Featured Ordination service

Now that is an EXCELLENT point! :thumbs:

 

Systematic theologians are firmly divided on the issue of Jesus' sin nature, though the balance is tilted when it comes to answering if Jesus could have sinned (tilted towards most saying He could have.)

So folks, don't run around accusing and belittling people when you don't know what you're talking about.

As I see it, Jesus could have sinned while in this world but chose not to sin. Athanasius also makes this point in On the Incarnation. If Jesus couldn't have sinned, why was He tempted and tried?

 

I have had a hard time finding where Jesus placed any emphasis on a particular systematic theology and what particular translation people read. However I do find a huge number of times in the Gospels when Jesus pointed back to what God wanted.

A man once asked me a question, "How do you tell a crooked stick?" His answer to me was, "You lay a straight one next to it." Scripture is the word of God and it is what I must study not the crooked stick of someone's systematic theology. God's word is inspired not a man's systematic theology.

 

John, you don't know it, but you just took a huge step in the right direction. You believed what God's word said, and not what men teach. You keep doing that and you are going to be alright! :thumbs:

Thank you for giving an honest answer.

 

The Council of Chalcedon. Correct church history. Who were they? What authority do (did) they have? What authority do we grant them? Were they infallible in the same way as we grant to the scriptures that we have? Didn't you agree with WM that Jesus did not know the time of His return? How is that squared with your accusation of WM on the "heresy" of omniscience?

 

ShagNappy

Hello SNY,

This is a good question and great verse of scripture to consider.

The answer is found in the reality of The perfect Lord Jesus Christ, our Prophet Priest and King.....also being described as;

The last Adam....The true Image bearer....The true Israel....The Covenant Son.

Far from having [no purpose] as you ask....

As the Lord from heaven,the last Adam-

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.

The Lord Jesus in his active obedience as the sent one.....always did the Fathers will. Adam tempted by satan...failed.....the Last Adam could not fail..The fall tainted man as the Image bearer of God....Jesus restores us who have fled to Him as our city of refuge against the laws demands on us.
The writer in Heb helps us with this in chap 7;
24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.

25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;

27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.


Adam failed...the last Adam succeeds
Israel failed as the Covenant Son...Jesus leads the new exodus as the True Israel...and us in Him by God's elective decree.



Hebrews 4

14 Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has ascended into heaven,[f] Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. 15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin. 16 Let us then approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.

that you do not see this yet does not mean any such thing as you write here, it just means you have not considered it well enough....

 

You have been answered but you do not take the time to read the answers....that is not all you have done.

You made the horrible statement that Jesus emptied Himself of deity

Then this gem;

The unchangeable God ....you suggest that he could change-

then this;

Jesus never emptied Himself of deity......never.


here from the previously posted links which you ignored;

The context of Phil. 2:5-11 is that Christ emptied Himself by taking on the form of a servant. Indeed, the overall issue, from 2:1 through the end of verse 15, is on various forms of outward expression, Christ being the example for the life of the saints in Philippi.

(1) Paul was stressing to the Philippians that they should be self-sacrificing, and should not have personal glory in mind as they live their life. Then, he used the Incarnation as an example. (2:1-5)

(2) Christ, says Paul, was in the form (morphe, an outward expression of an inward reality) of God, and did not consider this Glory, this expression of equality with the Father something to be grasped, or held on to (see John 17:1-5, 24).

(3) Most modern translations say in verse 7 "emptied Himself", but the King James and the New King James read, "made Himself of no reputation." About this difference, one evangelical scholar wrote "The A.V., while not an exact translation, goes far to express the act of the Lord."9 ( In this quote, A.V. stands for Authorized Version, or King James). Then it says, "taking the form of a servant." As we have been talking about outward expressions, vainglory, outward form, etc., and as that is the subject from here through verse 15, the plain sense of scripture here is that Christ's self-emptying was of the outward glory and majesty of Godhood, and that He accomplished that action by taking the form of a servant. This, of course, is what Paul is asking the Philippians to do. Context is vital here--Paul is not telling the Philippians to lay aside, discard, or disregard their natural abilities and talents, (attributes and powers), he is telling them to submit them to the will of God and the good of the whole church.

a. Possibly because of the negative theological background for it, B.B. Warfield went so far as to call the literal translation of kenoo as "emptied Himself" a "mistranslation."10

b. "Nothing in this passage teaches that the Eternal Word (John 1.1) emptied Himself of either His divine nature or His attributes, but only the outward and visible manifestation of the Godhead."11

c. "He emptied, stripped Himself if the insignia of Majesty"12 (Emphasis added)

d. "When occasion demanded, He exercised His divine attributes."13

(4) Verses 8-11 continue the thought--Christ is "...found in appearance as a man...", and continued His voluntary humiliation through to the Cross, then is exalted by the Father (as He discussed with the Father in John 17).

