Adam's sin...our guilt?

[b]All of us sin (by thought and or deed)and fall short of the glory of God.[/b]

All of us are descended from Adam, and in Adam all sin. All of us are either in the first Adam, or in the last Adam, Jesus Christ. All of us are conceived in sin, and have inherited the sin nature of Adam.

(1 Cor 15:22)
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

He who knew no sin became sin for us!
2 Cor 5:21
For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him

In the Old Testament, when God set up the Sacrifical System as a type of the final Sacrifice for all sin, Jesus Christ, the sacrifices He created are as follows:

If you were a Jew, living at the time of the Tabernacle, or later living at the time of the Temple, you had to sacrifice animals to "cover" your sins. Actually the blood of the animal sacrifices was applied to "cover" your sins. The sins were not not taken away, they were only covered until Messiah would come to take away all sin, for all time, for those who believe on Him.

[b]Mandatory[/b] Sacrifices were:

1. The SIN Offering (Sacrifice) -for our sin nature.

2. The TRESPASS Offering (Sacrifice)- for known and unknown sins.

There were 3 other Sacrifices that were [b]VOLUNTARY[/b] sacrifices (offerings). You would participate in these sacrifices to God because you wanted a closer walk with HIM. These sacrifices were:

3.The Burnt Offering (Sacrifice)

4..The Meal Offering (actually part ot the Burnt offering, ie Sacrifice),

5. The PEACE offering (Sacrifice)

In only the Peace offering was the offerer (the sinner) allowed to eat the sacrifice, and it had to be completely eaten within 3 days.

Also, all sacrifices were salted.

Another thing to consider, that bares witness to our inherited sin nature:

1 Cor 15:50
Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

Until we receive our new glorified bodies of flesh and bone, just like the resurrected body of jesus Christ, we cannot be in the presence of God. The reason, we are sinners by nature, and our hearts are deceitfully wicked. Also, our bodies consist of flesh and blood.

Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have [b]flesh and bones[/b] as you see I have.” (Luke 24:39)

Sincerely,

Walter

ceedub wrote:
I wouldn't disagree that infants are sinful, but I would assert that upon conception (life beginning) the newborn has not sinned (active tense) nor would there be 'any deeds done in the flesh' by which that newborn could be judged by, citing God's revealed standard for judgement.

I have trouble believing that 2 moments after conception, should I miscarry, I need be sent to an eternal torment for what Adam did.

I am a strong believer in original sin and all that it carries (death, nature etc.) yet I don't see scripture saying that Adam's guilt for his personal transgression carries to us. Death yes, but not guilt. I don't believe a conceived newborn is guilty and worthy of hell.

Is it a mercy when God takes a life before they can sin?

Hello ceedub!

[b]Do dead babies & children go to heaven if they have never accepted Christ as Lord? How about newborns?[/b]

The teaching is in 2nd Samuel, Chapter 12 when David’s newborn son dies.

22. And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether God will be gracious to me, that the child may live?
23. But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast?[b] can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.[/b]

In Israel, one was [b]not[/b] considered to be an adult, to be accountable, until the age of 20, when all men were required to join the army.

All children are covered by God’s grace until they become of age, and are accountable before God and man. With some people, that age of accountability can be 6 years old, and with others it may be 19, and for others it never comes. Woe to those over the age of accountability who have not made a decision for Jesus Christ as Lord & Savior of their lives.

I truly believe that heaven is filled with babies and children, even older children, that have died before the age of maturity (whatever age that is---God knows), before they have made a conscious decision to accept Jesus Christ as Lord & Savior, and His work on the cross.[b] Yet, they are saved by God’s grace, just as David’s son was saved by God's grace and waiting for him in Abrahams bosom until David would join him there many years later.[/b]

Sincerley,

Walter

ceedub wrote:
In reading your questions, I sense there must be a situation troubling you that you are asking these questions...right? or wrong?

