Hi and what is your answer to 1 John 3:9 , Whosoever is BORN OF God doth NOT COMMIT SIN !!
DAN P
ECT God does NOT grant eternal life
- Thread starter Cross Reference
- Start date
Hi and what is your answer to 1 John 3:9 , Whosoever is BORN OF God doth NOT COMMIT SIN !!
DAN P
Yes, I know that. I also know that Jesus became sin for us, thus willingly and willfully separating Himself from the Father.
Earlier you said that spiritual death is due to sin. So both separation from God and spiritual death are due to sin.
Did you make the two equivalent on purpose or by accident?
I never said it did. It is you who are suggesting that a physical death can atone for a spiritual one (lots of them actually).
All I am saying is that your spirit is you. You do not ever cease to exist. If you reside in your physical body then you are alive physically. If your relationship with God is not severed by sin then you are alive spiritually. You can be either one or both.
Not so. He was separated from God because of sin, just not His own sin. He became sin for us. The Bible states that explicitly.
While on the cross, He was sin itself.
Shall I quote Webster's dictionary for a definition of the word "forsake"?
What is it if not a separation?
And I understand that this can get rather confusing when you consider the Trinity and that God is One, but all that only serves to muddy the water. The facts are simple. We know that it is God the Son who died, not God the Father and not God the Holy Spirit. One point of clarification that might be helpful is to remember that all three persons of the Trinity are Spirits and have eternally existed as such. When I talk about Jesus' separation from the Father being spiritual death, I am not suggesting the God the Holy Spirit died or was separated from the Father but that only God the Son suffered this separation from the rest of the Trinity on our behalf.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Great post -
TweetyBird
New member
From a human standpoint, I understand how you are arriving at your conclusion. I believe there is more to it, hidden in a mystery and I don't believe we can define it to the point of complete comprehension. I do not believe Jesus was separated spiritually from His Father. He bore our sin in order to satisfy the demands of atonement, but calling it "spiritual separation" brings a humanism to Christ that I do not believe exists.
My apologies for being contentious thus far. I tend to get cantankerous at my age and because of my theological travels :help:
Agreed.
I think that from other discussions I have had over the years, that this phrase has been interpreted to mean something unintended by the writer. Just my opinion.
That is "pushing the envelope" in my opinion. I do not believe that was the intent of the writer's position.
The separation the Jesus experienced is not the same thing as a unregenerate unbeliever who is spiritually dead in their sin, without knowledge of God, in my opinion.
Yes, I understand what you are trying to explain, I just disagree with it. Jesus died physically, not spiritually. His "spirituality" is not the same as mankind. He is a unique one-of-a-kind being from the bosom of the Father. Quite honestly, my fear is that we subject Jesus to an unintended lesser position. He was not "just a man". I am unwilling to pursue the very fine edge that this discussion is traveling. I withdraw.
Well, I certainly do not disagree with this. There is almost certainly boat loads of stuff about the dynamics of the whole salvation process that we have no idea about.
That is an interesting observation, although I can't say that I understand what you mean. In what way do you see it introducing humanism into it? Do you mean that it makes Jesus too human or are you intentionally referencing "humanism"?
You don't get any more cantankerous that I do. I have a very thick skin (usually) so don't give it another thought. :up:
I really have believed this whole time that we are way more in agreement on this than not.
I cannot imagine what else it could mean. Paul said that Christ became sin, that He became a curse, etc. The teaching is that Christ voluntarily became what we are and died the death we deserve in every respect.
I agree that it requires a literal understanding of the New Testament to hold my position.
Any suggestions as to what else it could possibly mean?
What, in your opinion, does it mean to be spiritually dead?
Genesis 1:26a Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;...
I don't disagree entirely, of course, but He cannot have been so different or else He'd not be a just sacrifice. It is essential that Jesus be entirely Human.
Oh man! Don't withdraw! It's just now making progress!
No one has suggested that Jesus was just a man. On the contrary! If He was just a man then, at best, He could have died for one other man, not all of mankind. It is precisely the fact that He was God incarnate that makes His death sufficient to pay the debt of all of the whole of mankind. Indeed, His death is more than sufficient, it is of infinite, inexhaustible value because it was God Himself doing the dying.
Resting in Him,
Clete
TweetyBird
New member
In context, John was referring to loving one's brother/each other. When you love, you do not commit sin. When you hate, you are not of God, and therefore are committing sin. The whole book is actually about this topic.
TweetyBird
New member
Especially about Christ's part in it, from God's perspective. He told us what we need to know and believe about Christ, but the intricacies of His plan are to far above human comprehension.
