism is tantamount to salvation by works (Rom. 4:1-2). It is man cooperating with God in salvation. Now, before I am accused of stating that the average Synergist on this board is guilty of a works-based salvation; let me clarify by saying that many Synergists have been gloriously saved but are in error in their understanding. I call this a "happy inconsistency". Just as you were not claiming the Synergist label arrogantly, I am not making this statement in arrogance.

 

[quantumfaith]

I appreciate that you are not being arrogant in your use of the term Synergist. I actually prefer Monergist to Calvinist since, as a Baptist, I reject Calvin's stance on baptism and ecclesiology. I also read your preferred definition of the term Synergist. McKim describes it this way, "Theologically the term is used for views of salvation, particularly Semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism, where the human will cooperates with the divine will in achieving salvation."

Synergism posits that God "self-limits" Himself in the process of salvation. He "leads the horse to water" but stops there. It is up to man whether he wants to drink or not. The Monergist would respond by saying that Synergism allows man to take partial credit (boast) about his salvation. While the Synergist would deny it, the Monergist would point out that Synergism is tantamount to salvation by works (Rom. 4:1-2). It is man cooperating with God in salvation. Now, before I am accused of stating that the average Synergist on this board is guilty of a works-based salvation; let me clarify by saying that many Synergists have been gloriously saved but are in error in their understanding. I call this a "happy inconsistency". Just as you were not claiming the Synergist label arrogantly, I am not making this statement in arrogance.

Thank YOU too for your "spirit" I know that we are in "disagreement" as to nuances, semantics etc. I do remain convinced that MAN, (you and I) do have a part in the equation of salvation. How complex that role is, I admit I do not understand. Many times the "pejorative label' of synergist is used to imply that "folks like me" think that we some how earn or merit the Grace of God. Speaking for myself (and for almost everyone else here I think) that could not be further from the truth. Blessings Herald.

 

[webdog]

This is not about whether Jesus is fully man. He is. The issue, at least for me, is whether Jesus is as your described Him. You said, "The Bible says He was human in every way we are but without sin." As salzer pointed out the passage actually says, "For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin" (Heb. 4:15). I think it is the way you phrased it. Jesus is fully human and fully God. But is He fully human in every way we are? Since He is without sin "every way" would not apply. He is like us in the human experience. He was tempted, hungry, thirsty, felt pain, etc.

Hence the reason I said every way...but...sin.

 

[salzer mtn]

What would be the point of Christ being born of a virgin if his flesh is tainted with sin like ours ? Why would it be necessary that He not be born of Josephs seed if he was to be born with sinful flesh as we are ? It has been stated Christ took the seed of Abraham but not the seed of Adam, what would be the difference seeing that Abraham was a distant son of Adam. I think the answer that people will give will be accordingly to how they view the fall of man, and if by the fall we inherited a sinful nature which some don't believe.

 

[Herald]

Hence the reason I said every way...but...sin.

WD,

I know you did, but you were quoting Heb. 4:15, and the reference to Jesus being "in all points human like us" is not in the text. Jesus was in all points tempted like us. I am not trying to nitpick. I just want all of us to be accurate when we quote a passage, referenced or not.

 

[webdog]

What would be the point of Christ being born of a virgin if his flesh is tainted with sin like ours ? Why would it be necessary that He not be born of Josephs seed if he was to be born with sinful flesh as we are ? It has been stated Christ took the seed of Abraham but not the seed of Adam, what would be the difference seeing that Abraham was a distant son of Adam. I think the answer that people will give will be accordingly to how they view the fall of man, and if by the fall we inherited a sinful nature which some don't believe.

The purpose of being born of a virgin was simple, it was merely a sign, a miraculous sign pointing to the Messiah. You need to define 'tainted with sin'. If you mean the curse, yes He was under the curse as we are. He died...what the flesh does. Having a sin nature is not the same thing as guilt as Augustine taught. I still have that nature, yet am not guilty due to the blood of Christ.

 

[webdog]

WD,

I know you did, but you were quoting Heb. 4:15, and the reference to Jesus being "in all points human like us" is not in the text. Jesus was in all points tempted like us. I am not trying to nitpick. I just want all of us to be accurate when we quote a passage, referenced or not.

I was only quoting webdog, no particular verse . It was told that's what I was quoting.

 

[salzer mtn]

The purpose of being born of a virgin was simple, it was merely a sign, a miraculous sign pointing to the Messiah. You need to define 'tainted with sin'. If you mean the curse, yes He was under the curse as we are. He died...what the flesh does. Having a sin nature is not the same thing as guilt as Augustine taught. I still have that nature, yet am not guilty due to the blood of Christ.

I don't believe Christ would have ever died a natural death. We die because death is by sin, no man could take His life, he had to lay it down freely by his own power.