Right. I'll be preaching on Romans 5:12-21 soon, and I find great dissention between the commentators. :-)

Hello ceedub:

It is very simple. Those who [b]will not[/b] accept Jesus Christ as Lord & Savior will spend eternity with Satan and his fallen angels in Hell, [b]without the presence of God.

Those that accept Jesus Christ as Lord & Savior will spend eternity in the presence of God, and will be re-made in the image of the Savior they worship---in the savior that saved them from the wrath to come.[/b]

Jesus Christ had more to say about hell, and what it actually consisted of than anyone else in the Bible. Why, we might ask? [b]Because He created it[/b] for Satan and his fallen angels--a place that fallen man, who would not accept the free gift of salvation by His (Christ's) Work, would also be destined to live for endless eternity:

[b]43. ........it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
44. Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. [/b] 45. And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
46.[b] Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. [/b] 47. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out:[b] it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: 48. Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
49. For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.
50. Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his saltness, wherewith will ye season it? Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another.[/b]

Only by the belief and acceptance in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior is [b]humanity[/b] free from the eternity of Hell. Only by belief and acceptance in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior are we free to spend eternity with Him in Heaven.

He who knew no sin became sin ---for all those that believe.

Those who believe in the Savior, and the Work that He did are saved, and will spend eternal life with Him in a "New Heaven and a New Earth".

Those who reject Him will spend eternal life [b]without[/b] Him, and will forever be in the presence of Satan and his fallen Angels in Hell.

Sincerely,

Walter

ceedub wrote:

Do dead babies & children go to heaven if they have never accepted Christ as Lord? How about newborns?

I hold to the same interpretation myself. But my question remains regarding original sin and its effect on mankind...

Does God impute guilt on Adam's posterity, or just the separation, physical death and sin nature?

I think this is the crux of the original question.

I don't think it's splitting hairs, for it speaks a great deal regarding how God judges mankind.

In MacArthur's commentary, he remarks this question as 'mind boggling' and I have to agree, though I lean towards no imputed guilt, and maintain there is separation, physical death and an inherited sin nature.

I appreciate so many responses.

Albert Barnes and Stuart don't believe that guilty is imputed but rather the nature or propensity to sin. John Bunyan believes the law was there, but only in the hearts of men (ie Cain's countenance and Romans 1) and therefore were guilty of their own sin, not Adam's.

I agree with these guys.

Adam could have eaten from the tree of Life and lived eternally in that innocent state but "he did it his way."

Cain did it his way.

Job, who was chronologically the first author of our Bibles, did it GOD's way. His friends had a knowledge of the Holy from "somewhere".

"Doing it our way" - no matter what it is - good or evil is "sin"

Rejecting GOD in the flesh's sacrifice of Himself for our independent-prideful-selves is "doing it our way".

Romans 1 says that HE does make Himself known, but men would rather do it "their way".

We battle "doing it our way" everyday - even as "Saints". We walk through or in "intellect" or "emotion" more than we walk in His Spirit - wholly dependent on HIM. That's [i]still[/i] the taking from the 'Tree of knowledge' rather than the Tree or Word of Life, which is only from HIM. We run on that "autonomous" nature more than we realize.

It really started with Satan, with his "independent-prideful-self" wanting to do the life GOD gave him, "his way."

Edit to add: Remembering to mention the gang in Heb 11 that were before Christ.

The Christian believer that relies on the New Testament, the “New Blood Covenant” and spends no time in the Old Testament, the “Old Blood Covenant” is like a man with two legs, who chooses to only walk on one leg. He thinks he is walking with his one leg, but in reality he is only hopping around, and has impaired his walk by not using his other leg, that is useless.