Humanism, from the perspective of placing more importance on His humanity, than His Divinity. He is the Fullness of the Godhead bodily. What happened on the cross then fits a different parameter in terms of trying to define what Jesus experienced.
I think I was frustrating you, however; and hopefully I can at least be more civil :baby:
Quite possibly, but I think we are still going to see some of it differently.
That He died for us in every respect, we agree on.
That He became sin for us, I have trouble with. I read: God made Him (to be) sin for us. The greek word is "poieo" which means more like to appoint. In other words Jesus was not turned into a sinner, which is what I think of when I read, "He became sin".
If Jesus was not a regenerate man, but God manifest in the flesh who could not sin - then "spiritual death", which is defined as separation from God because of the propensity to sin and actually in sinful rebellion to God, aka unregenerate, then how could Jesus be "spiritually dead"?
I do not believe that means our bodily form, but we are given emotions, feelings, etc.
I believe it was because He was sinless, the perfect Lamb of God, but in the likeness of man in body - experiencing life in a human form, leaving His glory behind. But not His holiness and Godliness.
My fault for getting worked up. Peace and Calm ...... :cloud9:
Yes, we can agree on everything, up until the point of saying that God died. It just does not sound right - does it to you?
I would say that, in regards to the issue of salvation, both the divinity and the humanity of Jesus are of equal importance.
God the Son became a human being (and He remains one to this day, by the way). This does not diminish His divinity thus we know that being human is not inherently a bad thing nor is being a man in any way incompatible with being God. There is no need to presume any sort of demotion from divinity on Christ's part in order to become fully human. He set aside some of His divine attributes but did not stop being the Creator (John 1).
He had to be fully human in order to qualify as a sacrifice for humans and He had to be God for His life to be of sufficient value to pay for the whole human race. Both issues are critical.
Well no, I don't think we do. You are not willing to accept that Jesus died spiritually.
No one that is sane believes the Jesus was made a sinner. It simply means that our sin was imputed to Christ and that Christ took the punishment for it. This is why God is able to NOT impute our sins to us (Romans 4:5-6) and remain just.
This term "regenerate" keeps coming up. If it is the Calvinistic notion of "regenerate man" that you are referring to, do you yourself a favor and just forget about it. It isn't biblical and has nothing to do with anything.
Additionally, it is not our "propensity to sin" that separates us from God. We die (spiritually) when we sin, not before. (Romans 7:9) The doctrine of original sin is false.
I think you missed my point.
Our emotions, feelings, thoughts, personality, etc. comes from who we are. We are spirits housed in a physical body. It is in the spiritual sense in which we are made in God's image and yet you think that Jesus' physical death was all that was needed to atone for our spiritual condition. Part of your objection to what I've been saying in this thread has to do with the feeling that I'm somehow making God to much in our image and that His "spirituality" is not the same as mankinds. My point is that it isn't me that's making God in my image, it's me that's been made in His. There's no question that we are different than God but there is also no question that we aren't completely dissimilar. If we were, God could not have become man and remained God.
I don't see how believing that God the Son suffered separation from the Father negates any of this.
I hear it as the gospel itself!
God died for your sin. The bible doesn't teach that God's physical body died for your sin, it teaches the He died for your sin. And all you have to understand is that death does not mean that one ceases to exist for the statement to make perfect sense and to add a depth to the gospel message that perhaps you never thought possible. After all, mere physical death is not the penalty for sin, separation from God is.
Thank you for not bowing out, by the way! This is one of the most substantive discussions I've had on TOL in some time.
Resting in Him,
Clete
TweetyBird
New member
I believe that Jesus was a unique Being. From His conception to His ascension, He was the Godhead fully. To me that means Jesus was not just a “normal”human being.
We are probably not going to see eye to eye on this. When He resurrected, His body was no longer human. He walked through doors. He appeared out of “no where”. That is not a flesh body. But He could appear as a man, no problem. Paul said that we will have incorruptible bodies, a spiritual body. I think that pretty much describes Jesus as He is.
It was never my purpose to diminish His Divinity. Do you know where the term, “fully human” comes from”? I am familiar with it, I just don’t understand it’s usage in this capacity.
Hmmmm … what I have read in the NT is that Jesus was without sin, predestined by God to be the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world. Jesus was testified to by His Father, the Holy Spirit, and the Word. I always believed He came as a human because that was God’s plan and in that body, the likeness of man, He suffered and died for our sins. But I do not see that He had to be “fully man” to “qualify as the sacrifice”. Maybe I am just missing those passages?
