Clearing my name!!

Iconoclast, here are some more in case you are not yet convinced.

Darby

People's New Testament

Adam Clarke

Geneva Study Bible

 

He's not been respectful to me. He misrepresented my posts to make it say the opposite of what I truly said, and did not apologize when I proved it. Now he is calling me a liar. He says I misrepresent Hebrews 2:16 when I have shown numerous commentaries all agreeing with my interpretation.

I don't know if folks have noticed, but the more hyper a Calvinist is, the worse they treat people.

 

Good job Iconoclast, but I do believe you are wasting your time, as he does carry much theological error.

That we defend the nature of God against false teaching among Baptists is simply mind-boggling.

The problem with winman is he is using proof-texting yet again. He thinks as long as he can point to a verse and read what it says, then he's right. It all boils down to knowing what it means, not just what it says (which is generally where it stops with winman), and interpreting Scripture in light of dogma.

Please take note that much of what winman teaches (not what the Bible teaches) continues to degrade the Godhead and nature of God (as he has done with Omniscience, Sovereignty, and now saying God has a sin nature, as seen throughout severall threads here) and on the other hand exalts mans goodness (as he does opposed to many Scriptures showing the lost state of man and how God views lost man). This is exactly what he is doing here again, and all of this is a huge red flag warning.

Here is Dogma: God is sinlessly perfect, in Him is no darkness at all, not even a chance of sin. See James 1:17 for instance.

Does God have a sin nature? Absolutely not. Is Christ God? He most certainly is.

The Scriptures say, John 1:14 the Word became flesh, (not "the Word became sin nature") and dwelt among us.

To say He, very God, had a sin nature is blasphemy.

I find it humorous the chief leader of the groupies came here to defend them saying they never said He had a sin nature, that if "we" would just "read through the thread" we'd see it.

Baloney. Like I said. :thumbsup:

I was correct again. They plainly teach this error. :wavey:

Anyhow, is there anything in the nature of God that contains a sin element or possibility to sin? Not at all.

These folks who are in error, such as winman, find a proof-text and attempt to erase established truth (dogma) with it. This is the same protocol of cults. The Christadelphians, SDA, Watchtower, all of these also proof-text, and the Christadelphians also espouse and propagate winmans error. This is not Baptist teaching, and it is not Bible teaching.

 

If you only realized how foolish this statement is.

And just like your fellow hyper, you tell a direct falsehood. If this is what Calvinism does to folks, they should run away from it as fast as possible.

 

Yep:thumbs:

 

If you notice, people get upset when rebuked for their false teachings, and along comes another to give a thumbsup for being rebuked for false teaching. :laugh:

"You treat us terribly." LOL!!!!!!

It's because false-teaching is not to be tolerated, so you're being treated Scripturally.

:wavey:

 

Falsely accusing me of something I have never said is a bigger problem for you than me. You are the one who has to answer to God for that. I have repeatedly said that Jesus did not have a sin nature.

Show where I have EVER said Jesus had a sin nature. I publically challenge you to show where I have EVER said that.

 

People get upset from people rebuking them because they do so in an attitude of "I know more than you do". "What I think about God and scripture is far superior to what you say".

It is the "attitude" that people do not respond well to, not "truth" or "lack thereof".

 

Winman....if you actually read the quotes you will notice that yes Jesus had a human nature......but not a fallen human nature like those dead in Adam.
You suggested such when you said this;

You posted this idea.....We do have a sin nature...so your statement based on your misunderstanding of several texts is error.
I asked you if you wanted to retract your statement...you declined saying you do not believe we have a sin nature.....

That is like someone who says.....well if God killed babies with a flood in Noah's day...I could not worship a god like that. We do not decide or change who God is. He does not change or compromise to make goats feel comfortable.

Now you are whining that you are not being treated fairly

You added to hebrews 2:16.....I quoted the real King James verse that you claim you posted showing a lie....you have no comment???

Here it is again to refresh your mind.

Verse 16 says Jesus did not have the nature of angels, but took on the nature of the seed of Abraham. [winman version]

you then said;

but again here is the king James version;

16For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham

It does not say as you posted at all.....The winman paraphrase changes the intended meaning completely.....

This verse is a strong proof text for particular redemption. He took upon Himself the actual seed of Abraham...the actual promised people themselves..... It does not say he took upon Himself the fallen nature of Adam,......it does not even say He took upon Himself the seed of Adam
That is what it is actually talking about. I use the King James...and study Hebrews more than any other book...so your error was spotted without much trouble.