In the Garden of Eden, at the beginning, after Adam & Eve sinned, God,[b] before banishing them from Eden and from His presence, God made garments of skin for them[/b] (Gen 3:21)

Where did he get these from? Can an animal live without his skin? Since we know that sin brought death, it is not fair to reason that animals were killed so that the shame of Adam and Eve could be covered? God also expelled them from the garden. At this time God told Adam and Eve the consequences of their actions, one of which was physical death. To the serpent, who tempted them, he said, "'And I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your offspring and hers, he will crush your head and you will strike his heel.'" (Genesis 3:15)

Here God promises that the power of Satan will be crushed through the seed of the woman. How will this happen? Has God given us further instructions concerning this? Yes!

In the next chapter we read of Cain and Abel, when Cain and Abel brought sacrifices to God. [b]"In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord. But Abel brought fat portions from some of the first-born of his flock. The Lord looked with favour on Abel and his offering, but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favour. So Cain was angry and his face was downcast. Then the Lord said to Cain, "'Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; It desires to have you, but you must master it.'" (Genesis 4:3-7)[/b]

[b]Why did God accept Abel's offering but not Cain's? In God's reply to Cain we find the answer to this question. God had obviously given clear instructions to Adam & Eve who gave those same instructions to Cain and Abel concerning what type of sacrifice needed to be offered. Abel brought the correct sacrifice which was an animal from the first-born of the flock-a blood sacrifice. Cain did not bring the correct sacrifice. Cain brought a sacrifice of his own choosing instead of the sacrifice that pleased God.[/b] In the Bible it says, "There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death." (Proverbs 14:12) "By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did. By faith he was commended as a righteous man, when God spoke of his offerings. And by faith he still speaks, even though he is dead." (Hebrews 11:4) A sober warning is also given to those who take the way of Cain. Because of his pride, he rejected God's authority and offered an unacceptable sacrifice.

If we look close,[b] the next blood sacrifices that are mentioned are those of Noah,[/b] who is described as follows in (Genesis 4:8 –9)

1) Noah found[b] grace[/b] in the eyes of the Lord; 2) Noah was considered a[b] just man and perfect in his generations; 3) Noah walked with God[/b]

When the animals entered the ark, the clean animals (those used for sacrifice) entered the ark 7 X 7, while all of the other animals entered 2 X 2.

[b]The first thing that Noah did upon leaving the ark was to sacrifice to the Lord:[/b]

Genesis 8:20-22 And Noah builded an altar unto the Lord; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.

Mankind (we are all in Adam, and have inherited his sin nature)has sinned against God and brought him shame by disobeying His commands. This sin must be paid for to satisfy God's righteous anger and uphold his justice. God says, [b]"The soul who sins is the one who will die." (Ezekiel 18:4b) and "The wages of sin is death . . . ." (Romans 6:23)[/b]

Again, the Old Testament is clear that before the law was established on Mount Sinai, God required a specific type of animal sacrifice to cover the sins of those who believeded on Him.

[b]In the Book of Job, one of the oldest books in the Bible, we read that as the family priest, he was the one who sacrificed animals for the sins of his children[/b]

(Job 1-5) 1. There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil. 2. And there were born unto him seven sons and three daughters. 3. His substance also was seven thousand sheep, and three thousand camels, and five hundred yoke of oxen, and five hundred she asses, and a very great household; so that this man was the greatest of all the men of the east. 4. And his sons went and feasted in their houses, every one his day; and sent and called for their three sisters to eat and to drink with them. 5. And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that[b] Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually.[/b]

[b][color=660000]The Bible is clear, regardless of what Barnes or any other person has to say. There are only two options for human beings (for God’s creation)-- One is Heaven, in the eternal presence of God, and one is hell, in the eternal absence of God. The only way to heaven is through Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world, to those who BELIEVE IN/ON HIM[/color][/b]

No other options exist, other than Heaven or hell! We are, each of us, on our way to one or the other!

Sincerley,

Walter

ceedub wrote:
It is very simple. Those who will not accept Jesus Christ as Lord & Savior will spend eternity with Satan and his fallen angels in Hell, without the presence of God.