(5) Other Scriptural references that establish the same principal:

a. John 1:1-14. After laying out His perfections, [(1) "The Word was God"--Deity; (2) "He was in the beginning with God," Eternity; (3) "All things were made through Him..." Creator; (4) "In Him was life..." Self Existence;] John says "and the Word became flesh." It is not that God the Son gave up anything, but that He added something--He took humanity to Himself.

b. 2 Cor 8:9 "For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich." He gave up the external glories of His riches, but did He really give up ownership? No--in His earthly ministry, He claimed to be Lord of the Sabbath, and exercised dominion over natural phenomena, disease and demonic forces, and even demonstrated His possession of the power of life and death. His poverty did not consist as much in what He gave up (for He still retained title to it) as in what He took on--our nature.

c. 2 Cor 5:21 "For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." In His act of atonement, did He give up His own essential Holiness? No, again, it was not that He gave up anything, it was that He added something--He took our sins upon Himself.

B. Do the Scriptures bear out that He possessed the attributes and powers of deity while on earth?

The first, and most obvious reference is His personal conversation with the Father in John 17--He asks (in a "man to man, equal to equal" way) for the return of His Glory. He never mentions the return of His power or attributes--because He still retained them!

(1) Omniscience--John 11:11-14 ("...when Jesus was fifty miles away...")14 John 2:24-25, 6:64, 70-71. As for the instances when He seems to be claiming ignorance, they have to do with Him speaking from His humanity, and taking our place, and involve a complete understanding of the orthodox teaching concerning the relationship between the Divine and Human in Christ, which will be discussed in section IV.

(2) Omnipotence: (demonstrated most vividly in the power over life and death) John 10:17-18, 5:21-23, Luke 7:14, John 11:43-44, Mat 28:18-20, John 18:5-6.

(3) Omnipresence: Matt 18:20, John 1:48 (Ps 139, Gen 16:13), John 3:13 (MAJ . . . Text)

(4) Providence: Heb 1:1-3--Note that "upholding all things" was predicated of Him in the context of His earthly ministry of declaring God's truth, and before His atonement, resurrection, and exaltation. Col. 1:17--"In Him all things consist [hold together]" The universe is upheld by His word of power--He holds it together--that is an essential part of who He is. There is no intimation anywhere in scripture that He gave up this function upon Incarnation.

(5) Sovereignty: Mk 2:28, Mat 11:27, John 17:2. John 3:35

C. Having looked at the issue piecemeal, we can now conclude it with the powerful testimony of the book of Colossians.

(1) Paul says that in Christ ". . .are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge," (2:3) and ". . . Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." (2:8-9, emphasis added)

(2) The argument might be (and has been) made that those verses apply to Christ in His exaltation, and not in His humiliation. First, that logic leans to the Gnostic idea of "progression," that the Logos after His exaltation was materially and essentially different (and improved) as a person from what He was during His humiliation. This is the very idea that Paul was fighting in the book of Colossians! The clincher, however, lies in the earlier verses in chapter 1: ". . . It pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself...through the blood of His cross." (1:19-20) All the fullness of God dwelt in Him bodily during His earthly ministry!

 

Iconoclast... I can only assume you took my questions as statements of fact rather than as questions. At no time did I state those questions were true, which was the point of my post. I know why Jesus was tempted, which, in my opinion, addresses the topic of whether Jesus could sin or could not.

If He could not sin, His temptation was not real temptation. I cannot fly. You can tempt me all day and I will refuse to fly. That does not mean I successfully resisted the temptation to fly.

 

Iconoclast's evidence is not the word of God, but writers who hold similar beliefs to his. Anyone who disagrees is a heretic. He considers this some sort of proof that his view is correct.

I showed Reformed theologians that believed Jesus could sin, such as R.C. Sproul, Charles Hodge, and Millard Erickson, so my view is not unorthodox or heretical at all.

I simply believe what the scriptures say, and the scriptures say Jesus did not know the day and hour of his return in Mark 13:32.

Mar 13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

Unlike Icon, I do not form my beliefs from human philosophy and theories, but base what I believe on what the word of God says. This verse is very plain and easy to understand, I do not need a theologian to explain it to me as Iconoclast apparently seems to need.

 

I am not surprised you are confused John, you believe something different every day, according to the book you pick up and read.

Eph 4:14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

This is why you are confused day to day, you spend all your time reading men's books written to make money, instead of reading your Bible.

I base my beliefs on the Bible. I am often accused of heresy, sometimes by YOU. In those cases I will often go to a commentary and show that theologians agree with me.

But if I could not find someone to agree with me, I would hold my ground. I believe Jesus said he did not know the day and hour he would return. I don't try to understand it, I just believe it.

And you were smart when you believed it too. You need to do that more, put down all those books written by men that are keeping you confused, and just read your Bible, and ask God to help you understand it.