Correct, because Jesus was not a sinful human being, born in sin, with a propensity to sin. He was found to be the perfect sinless Lamb of God before the foundation of the world. To die spiritually means someone is not regenerated – not born again of Spirit and Water. Jesus is already all that, so I just cannot wrap my mind around it a spiritually dead Jesus.
You would probably be surprised at how many people believe Jesus became a sinner, took on the nature of satan and went to hell to atone for sin, and was born again from the dead. I was once part of all that, so that is probably why I have an issue with the wording “became sin “. In fact, I just ran across it the other day again at another forum. It is rather a large movement that teaches this – perhaps you have heard of the Pentecostal fringe called Word of Faith movement? It has millions of followers.
I was using regenerate in the context of Titus 3.
Titus 3:5
not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
As Adam’s off spring, we are born in sin, to sin, as a sinner. So for me, that is how I define the word “propensity”. Paul said all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. David said he was conceived in sin. Job told us that all are born unclean and sinful. That is where I get the concept from.
Although I agree with you on most of what you say there, I disagree that Jesus is spiritually the same as we are. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit, so that makes Him a different kind of human. And Spiritually, He was perfection, the Holy Spirit without measure. He did not have to choose between right and wrong. He saw the hearts of all men even during His ministry on earth. He was a peculiar and awesome Person unlike human beings these ways.
As far as God’s image, I believe it has to do with His characteristics, not the form He made Adam in.
Ok . I just do not agree that He was separated from God. The Holy Spirit was “in” Him. The very Spirit of God.
So you really believe that the Lord God Almighty Himself died on the cross? Who then did Jesus commend His Spirit to?
I appreciate the discussion as well.
This is a long one! Don't feel obligated to respond to it all.
This is literally tantamount to denying the gospel itself.
How can you say on the one hand that Jesus' death had to do with his physical body but that His resurrection did not?
And when we receive our glorified bodies, we won't stop being human either. All it takes to be a human being is having been born of a woman who was a pure-blooded descendant of Adam.
God is not, nor is He capable of being arbitrary. God could not just do any old thing and call it good. It had to be actually good. God did not do what was done at Calvary because He simply chose to do it but because He wanted to save mankind and what was done at Calvary was what was necessary to accomplish that goal. He could not have simply snapped the holy finger and had the sound of it atone for mankind's sin. He had to die - He was the One who had to do it. Not an angel, not some special creation designed for the task nor anything nor anyone else. God Himself had to be the one. (Revelation 5)
Calvinism is false from top to bottom. Jesus became sin. There is no debate about that unless you want to debate the apostle Paul himself who received his doctrine by direct divine revelation from the risen Jesus Christ Himself. Jesus was forsaken by the Father. This also cannot be debated because Jesus Himself said it while on the cross. The text is not wrong. Calvinism is. Calvinism worships a different god, prays to the wrong Jesus and preaches a gospel that is altogether foreign from the pages of scripture. We are no longer born in sin because just as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. (Romans 5:18)
Original Sin is a false doctrine and Total Depravity even more so.
You DO NOT die spiritually until YOU sin. This also cannot be debated because Paul states this EXPLICITLY....
Do you suppose that Paul was lying when he claimed to have been alive once?
When Jesus died He went to the same place that every other righteous man before Him went to. Jesus refers to it twice, once calling it Abraham's Bossom and the other "Paradise". It was not Heaven because their sin had not yet been atoned for and so they could not be in the presence of the Father but it certainly was not the lair of Satan or whatever other nonsense that people get from Donte's Inferno or wherever they get this silliness from.
Here's the test, are you regenerate before or after you believe?
If you have to think for more than 1/10 of a second about the answer to that question then Calvinism is the correct diagnosis.
Is God unjust?
That is really the only question you need to answer to understand that this original sin idea is as false as it can possibly be. God does not hold people responsible for the sin of Adam! He holds Adam responsible for his own sin and He holds you responsible for yours. There is a whole chapter of the bible devoted to this exact topic, which I'm pretty sure I already quoted here but in case that was a different thread, let me quote it for you here. Please read it and then tell me how this idea can survive...
That is one of my very favorite passages of scripture! It puts the lie to so many false doctrines including the whole of Calvinism. Not one of the TULIP doctrine can survive even one single reading of that one chapter of the bible.
I mean, God, before the incarnation, did not have a physical body but He has one now! That is, God the Son has one. The form, therefore, cannot be fundamentally antithetical to God. And even before God had a physical hand, the concept of touch was not foreign to God's mind. Before He had an arm, the concept of reach was not incomprehensible to God.
