Jesus will never be one of us, in one sense, he was and is fully human, but is also eternal God, so whatever He did in deeds and works while here would be coming out from both Deity/humanity.
-
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!
Was It Possible For Jesus To Sin?
- Thread starter tyndale1946
- Start date
- Status
The orthodox position of Trinity is 3 distinct persons in 1 hypostatic union. If you lose sight of “distinct” you are headed toward Oneness Theology.
In fact, several years ago I engaged in some pretty intense debate against scholarly Oneness theologians for many months and the basis for their denial of the Doctrine of Trinity often started with “God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit fully agree as One” and just hearing that make the hair on the back of my neck stand up and starts to raise a red flag..
Have you ever been associated with Oneness Pentecostals Yeshua1?
Jesus will never be one of us, in no orthodox sense!!
Not with them, but have debated with them while in AOG, as they went out of the AOG and off into their Heresy back in 1917, at an AOG camp meeting.
3ersons in One Being, each is indeed separate and distinct, but also all 3 at same time always in full agreement, and whatever the "stuff" is that makes up God, all 3 of them have that equally.
NOT 3 gods, as mormons hold, and neither jesus is all 3 at same time, as Oneness holds.
You deny that he is fully human then?
I mean EXACTLY what I said in disagreement with your poor wording, at best, that "Jesus will never be one of us" in that IN NO ORTHODOX SENSE WAS HE NOT FULLY HUMAN AS US!
Jesus will never be the same as us in the sense, as was stated, that He is also fully God...
While perfect in the Godhead Jesus Christ was also perfect in manhood, truly God and truly man.
Consubstantial with us according to the manhood; in all things like unto us.
I repeat, in no sense may one deny 100% humanity any more than deny His 100% divinity. “No sense” got it? Words and their meanings are important my friend!!
Again, it would be wise if you were in “agreement” with, …“That to deny the humanity of Christ is just as much a heresy as to deny His Divinity.” …rather than trying to put an imperfect non-human spin in an attempt to establish a sense of difference from humanity. Words and their meanings are important my friend!!
Jesus came i the likness, not sameness as us, as he bypassed the effects of the fall, and thus was sinless natured in his humanity, which none here could ever claim!
Ahh, here we go again, I thought so, another desperate attempt to support one's systematic theology with presuppositions of original sin so you must deny 100% TRUE humanity of Christ to do so. Therefore, you heretically "deny the sameness" of Jesus Christ's humanity with mankind because of your necessary belief that the effects of the fall carry with it determined sin rather than the nature that will sin, except that Jesus Christ overcame that true nature in which He existed and did not sin, IMAGINE THAT!
One with the Chalcedon Compliant orthodox view should understand, confess and preserve the following at all times:
We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with us according to the manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the virgin Mary, the mother of God, according to the manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.
To deny the humanity of Christ is just as much a heresy as to deny His Divinity.
(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.
(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;
(Heb 2:15) And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
(Heb 2:16) For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
(Heb 2:17) 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.
(Heb 2:18) For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.
(1Ti 2:5) For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
(2Jn 1:7) For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
(Luk 2:52) And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.
(Joh 1:1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. -> (Joh 1:14) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Nicene Creed:
We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven, by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary and became truly human. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered, died and was buried. On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]. Who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified. Who has spoken through the prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
(Mat 26:37) And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful and very heavy.
(Mat 26:38) Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me.
(Mat 26:39) And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
Last edited:
And nary a word of this jives with your notion that the Christ had a fallen human nature.
