Grandstand discussion: "Ghost's Views on The Nature of Christ"

[Nang]

Logically, you link humanity with sinfulness, so I think you are being inconsistent.

Of course you do, because you deny the federal headship of Adam. Which is theologically dangerous, because then you must also deny the Federal Headship of Jesus Christ in His incarnation, which makes His cross work efficacious on our behalf. (one error leads to the next . . .)

Mary was sinful and contributed genetically to Jesus' humanity.

Mary was also justified, forgiven, and imputed with righteousness. And she did not conceive in the normal sense that results in the handing down of original sin from the parents to the child.

(AMR has posted on One on One. Are you not going to read it?)

Nang

 

[ghost]

Human nature refers to the essential quality/characteristics of something, what it is to be man/woman vs animate or inanimate creation or Deity. A female nature includes common human characteristics with males, but sexual organs and genetic matter (XY vs XX, penis vs vagina) differs.

The nature of fire is to burn. The nature of salt is to preserve. The nature of a rock is to sit there. The nature of God uniquely relates to Him being sovereign, uncreated, eternal, spirit, triune, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent (unlike us). The nature of being human is to be personal with will, intellect, emotions (God and angels have this, but no physical body), blood, guts, spirit, body, bones, etc. Humans are different than primates because we are in the image of God (does not mean physical image like Mormons teach).

Human nature is what it means to be human vs God, angel, rock, dog, fire, wind, TV, computer, car, sun, moon, etc.

It is not essential on a metaphysical/physical/ontological/being/substance level for humans to be sinful since sin is a moral/volitional issue, not a physical, genetic, metaphysical/being issue.

Don't follow Augustine, Plato, Aquinas in their philosophical errors that have been uncritically embraced by lazy Christians. Follow Scripture that agrees with the gist of my view (even secular philosophers understand these distinctions better than some Christians who trust Aquinas more than common sense and Scripture).

No, I am not worried about my views on this subject sending me to hell because they won't. Denying Christ's Deity/humanity/sinfulness is an issue that I am not guilty of (nor are you or AMR).

How then does Paul say that the sons of disobedience are by nature children of wrath? Eph 2:3

What makes them by nature a child of wrath?

 

[ghost]

I find it hard to believe that some thoughts and verses from their posts are not from a book or commentary without giving credit to the sources. I doubt they are composing original material without looking at a source off the top of their heads (not that it is totally unacceptable, but some credit should be given).

I can't speak for AMR, but when I answered the verses, I did not even look over any of my own notes from the past, let alone any other persons view or opinion. As I always do, I go directly to God and pray earnestly for Him to give me the right words to speak in order that He is glorified.

When you see me telling people to go to hell and calling them liars etc, that is all me and my rather limited vocabulary. :sozo2:

 

[CabinetMaker]

Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion It would be helpful to the discussion, Ghost, if you refrain from responding until I have responded to your interpretation of the passage. Originally Posted by Ghost No problem, I'm not even going to take the time to read this one.

An interesting development has occurred, one of the participants in the one-on-one is refusing to follow the rules of the one-on-one that he insisted upon. The tantrum continues.

 

[ghost]

Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion It would be helpful to the discussion, Ghost, if you refrain from responding until I have responded to your interpretation of the passage. Originally Posted by Ghost No problem, I'm not even going to take the time to read this one.

An interesting development has occurred, one of the participants in the one-on-one is refusing to follow the rules of the one-on-one that he insisted upon. The tantrum continues.

What rule is that?

 

[godrulz]

Of course you do, because you deny the federal headship of Adam. Which is theologically dangerous, because then you must also deny the Federal Headship of Jesus Christ in His incarnation, which makes His cross work efficacious on our behalf. (one error leads to the next . . .)




Mary was also justified, forgiven, and imputed with righteousness. And she did not conceive in the normal sense that results in the handing down of original sin from the parents to the child.

(AMR has posted on One on One. Are you not going to read it?)

Nang

Sounds Catholic/Augustinian vs biblical to me.

Federal Headship is a theory, not fact. Importing it to Rom. 5 could lead to proof texting that logically leads to universalism, which we both deny.

Adam's sin did lead to physical depravity that taints the human race (genetic). You make the mistake of confusing physical and moral depravity, the latter being volitional.

Denying original sin is not a denial of Christ's sinlessness nor the efficacy of the cross (TULIP is also wrong). One can safely reject Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Calvin, Nang since it is not a rejection of Scripture, Christ, gospel, cross. You beg the question by assuming your view is infallible or the only possible credible way to look at things (that Scripture does not resolve like a systematic theology text).