I am particular drawn to II a. "to deposit" because of what was being done at the cross. Jesus was paying a debt, He was making a deposit to be credited to our account. Regardless, the statement does not state as explicitly as you would like it to that Jesus went straight to the Father upon His death. And, in fact, we know that He did not do so by His own testimony when He did explicitly state the He had not yet ascended to the Father some three days after the events of Luke 23.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Has anyone suggested otherwise?
Then He did not rise from the dead and his body is still in that grave.
This is literally tantamount to denying the gospel itself.
How can you say on the one hand that Jesus' death had to do with his physical body but that His resurrection did not?
Jesus still had the scars from the crucifixion. What possible motive could you have for denying that He rose as the same man He was when He died. What conceivable doctrine is in jeopardy unless you deny this simplest of Christian beliefs? I do not get it.
And when we receive our glorified bodies, we won't stop being human either. All it takes to be a human being is having been born of a woman who was a pure-blooded descendant of Adam.
I wasn't suggesting that is was. I was defended against what I thought was your perception that I was doing so.
So far as I know it is not a formal doctrinal term with a special meaning. My use of it was to communicate what it intuitively would mean based on just the words themselves. That meaning being that we was and is as human as it is possible to be.
More Calvinism peaking through here.
God is not, nor is He capable of being arbitrary. God could not just do any old thing and call it good. It had to be actually good. God did not do what was done at Calvary because He simply chose to do it but because He wanted to save mankind and what was done at Calvary was what was necessary to accomplish that goal. He could not have simply snapped the holy finger and had the sound of it atone for mankind's sin. He had to die - He was the One who had to do it. Not an angel, not some special creation designed for the task nor anything nor anyone else. God Himself had to be the one. (Revelation 5)
Your Calvinism is what's blinding you.
Calvinism is false from top to bottom. Jesus became sin. There is no debate about that unless you want to debate the apostle Paul himself who received his doctrine by direct divine revelation from the risen Jesus Christ Himself. Jesus was forsaken by the Father. This also cannot be debated because Jesus Himself said it while on the cross. The text is not wrong. Calvinism is. Calvinism worships a different god, prays to the wrong Jesus and preaches a gospel that is altogether foreign from the pages of scripture. We are no longer born in sin because just as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. (Romans 5:18)
Original Sin is a false doctrine and Total Depravity even more so.
You DO NOT die spiritually until YOU sin. This also cannot be debated because Paul states this EXPLICITLY....
Romans 7:9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died.
Do you suppose that Paul was lying when he claimed to have been alive once?
No sane person believes such horse manure. Catholic doctrine is perhaps the only thing that passes for Christianity that is even more false than Calvinism.
When Jesus died He went to the same place that every other righteous man before Him went to. Jesus refers to it twice, once calling it Abraham's Bossom and the other "Paradise". It was not Heaven because their sin had not yet been atoned for and so they could not be in the presence of the Father but it certainly was not the lair of Satan or whatever other nonsense that people get from Donte's Inferno or wherever they get this silliness from.
Benny Hinn, one of their leaders (at one time) murdered my Father-In-Law by telling him he was healed of cancer. They are all - ALL - con artists and liars (not the pew sitters - they're the marks).
Not unless you were (perhaps unintentionally) reading Calvinistic doctrine into that text, you weren't.
Here's the test, are you regenerate before or after you believe?
If you have to think for more than 1/10 of a second about the answer to that question then Calvinism is the correct diagnosis.
Not so! I have already shown you that Paul teaches us explicitly that we are alive once but die when we sin. Why do you ignore such an explicitly clear passage of scripture?
Our "flesh" is how Paul described this bent we have toward sin and so long as we have this flesh (i.e. until such time as our flesh is redeemed) we will have to wrestle with it. (Romans 7 - the whole chapter)
We have all fallen but why focus on David and Job who both lived prior to the Cross?
Is God unjust?
That is really the only question you need to answer to understand that this original sin idea is as false as it can possibly be. God does not hold people responsible for the sin of Adam! He holds Adam responsible for his own sin and He holds you responsible for yours. There is a whole chapter of the bible devoted to this exact topic, which I'm pretty sure I already quoted here but in case that was a different thread, let me quote it for you here. Please read it and then tell me how this idea can survive...
Ezekiel 18:18 The word of the Lord came to me again, saying, 2 “What do you mean when you use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying:
‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes,
And the children’s teeth are set on edge’?
3 “As I live,” says the Lord God, “you shall no longer use this proverb in Israel.
4 “Behold, all souls are Mine;
The soul of the father
As well as the soul of the son is Mine;
The soul who sins shall die.