Here is my definition of fallen nature previously posted in this thread;
"HOS, Just to clarify, because you know Agedman has shown he is going to continue to make a play on “fallen nature” must = sin-filled nature according to his determinist presuppositions. When I’ve used the term “fallen nature” I’ve meant it to be in the nature that man faces who has gained the human attributes which have knowledge of good and evil, to have sense, reason and intellect, to know they were naked, that were returned to the ground it came from - now cursed, and would eat by the sweat of their face or go hungry, that would be truly tempted by Satan for destruction, IOWs, the nature which was subject to the judgment and wrath of God while having everything going against them in the full true human experience and were doomed to fail and fall short of a perfect sinless life and would die in the flesh in sin with God as their Judge. That “fallen nature”…the very nature that Jesus Christ came to be in and overcame not having sinned because he was freely led being filled with the Spirit rather than His own and necessarily true human will, which was truly and absolutely vulnerable to fail, but for His flawless obedience to the will of the Father wherein He defeated death and in love provided the gift of grace through faith for ALL mankind…
I’m pretty sure you knew where I was coming from as I told Agedman like a dozen times that my position on human “fallen nature” did not attribute sin to Jesus Christ’ necessary truly human nature which he is unfortunately trying to avoid the fullness of and apparently he only wishes to play on the semantic ambiguity fallacy with that term according to his presuppositions of determined sin without recognizing his opponent’s position in order to build his strawman argument to fallaciously defend his position."
...which also nips the strawman tactics in the bud.
So why don't you tell me which part of Chalcedon, Nicene, scripture or my definitions above doesn't "jive" and to what? Or perhaps you are in the same presupposition boat on defining "fallen nature" which needs to deny the true full humanity of Jesus Christ because it doesn't "jive" on the sole basis that it throws a "major monkey wrench" into your view of total human inability which is necessary to support your deterministic systematic views? Maybe you would like to document otherwise that Jesus Christ was not truly and fully human and that He did not have the traits I defined? BTW you might want to note that every one of those traits above became part of humanity after the fall. One scripture will do.
Last edited:
Here is my definition of fallen nature previously posted in this thread;
"HOS, Just to clarify, because you know Agedman has shown he is going to continue to make a play on “fallen nature” must = sin-filled nature according to his determinist presuppositions. When I’ve used the term “fallen nature” I’ve meant it to be in the nature that man faces who has gained the human attributes which have knowledge of good and evil, to have sense, reason and intellect, to know they were naked, that were returned to the ground it came from - now cursed, and would eat by the sweat of their face or go hungry, that would be truly tempted by Satan for destruction, IOWs, the nature which was subject to the judgment and wrath of God while having everything going against them in the full true human experience and were doomed to fail and fall short of a perfect sinless life and would die in the flesh in sin with God as their Judge. That “fallen nature”…the very nature that Jesus Christ came to be in and overcame not having sinned because he was freely led being filled with the Spirit rather than His own and necessarily true human will, which was truly and absolutely vulnerable to fail, but for His flawless obedience to the will of the Father wherein He defeated death and in love provided the gift of grace through faith for ALL mankind…
I’m pretty sure you knew where I was coming from as I told Agedman like a dozen times that my position on human “fallen nature” did not attribute sin to Jesus Christ’ necessary truly human nature which he is unfortunately trying to avoid the fullness of and apparently he only wishes to play on the semantic ambiguity fallacy with that term according to his presuppositions of determined sin without recognizing his opponent’s position in order to build his strawman argument to fallaciously defend his position."
...which also nips the strawman tactics in the bud.
And nothing in this post adds up to anything. What you're espousing is that the Christ has the same exact fallen nature that Adam had post-fall, and that is not so. Original Sin avers that all mankind sinned in Adam when Adam sinned. When he fell, we everyone fell, being in Adam. Adam represented all mankind, and what he did was transferred to them. The Christ represents His sheep and what He did is then transferred to them. The Christ, having no earthly father, did not possess this fallen nature you and I had at birth.
This is not a Cal v. Arm thing, either. My pastor is not a Calvinist whatsoever, and he states we're born citizens of hell.
Maybe you should get your pastor on here since you don't seem able to back up your presuppositions or refute my definition which is in agreement with orthodox views and scripture with anything but repeating your unproven belief, that if Jesus Christ was truly and fully born as man that He arrived sin-filled.
Last edited:
Did the first Adam represent the last Adam or vice versa?
Did Jesus have a belly button or not?
Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 8:05 PM Pacific.
This thread will be closed sometime after 8:05 PM Pacific.
Wow. That was the fastest surrender I ever saw. Asked a very important question and the answer is a meaningless comeback.
- Status