Deleted

quote]

I don't know if I'd call it 'simple'. My original question still isn't answered. Calvin and Mathew Henry both believe that guilt is imputed to Adam's posterity. MacArthur believes the same citing that there was no law between Adam and Moses (Romans commentary). Albert Barnes and Stuart don't believe that guilty is imputed but rather the nature or propensity to sin. John Bunyan believes the law was there, but only in the hearts of men (ie Cain's countenance and Romans 1) and therefore were guilty of their own sin, not Adam's.

waltern wrote:
deleted

quote]

There is an important question to ask when talking about Original Sin. It has been said that Original Sin (being guilty for the sin of our father Adam) is unjust and false teaching, but here is the all important question:

If man cannot be condemned by the disobedience of one man (Adam), then how can man be justified by the obedience of one man (Christ)?

We are justified by faith, to be sure, but the basis of our justification is the obedience of Christ, not ours.

Michael

Another question:

If Adam's sin cannot be imputed to us (his guilt put to our account), then how can our sin be imputed to Christ(our guilt put to his account)?

Michael

This death is not sin itself, it is the results of sin...

Man was not born to die. Death entered because of Adam's disobedience. I agree, this death is not sin itself, but it also not just the RESULT of sin. Death, according to the scripture, is the supernatural judgement from God upon Adam's sin.

We serve a God who is a judge and He judged Adam's disobedience by condemning him to death. This condemnation has passed to all of Adam's posterity, for all die.

That is why that, for those who are in Christ, there is NOW NO CONDEMNATION TO THOSE WHO ARE IN CHRIST JESUS. Thank God.

Michael

So, I guess the Old Testament is of no value in this discussion. Everyone on this thread has ignored what it has to say about the sin nature of mankind.

Sin Nature

"Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me" (Psalm 51:5).

Every human being sins. Sin is often defined as missing the mark. It is a failure to live up to God's requirements.

The "sin offering (sacrifice)" was offered because of mans sin nature. Every human being possesses a sin nature -- a corrupt nature inherited from Adam. Our sin nature separates us from God: "The result of one trespass (by thought or deed) was condemnation for all men" (Romans 5:18).

Everyone has sinned, everyone.

God commanded the Jews to sacrifice animals to cover their sin.[b] Two of these sacrifices were MANDATORY, and were required by God by ALL JEWS at least once a year. If they did not offer these sacrifices once yearly, they were sent outside the camp (everything unclean was located “outside of the camp”[/b]

Sin Sacrifice (offering)—The sacrifice=Fine flour, Bull, Goat, Lamb, Dove or Pigeon.
See Leviticus 4:5-13

Trespass, Guilt Sacrifice—The sacrifice=Ram
See Leviticus 5:14-19; 6:1-7; 7:1-10

The Sin Sacrifice was for unknown sin, or our sin nature

The Trespass Sacrifice was for known sin & guilt.

Christians have two natures at work in their being -- one is the old sin nature, and the other is a new nature controlled by the Spirit. These two natures are constantly at war with each other. Paul explains that, despite his best intentions, he is still influenced by his sin nature: "I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do -- this I keep on doing" (Romans 7:18-19).

While our two natures are constantly in conflict, it is not the sin nature that will ultimately control the Christian. Part of the sanctification process involves dying to the old nature. The Christian will sin, but the Christian will not continue in unrestrained sin: "You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you" (Romans 8:9). Sin in the Christian's life will be followed by remorse and repentance.

At Christ's second coming, when the believer's body is glorified, the sin nature will be destroyed once and for all. Until then, we are told to resist the sin nature's temptations.
God is faithful; He will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, He will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it" (1 Corinthians 10:13).

[b][color=FF0000]Does anyone have a response to my post, based upon SCRIPTURE?[/color][/b]

Sincerely,

Walter

Does anyone have a response to my post, based upon SCRIPTURE?