5 But if a man is just
And does what is lawful and right;
6 If he has not eaten on the mountains,
Nor lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel,
Nor defiled his neighbor’s wife,
Nor approached a woman during her impurity;
7 If he has not oppressed anyone,
But has restored to the debtor his pledge;
Has robbed no one by violence,
But has given his bread to the hungry
And covered the naked with clothing;
8 If he has not exacted usury
Nor taken any increase,
But has withdrawn his hand from iniquity
And executed true judgment between man and man;
9 If he has walked in My statutes
And kept My judgments faithfully—
He is just;
He shall surely live!”
Says the Lord God.
10 “If he begets a son who is a robber
Or a shedder of blood,
Who does any of these things
11 And does none of those duties,
But has eaten on the mountains
Or defiled his neighbor’s wife;
12 If he has oppressed the poor and needy,
Robbed by violence,
Not restored the pledge,
Lifted his eyes to the idols,
Or committed abomination;
13 If he has exacted usury
Or taken increase—
Shall he then live?
He shall not live!
If he has done any of these abominations,
He shall surely die;
His blood shall be upon him.
14 “If, however, he begets a son
Who sees all the sins which his father has done,
And considers but does not do likewise;
15 Who has not eaten on the mountains,
Nor lifted his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel,
Nor defiled his neighbor’s wife;
16 Has not oppressed anyone,
Nor withheld a pledge,
Nor robbed by violence,
But has given his bread to the hungry
And covered the naked with clothing;
17 Who has withdrawn his hand from the poor[a]
And not received usury or increase,
But has executed My judgments
And walked in My statutes—
He shall not die for the iniquity of his father;
He shall surely live!
18 “As for his father,
Because he cruelly oppressed,
Robbed his brother by violence,
And did what is not good among his people,
Behold, he shall die for his iniquity.
Turn and Live
19 “Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the guilt of the father?’ Because the son has done what is lawful and right, and has kept all My statutes and observed them, he shall surely live. 20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.
21 “But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 22 None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness which he has done, he shall live. 23 Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord God, “and not that he should turn from his ways and live?
24 “But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live? All the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die.
25 “Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ Hear now, O house of Israel, is it not My way which is fair, and your ways which are not fair? 26 When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity, and dies in it, it is because of the iniquity which he has done that he dies. 27 Again, when a wicked man turns away from the wickedness which he committed, and does what is lawful and right, he preserves himself alive. 28 Because he considers and turns away from all the transgressions which he committed, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 29 Yet the house of Israel says, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ O house of Israel, is it not My ways which are fair, and your ways which are not fair?
30 “Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways,” says the Lord God. “Repent, and turn from all your transgressions, so that iniquity will not be your ruin. 31 Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel? 32 For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies,” says the Lord God. “Therefore turn and live!”
‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes,
And the children’s teeth are set on edge’?
3 “As I live,” says the Lord God, “you shall no longer use this proverb in Israel.
4 “Behold, all souls are Mine;
The soul of the father
As well as the soul of the son is Mine;
The soul who sins shall die.
5 But if a man is just
And does what is lawful and right;
6 If he has not eaten on the mountains,
Nor lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel,
Nor defiled his neighbor’s wife,
Nor approached a woman during her impurity;
7 If he has not oppressed anyone,
But has restored to the debtor his pledge;
Has robbed no one by violence,
But has given his bread to the hungry
And covered the naked with clothing;
8 If he has not exacted usury
Nor taken any increase,
But has withdrawn his hand from iniquity
And executed true judgment between man and man;
9 If he has walked in My statutes
And kept My judgments faithfully—
He is just;
He shall surely live!”
Says the Lord God.
10 “If he begets a son who is a robber
Or a shedder of blood,
Who does any of these things
11 And does none of those duties,
But has eaten on the mountains
Or defiled his neighbor’s wife;
12 If he has oppressed the poor and needy,
Robbed by violence,
Not restored the pledge,
Lifted his eyes to the idols,
Or committed abomination;
13 If he has exacted usury
Or taken increase—
Shall he then live?
He shall not live!
If he has done any of these abominations,
He shall surely die;
His blood shall be upon him.
14 “If, however, he begets a son
Who sees all the sins which his father has done,
And considers but does not do likewise;
15 Who has not eaten on the mountains,
Nor lifted his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel,
Nor defiled his neighbor’s wife;
16 Has not oppressed anyone,
Nor withheld a pledge,
Nor robbed by violence,
But has given his bread to the hungry
And covered the naked with clothing;
17 Who has withdrawn his hand from the poor[a]
And not received usury or increase,
But has executed My judgments
And walked in My statutes—
He shall not die for the iniquity of his father;
He shall surely live!