Like I said... I would prefer to interact with someone who wants to discuss or learn. If you claim you are quoting a verse and cannot even quote the actual verse where is this all going??? P4T gave a solid description of what is taking place.....take some time and read back through the thread and see if he was correct.
You might not understand what i am saying to you...so i might not be able to help you. Maybe someone else can present it clearer.

 

Icon, I'm interested to know if you believe Jesus' nature was corruptible (able to be corrupted), like Adam's was?

If not, what makes his nature "human?"

 

I simply find it amazing that this crew here believes God had a sin nature. The same ones whom I was told did not make this statement, yet clearly have, as it is being well established.

What is the Dogmatic truth in Scriptures about the very nature of God? Sinlessly perfect? Incorruptible? Immutable? Holy? Light?

Since this is dogma, nothing in a proof-text can take from this truth. That is somethign these proof-texters can not understand. One who thinks a dogma can be disanulled by a text is in error in interpretation, and has other issues that raise red flags as to what said understands and thinks about Holy God.

We are not talking about Him being a human as though that had reduced Him to our level and to our corruptible nature. This can never happen as His perfect nature is eternally immutable.

We are talking about the Word, who is God, becoming flesh, not becoming "sin nature," as Skan wrongly asserts to be the same thing as "flesh", which belief and statement in itself is gnostic in nature and premise. That is a fallacious remark filled with error.

Even if we are talking about Him being human, He is still God, and perfect in His nature. At all times.

 

I find it amazing, well no I don't, that only in the New Living Translation, New International Version and once in the Revised Standard Version. is sin and or sinful and nature found in the same verse. I know no Greek but would bet my last dollar you will not find them in the Greek either. We create in our minds concepts and assign them to the word of God.

 

Who exactly are you talking about? Don't be shy, name names, and show proof!

 

Strong's #4561: sarx (pronounced sarx)

probably from the base of 4563; flesh (as stripped of the skin), i.e. (strictly) the meat of an animal (as food), or (by extension) the body (as opposed to the soul (or spirit), or as the symbol of what is external, or as the means of kindred), or (by implication) human nature (with its frailties (physically or morally) and passions), or (specially), a human being (as such):--carnal(-ly, + -ly minded), flesh(-ly).



Thayer's Greek Lexicon:

́

sarx

1) flesh (the soft substance of the living body, which covers the bones and is permeated with blood) of both man and beasts

2) the body

2a) the body of a man

2b) used of natural or physical origin, generation or relationship

2b1) born of natural generation

2c) the sensuous nature of man, "the animal nature"

2c1) without any suggestion of depravity

2c2) the animal nature with cravings which incite to sin

2c3) the physical nature of man as subject to suffering

3) a living creature (because possessed of a body of flesh) whether man or beast

4) the flesh, denotes mere human nature, the earthly nature of man apart from divine influence, and therefore prone to sin and opposed to God

 

P4T, I've stopped responding to your posts (for the most part) because doing so seems fruitless as you have the tendency to read what you want to see rather than what is being said. If you go back and re-read what I wrote you will see that I asserted nothing. I merely presented an objective observation as to what another poster may have been attempting to say while disagreeing with his choice of words. I've not even participated in this debate except to clarify what I believed to be the intent of another poster and to ask a clarifying question.

So, I'd appreciate you not misrepresenting me or my views. Thank you.

 

No one including myself is misrepresenting your views, OK? Not quite, you're the one misrepresenting me, as I do and have read what others have said, including yourself, and clearly the non-cal crew has those who say Jesus has a sin nature. Also, you didn't merely present an observation, that's a false statement, instead you implied they didn't say it and that "we" need to go back and re-read it. That's just condescending nonsense right there.

You've protected others who have clearly said Jesus had a sin nature, and falsely advised that they hadn't if one would go read the thread.

Like I said: Baloney.

Can you see it plainly and clearly now? Yes? No? There is no need to pretend that what was clearly stated means something other.

It has been said and is being said contrary to what you want others to think.

The main reason you don't respond to me is due to the last time you did or were engaged in responding to me, you claimed you hadn't said something, sent me on one of your "prove it!!!" routines, which I did, then after I did you wanted to pull the "I'm exhausted and need to get off the merry-go-round" excuse of yours to get out of it.

I've proven what you and others have said against your word that "you and/or they haven't ever said that!" so many times that you can't handle it.

There is no need to say I've misrepresented you, that is blatantly false. It's you mirepresenting me right here and now.

If you don't like to be proven in error, then don't ask me to prove what is clearly stated.

If you can't handle debating with me, and not being able to run roughshod over me (among others) with your false theories and out of context quotes of theologians, and proof-texts then I don't know what to say other than you just can't handle being challenged and proven incorrect on a routine basis here.