Honestly, I don't know what to resond to. What is it that you are trying to say, and what does it have to do with the original post?

Michael

Hello, Mahoney:

In the very first post of ceedub on this thread he questions the validity of the sin nature of man, and then quotes Romans 5:12-21 and refers to that text as a “widely disputed topic”:

This is his first post on this thread:

I'm brand new here but this looks like a great place to discuss.[b] I'm curious if there's any others out there who have a problem as I do with the extent that some (even many commentators that I really admire) take the doctrine of original sin to[/b]. By that, I understand that there is a far reaching effect that includes death, the sin nature and imminent condemnation but for the grace of God.[b] But too many passages indicate that God doesn't pass guilt until we ourselves sin.[/b]

[b]I understand and agree with Cov't headship, but not to the degree that we are held guilty for the same crimes committed by the head.[/b] ie: Germans under Hitler were judged with many consequences that their leader brought them under, yet no one would hold them individually guilty for the same crimes.

[b]I'm speaking on Romans 5:12 -21 in the near future and was wondering if there were any thoughts on this widely disputed topic?[/b]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[b]Widely Disputed Topic?[/b]

Going back 2,000 years in Church history, and not taking into account the apostacy of the past 30 years, there has never been an issue in understanding that all humans have a sin nature---from our mothers womb.

“Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me" (Psalm 51:5).

That is the issue.

[b]This is the text that ceedeb quotes as being a "widely disputed topic" (disputed by who, the Gnostics?)[/b]:

Romans 5:12-21
12. Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 13. (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. 15. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 16. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. 17. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)18. Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. 20. Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
21. That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

Sincerely,

Walter

Mahoney wrote:

Does anyone have a response to my post, based upon SCRIPTURE?

Honestly, I don't know what to resond to. What is it that you are trying to say, and what does it have to do with the original post?

Michael

To ceedub:

You have quoted various commentators to make your point that there is disagreement between them in their understanding Romans 5:12-21

Of the men you quoted, I am quite familiar with John MacArthur. Following is your quote from MacArthur to prove your point that there is disagreement between commentators about Romans 5:12-21

Ceedub quoted John MacArthur:
[b]MacArthur calls it mind boggling and states that the law was not used to hold people to their sins from Adam to Moses, but it is Adam's guilt that we are born into.[/b]

However, as I look at what you "quoted", with no reference to your source --- the Book, the publisher, and the page quoted from, I realize that it is not a very good example of what John MacArthur believes about original sin.

[b]MacArthur is right—if we look at what he actually said, in detail, we see that he believes that man is born with a sin nature:[/b]

http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/80-242.htm

” [b]So, the Bible tells us that sinfulness is not a condition that comes upon people when they are old enough to choose to do evil. It is the condition of the entire human race and every conception brings into being a sinful life. Ever since Adam and Eve, everyone born has been born in a fallen, sinful state.[/b]

That becomes evident as soon as any behavioral choice is made. [b]We are born sinners. We are also born guilty because we inherit the guilt of Adam’s sin.[/b] I don’t want to go into detail; if you want detail, you can get the teaching that we’ve done on Romans, chapter 5, but a couple of verses…Romans 5:12: “Just as through one man, sin entered into the world and death through sin, so death spread to all men because all sin.” That is a profoundly definitive statement that says when Adam sinned, the whole human race became guilty in Adam and we all sinned there and we all died there and every human that is born bears the guilt of Adam’s sin, the principle of iniquity, and death.

We are born corrupt, inheriting this defiled human nature and bearing guilt for that original sin. And so, in the same chapter, Romans 5:21, it says, “Sin reigned in death” from that point on. All people then are born sinners. They are born resisting righteousness and loving evil. “We are”--this is a very important verse, Ephesians 2:3--“by nature, the children of wrath.” That is our nature. Genesis 8:21 says, “The imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth” and the Hebrew word for “youth” includes infancy. The heart--the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his infancy on."