18 “As for his father,
Because he cruelly oppressed,
Robbed his brother by violence,
And did what is not good among his people,
Behold, he shall die for his iniquity.
Turn and Live
19 “Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the guilt of the father?’ Because the son has done what is lawful and right, and has kept all My statutes and observed them, he shall surely live. 20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.
21 “But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 22 None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness which he has done, he shall live. 23 Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord God, “and not that he should turn from his ways and live?
24 “But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live? All the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die.
25 “Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ Hear now, O house of Israel, is it not My way which is fair, and your ways which are not fair? 26 When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity, and dies in it, it is because of the iniquity which he has done that he dies. 27 Again, when a wicked man turns away from the wickedness which he committed, and does what is lawful and right, he preserves himself alive. 28 Because he considers and turns away from all the transgressions which he committed, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 29 Yet the house of Israel says, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ O house of Israel, is it not My ways which are fair, and your ways which are not fair?
30 “Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways,” says the Lord God. “Repent, and turn from all your transgressions, so that iniquity will not be your ruin. 31 Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel? 32 For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies,” says the Lord God. “Therefore turn and live!”
That is one of my very favorite passages of scripture! It puts the lie to so many false doctrines including the whole of Calvinism. Not one of the TULIP doctrine can survive even one single reading of that one chapter of the bible.
You're straining at gnats here. I already said the equivalent of this. Just as your spirit is you, Jesus' Spirit is who He is. Everything else about the Jesus who was born of a woman and died on the cross was entirely human.
And you base that on what?
I mean, God, before the incarnation, did not have a physical body but He has one now! That is, God the Son has one. The form, therefore, cannot be fundamentally antithetical to God. And even before God had a physical hand, the concept of touch was not foreign to God's mind. Before He had an arm, the concept of reach was not incomprehensible to God.
Numbers 11:23 And the Lord said to Moses, “Has the Lord’s arm been shortened? Now you shall see whether what I say will happen to you or not."
I didn't say He was separated from the Holy Spirit but from the Father.
Wrong question. The text flatly states that He commended it to the Father. The question is what does that mean? I submit that it doesn't mean what you are taking it to mean. The word in the original language is "paratithēmi" (Strong's G3908). Here's Strong's definition...
I. to place beside or near or set before
a. food, i.e. food placed on a table
b. to set before (one) in teaching
c. to set forth (from one's self), to explain
II. to place down (from one's self or for one's self) with any one
a. to deposit
b. to intrust, commit to one's charge
a. food, i.e. food placed on a table
b. to set before (one) in teaching
c. to set forth (from one's self), to explain
II. to place down (from one's self or for one's self) with any one
a. to deposit
b. to intrust, commit to one's charge
I am particular drawn to II a. "to deposit" because of what was being done at the cross. Jesus was paying a debt, He was making a deposit to be credited to our account. Regardless, the statement does not state as explicitly as you would like it to that Jesus went straight to the Father upon His death. And, in fact, we know that He did not do so by His own testimony when He did explicitly state the He had not yet ascended to the Father some three days after the events of Luke 23.
Resting in Him,
Clete
The actual sense, Clete, is The Indwelling Sin Nature (that is dormant or resides, or dwells within my flesh) revived, and I found I could not do what I would - I found myself unable to serve God in my own strength...because the Law is weak through the flesh (sets off the flesh; sets off opposition).
I found myself dead spiritually; powerless to serve in my own strength.
TweetyBird
New member
I will pick through it
Our views on His humanity differ, as we both have expressed.
Ok.
I don’t believe so.
Because there is more to His resurrection than that.
1 Cor 15
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 43 it is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: 44 it is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.
There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. 48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. 49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
He went through doors. He appeared suddenly. That is not a flesh body. Of course the scars remained. But it was not a normal earthly human body.
Per Paul, our bodies are made into the incorruptible, into spiritual bodies – 1 Cor 15.
It seems to be redundant, to me. Jesus was born of Mary, as a baby human being. Why would one have to defend that by adding a term not found in Scripture?
Not Calvinism, NT wording. God foreordained that Jesus would be the Messiah. Do you like that word better? Even though, “predestined” is found in Scripture
Romans 8:29
For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
All I had stated is that I did not like the use of “fully human” because it is not found in Scripture.
I do not care what Calvinism teaches. But that is not what the Scripture states. It says He was made sin for us – appointed to bare our sins.
Why do you keep going back to Calvin. I read the Scriptures.
1 Cor 15
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
We were born spiritually dead – in sin. In sin we were conceived. This is why Jesus said one must be born again of Spirit and Water.