So, you think sin is passed through the male vs female? Where do you find that in Scripture or logic?!

 

[godrulz]

I can't speak for AMR, but when I answered the verses, I did not even look over any of my own notes from the past, let alone any other persons view or opinion. As I always do, I go directly to God and pray earnestly for Him to give me the right words to speak in order that He is glorified.

When you see me telling people to go to hell and calling them liars etc, that is all me and my rather limited vocabulary. :sozo2:

I would be slow to use the Lord's name in vain to endorse your imperfections and flesh. You are sounding charismatic. I can subjectively pray to God and assume the impressions are an endorsement for my beliefs and practices?

I will concede that you have a good heart and mind, but I will not concede that all your beliefs and practices are godly and infallible.

 

[CabinetMaker]

What rule is that?

This one:

2. We don't move to a new question, until the first question is settled that we are either in agreement or immovable

You have neither reached an agreement nor an impasse, you simply decided to ignore AMR's post.

 

[ghost]

This one:

2. We don't move to a new question, until the first question is settled that we are either in agreement or immovable

You have neither reached an agreement nor an impasse, you simply decided to ignore AMR's post.

AMR's post does not address mine (as he himself stated). He is just telling (whoever he thinks will listen) what his view of the text is. That doesn't concern me. The onus is on him to prove that what I believe is unbiblical and reflects the teachings of Docetism. His recent post is just him showing off. It's a common practice of religious people who boast in their flesh. You, more than anyone, should know that.

 

[godrulz]

How then does Paul say that the sons of disobedience are by nature children of wrath? Eph 2:3

What makes them by nature a child of wrath?

Thx for your patience with a slow, dull nit wit like me. Your leading questions towards the trap may just work.

My present understanding is that the reason we are by nature objects of wrath is because we sin (Eph. 2; Rom. 1-3; Rom. 5:12 why? BECAUSE ALL SINNED...cf. Rom. 3:23....nothing about Adam...we follow in his footsteps but are guilty/objects of wrath because we each sin...I am not responsible for Hitler's sin).

The issue is WHEN we became objects of wrath. I do not believe an aborted fetus is an object of wrath because they lack mental and moral capacity to sin. The abortionist is the sinner, not the 'product of conception'/fetus/infant. We become sinners when we sin. We become humans when we are conceived (vs Mormon or evolution ideas). Eph. 2 and Rom. 1-3 links our status as sinners and objects of wrath with volitional sin (you will talk about sin vs sins, as I once did because of Miles Stanford, texts we used in Bible College for sanctification studies).

We are sinners because we sin (Bible). We sin because we are born sinners (Augustine, based on a couple figurative language texts with alternate, better understanding Ps. 51 Hebraism).

http://www.gospeltruth.net/menbornsinners/mbsindex.htm

(yes, Finney was not wrong about everything)

Moral vs physical depravity is one issue that would bring clarity to your misunderstanding of Paul.

 

[CabinetMaker]

AMR's post does not address mine (as he himself stated). He is just telling (whoever he thinks will listen) what his view of the text is. That doesn't concern me. The onus is on him to prove that what I believe is unbiblical and reflects the teachings of Docetism. His recent post is just him showing off. It's a common practice of religious people who boast in their flesh. You, more than anyone, should know that.

I have no clue what you are talking about. I have no boast in my flesh. None at all.

 

[ghost]

godrulz, ... if it is human nature to be a child of wrath, then how do you say that Jesus has a human nature.

 

[godrulz]

I have no clue what you are talking about. I have no boast in my flesh. None at all.

It is an unfair, false accusation against those who reject Exchanged Life articulations/theories, sozoisms (it is true of some people who reject the true Christ/gospel).

 

[ghost]

I have no clue what you are talking about. I have no boast in my flesh. None at all.

You do it all the time, as you add works to faith as evidence of someone who is saved. You also judge others according to their flesh, and whether or not they meet your standard of how you think a Christian should behave, thus comparing yours behavior with others, which is what boasting in the flesh means.

 

[godrulz]

godrulz, ... if it is human nature to be a child of wrath, then how do you say that Jesus has a human nature.

You are confusing me with Nang and others (JoeyArnold). It is not human nature to be a child of wrath. One becomes a human at conception. One becomes a sinner when one has mental/moral capacity to sin and disobey/rebel/reject truth/God.