That verse is taken out of context.
Rom 7
5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. 6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. 7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. 8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. 9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. 10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. 11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. 12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
If one does not have Christ, they are dead in their sin. All have fallen short of the glory of God. There is none that is righteous, no not one. Seems like simple theology to me.
I did not say I agreed with WoF. I agree that they are all con-artists. I am dreadfully sorry to hear about your Father –in-law. It is such a heart rending thing to through. It is despicable what he has done to countless 1000s.
I do not care about Calvinsim. I do not know why you keep going to back to it; I read the Biblical text. Titus appears straight forward to me. Regeneration is being born again as found in John 3. Unless you are MAD and that book is not for me, as a Gentile. Then you will have to just ignore me on this one.
G3824
παλιγγενεσία
paliggenesia
pal-ing-ghen-es-ee'-ah
From G3825 and G1078; (spiritual) rebirth (the state or the act), that is, (figuratively) spiritual renovation; specifically Messianic restoration: - regeneration
That is OT, is it not? Yet when I referred to Job, you said it did not count because it was OT.
I do not care about Calvinism or TULIP. You seem to be fixated on it. I am happy that is one of your favorite passages. I see that it’s ok for you to use the OT to prove your point, but I am in error for doing so myself.
Jesus bore the sins of all mankind, past, present and future, shedding His blood for atonement. It was not just “entirely human” because we were reconciled to God and all who have been born and believe in Him are as well. That is spiritual.
God is a spirit. He does not have a body like a man. The attributes described of God’s voice, arm, eyes etc are for understanding His strength and power and that He has spoken and sees. Phil 2 states that Jesus came to earth in the likeness of man, not God.
More OT texts. Interesting.
I assume then, that you do not believe in the triune God, or as is referred to more commonly as the Trinity?
Ok, He entrusted, deposited His Spirit with/to the Father. I can go with that definition, no prob. It does not change what I stated.
I don’t think deposit and the cross has anything to do with commending His Spirit to the Father. He was giving up His life – dying, at it were. His death was imminent, so He sent His Spirit to the Father. In other words, He was choosing to die at that moment.
TweetyBird,
You are not speaking the same language that I am speaking.
I cannot understand how you can misinterpret the things I say to such a degree unless it is intentional, which I prefer to think is not the case.
You say you disagree with something I've said and then affirm the same belief or you do the reverse.
You have completely and totally missed something and somehow think that I've prohibited you from using the Old Testament to formulate doctrine when I have done nothing of the sort. The point I was making when I brought that up was that Paul's epistles exist for a reason and that the condition people were in (in regards to Adam's sin) is not the same as it is now - post Calvary. A theological point we could not know apart from Paul's teaching. Teaching, by the way, that you ignore. And I have no doubt at all that at least that much is intentional. How is it possible to claim that a verse is out of context immediate prior to quoting the context itself which explicitly says the exact same thing that I've been saying? It is truly beyond my comprehension. It cannot be anything but blatant rationalization.
Incidentally, Titus was written by Paul and so Mid-Acts Dispensationalism would apply the teachings therein directly to today's believer. And yes, whether you are doing it on purpose or not, you're reading the bible with Calvinist colored glasses on.
I'm going to let this conversation go at this point because I'm back to no longer being able to tell whether you are being serious or just pulling my chain to see if you can anger me. If you are doing that then I am wasting my time. If you are not doing that, then I am still wasting my time. I'll let it go while I can still believe that it is very possibly the latter.
Resting in Him,
Clete
You are not speaking the same language that I am speaking.
I cannot understand how you can misinterpret the things I say to such a degree unless it is intentional, which I prefer to think is not the case.
You say you disagree with something I've said and then affirm the same belief or you do the reverse.
You have completely and totally missed something and somehow think that I've prohibited you from using the Old Testament to formulate doctrine when I have done nothing of the sort. The point I was making when I brought that up was that Paul's epistles exist for a reason and that the condition people were in (in regards to Adam's sin) is not the same as it is now - post Calvary. A theological point we could not know apart from Paul's teaching. Teaching, by the way, that you ignore. And I have no doubt at all that at least that much is intentional. How is it possible to claim that a verse is out of context immediate prior to quoting the context itself which explicitly says the exact same thing that I've been saying? It is truly beyond my comprehension. It cannot be anything but blatant rationalization.
Incidentally, Titus was written by Paul and so Mid-Acts Dispensationalism would apply the teachings therein directly to today's believer. And yes, whether you are doing it on purpose or not, you're reading the bible with Calvinist colored glasses on.