Adam was created innocent, not sinful/guilty. He sinned without a causative nature back of his will (just as Lucifer did without a sinful nature). Those who follow Satan are children of Satan. Those who receive Christ are children of God (Jn. 1:12). Babies don't go to hell. Why? They should if they are born sinners and objects of His wrath (hence Catholics deal with original sin through sacrament of infant baptism, the point they think one is born again....one error leads to another).

You may not see the light yet (physical vs moral depravity), but surely you can see that I agree with you that Paul is not talking to aborted fetuses, but people with mental and moral capacity who volitionally sinned and rejected God. We agree that men are sinners. We don't support infant baptism. We know Christ is sinless. We know we need a sinless Savior and that our works are filthy rags and add nothing to His shed blood. I am on your side, honest.:chew:

Feel free to test and reject my view, but make sure you understand it. You are confusing being human (Jesus had a body, but was sinless) with being sinful. Being human, dog, ape does not make one sinful. Misusing our good, God-given mind and will/body is why we sin and are sinners (if Adam can sin without an inherited sinful nature, then so can his progeny).

Jesus is, was, always will be sinless. He was also fully human, but unique in that He is fully divine. Having a body does not make one a sinner. Misusing our body with our mind/will makes us sinners (something an embryo cannot do despite being fully human...hence no moral issue, no hell).

 

[CabinetMaker]

You do it all the time, as you add works to faith as evidence of someone who is saved. You also judge others according to their flesh, and whether or not they meet your standard of how you think a Christian should behave, thus comparing yours behavior with others, which is what boasting in the flesh means.

You, sir, are a liar. I can say that because in another thread I went on record, with you, clearly stating that works are not required for anything. You have once again ignored that and substituted your own words and accuse me based on that. You bear false witness.

Second, I do not judge others. At all. There is a different Judge who sits over us all who is far more qualified to judge than I. I will make comments about how a Christian behaves and I may suggest that they should examine their behaviors to see if they are in-line with scripture, but I have never once made any proclamation about a persons state of grace based solely on their behaviors. Again, you bear false witness against me.

 

[godrulz]

You, sir, are a liar. I can say that because in another thread I went on record, with you, clearly stating that works are not required for anything. You have once again ignored that and substituted your own words and accuse me based on that. You bear false witness.

Second, I do not judge others. At all. There is a different Judge who sits over us all who is far more qualified to judge than I. I will make comments about how a Christian behaves and I may suggest that they should examine their behaviors to see if they are in-line with scripture, but I have never once made any proclamation about a persons state of grace based solely on their behaviors. Again, you bear false witness against me.

If you are a true believer who understands grace, then is he a liar, just wrong in his accusations, or both?

I don't know all that you believe, but I don't doubt that you know and love the same Jesus that I do. See you in the sky.

 

[CabinetMaker]

If you are a true believer who understands grace, then is he a liar, just wrong in his accusations, or both?

He has passed from being merely wrong in his accusations to actually lying about what I have said because I very clearly and directly stated to him that works are not required for salvation. I believe that works are a natural result of salvation. He continues to say that I preach works based salvation. That is a lie.

I don't know all that you believe, but I don't doubt that you know and love the same Jesus that I do. See you in the sky.

I don't know all that you believe nor do I believe all that I see you being accused of believing. I would imagine that there are a few theological issues where we will not see eye to eye. I do believe that you have confessed with your mouth what you believe in your heart and that we are indeed brothers in Christ. See you in the sky my Brother.

 

[ghost]

You, sir, are a liar. I can say that because in another thread I went on record, with you, clearly stating that works are not required for anything. You have once again ignored that and substituted your own words and accuse me based on that. You bear false witness.

Second, I do not judge others. At all. There is a different Judge who sits over us all who is far more qualified to judge than I. I will make comments about how a Christian behaves and I may suggest that they should examine their behaviors to see if they are in-line with scripture, but I have never once made any proclamation about a persons state of grace based solely on their behaviors. Again, you bear false witness against me.

Then explain this...

That is why the New Testament states quite clearly that the thief, the sexually immoral, the liar and the murderer will not inherit the kingdom of God. Simply put, if you accept Jesus as your savior, truly accept Him, your life will be transformed and you will not be a thief, sexually immoral, a liar or a murderer.

Your statement implies that those who do those things are not saved.

 

[ghost]

He has passed from being merely wrong in his accusations to actually lying about what I have said because I very clearly and directly stated to him that works are not required for salvation. I believe that works are a natural result of salvation. He continues to say that I preach works based salvation. That is a lie.

You're the one lying. Read my previous post.

you add works to faith as evidence of someone who is saved

It says nothing about works to be saved, but that you teach (as you just confirmed) that works are the result of being saved.