I'm going to let this conversation go at this point because I'm back to no longer being able to tell whether you are being serious or just pulling my chain to see if you can anger me. If you are doing that then I am wasting my time. If you are not doing that, then I am still wasting my time. I'll let it go while I can still believe that it is very possibly the latter.
Resting in Him,
Clete
TweetyBird
New member
I am not a Calvinist. I am not pulling your leg. I believe the Scriptures as written. I do not learn from others, but depend on the text itself, because God will show us His truth if we have a love for His truth. You did in fact tell me that I could not use the quote from David and Job because they were OT and could not be applied in a discussion about being born with a sin nature and then you posted a number of verses to prove an opposite point of view from the OT. So I am the bad guy now because I called you out on it? Seriously? Because we disagree does not mean you are right and I am wrong and vice versa. You wanted an in depth discussion without emotional conflict. I upheld my side of it. If you want to close out our discussion, because you are upset and cannot follow my perspective, that is fine with me. Onward and upward.
Romans 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. 7:8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. 7:10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. 7:11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
The issue there is the issue of the futility of attempting to serve the Lord in one's own strength.
The Law proved the futility of that.
One would be alive...going along about one's business..unaware one was actually dead...spiritually.
Until a "thou shalt not" and its sense of "whoops, time to obey..."
Which, of course, would set off one's indwelling sin.
The result being that one died; one found that one could not do what one would - obey the commandment.
In other words, one is already dead...in Adam's transgression.
But one does not experience its reality until the commandment comes - "thou shalt" and or "thou shalt not."
At which point, one's standing matches one's dead state.
And one is then aware o wreteched man am I - WHO shall deliver me from the body of this death in me!
One does not die because one sins.
Rather, one sins because one is dead...spiritually.
Some kind of a regeneration towards a newness of spiritual life...is needed.
Solution?
Die!
Yeah - but How!!!
Get in Christ! Believe on Him.
How that God commendeth His love towards us in that - notice - while we were yet sinners - Christ died for us.
So that or he that is dead to the sin nature (because one is now in Christ - in HIS having died unto sin once - and in the very moment one trusts that Christ died for our sins) is freed from (the) sin (nature's) hold and or power over one.
One is now dead - to sin. To said nature and its' power over one.
And now that THAT is the reality - don't go back to that old system of Performance Based acceptance.
Walk instead, in your Grace Based Acceptance.
Which is what to "walk in the Spirit" is a reference to - to walking in an understanding of what the Spirit accomplished the moment you trusted Christ..
The issue there is the issue of the futility of attempting to serve the Lord in one's own strength.
The Law proved the futility of that.
One would be alive...going along about one's business..unaware one was actually dead...spiritually.
Until a "thou shalt not" and its sense of "whoops, time to obey..."
Which, of course, would set off one's indwelling sin.
The result being that one died; one found that one could not do what one would - obey the commandment.
In other words, one is already dead...in Adam's transgression.
But one does not experience its reality until the commandment comes - "thou shalt" and or "thou shalt not."
At which point, one's standing matches one's dead state.
And one is then aware o wreteched man am I - WHO shall deliver me from the body of this death in me!
One does not die because one sins.
Rather, one sins because one is dead...spiritually.
Some kind of a regeneration towards a newness of spiritual life...is needed.
Solution?
Die!
Yeah - but How!!!
Get in Christ! Believe on Him.
How that God commendeth His love towards us in that - notice - while we were yet sinners - Christ died for us.
So that or he that is dead to the sin nature (because one is now in Christ - in HIS having died unto sin once - and in the very moment one trusts that Christ died for our sins) is freed from (the) sin (nature's) hold and or power over one.
One is now dead - to sin. To said nature and its' power over one.
And now that THAT is the reality - don't go back to that old system of Performance Based acceptance.
Walk instead, in your Grace Based Acceptance.
Which is what to "walk in the Spirit" is a reference to - to walking in an understanding of what the Spirit accomplished the moment you trusted Christ..
I believe you when you say that you are not a Calvinist. You are Calvinistic.
I do not believe this. I believe that you believe it but it isn't so.
No, I didn't.
Yes, seriously. If you persist I'll know that you're doing this intentionally.
Yes, it does.
Spiritual death is separation from God or it is not.
Jesus was either separated from the Father or He was not.
We are either born in sin (post-Calvary) or we are not.
I want to end it BEFORE I get upset. Discussions require two-way communication. You are either not paying attention to what I say, cannot communicate in plain English, or are intentionally attempting to start a needless argument. I am not willing to participate in any case.
Resting in Him,
Clete