[b]In this article (above), John MacArthur believes that all Children who prematurely die are immediately in heaven.[/b]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[b]Ceedub, in conclusion, please, go back and do your homework. By that I mean, after quoting each commentator (Calvin, Matthew Henry, John MacArthur, Albert Barnes & John Bunyon) provide the specific source where your information came from---The name of the book and when it was published, the page number of your quote, and any internet link that we can refer to.

Without providing that information, it is impossible to validate what you are trying to prove.[/b]

Sincerely,

Walter

ps: The Bible tells us to turn away from man, and to rely on God. Mans breath is in his nostrils, and can and will be taken in a moment. We are told to put our faith and trust in God, who is immortal and has all knowledge, and trust in Him, and Him alone.

Isaiah 2:22
22. Cease ye from man, whose breath is in his nostrils: for wherein is he to be accounted of?

Christ tells us in Matthew 10:28 to not fear man, but to rather fear God who is able to destroy both soul and body.

8. And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.(Matthew 10:28)

ceedub wrote:
This is interesting. in the previous post I'm (I think) accused of denying the sin nature, though the post that's quoted has me saying I totally agree that we inherited a sin nature though Adam.

And yes, it is a widely disputed topic...

Calvin says that guilt passed from Adam to man, but not neccessarily infants, though the law was there.

Matthew Henry says the guilt of Adam passed to all mankind, even infants, yet he says the law wasn't there till Moses.

MacArthur calls it mind boggling and states that the law was not used to hold people to their sins from Adam to Moses, but it is Adam's guilt that we are born into.

Albert Barnes doesn't believe we inherit Adam's guilt, only death and the sin nature.

John Bunyan states that the law was indeed there from Adam to Moses and we are therefore guilty of our own sins (because without the law there is no sin).

To refer to this as simple and 'gnostic' in nature, denying any disparity in what all commentators refer to as the hardest passage in the NT to exposit, is to not actually understand the question in the first place.

The answer to your question is that we all sin and fall short of the glory of God. At the great white throne judgment,[b] where the lost are judged, [/b]the Books will be opened. What Books? For sure one of the Books has to be the Bible, God's Word -the standard for living, created by God--that consists of God's Law.[b] Each man at this judgment (the Great White Throne), has rejected God's free gift of salvation and eternal freedom from sin by the work of Jesus Christ. He will be judged by the standard, the Bible, the law, that tells us that even one violation of the God's law, by thought or deed, makes us totally guilty of violationg all of the law.[/b]

The other Book that will be opened here is the [b]Lambs Book of life[/b] (Rev 20:12). When Jesus Christ died on the Cross, everyones name was written into the book of life, because Christ paid the price for all sin, from the beginning of time to the end of time. At the end of each life, those who reject Jesus Christ (Messiah) as Lord and Savior are erased from the Lambs Book of Life. These people are those that will be present at the Great White Throne Judgment!

Psalms 69:28
28. Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the righteous.

The believer will not attend the Great White Throne Judgment for the lost. Since He believes in the Work of Jesus Christ, his sins are forgiven. He will be judged by God at the Bema Seat judgment of rewards. All of those things that he did during his lifetime for the glory of Jesus and His Kingdom will be rewarded. All of those things he did for his own glory will be burned before his eyes as wood, hay and stubble:

(1 Cor 3:11-23)
11. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; 13. Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. 14. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. 16. Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? 17. If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are. 18. Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. 19. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. 20. And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. 21. Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours; 22. Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours; 23. And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's.

All men, since Adam have been born with a sin nature, as well as a guilty conscience. When I sin, by thought or deed, my conscience reminds me of it. This conscience was in full force and operation before I ever became saved.

Also, after accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and receiving forgiveness from sin, do I ever sin again by thought of deed? You bet I do. That is when I pray to my Father, and repent of my sin, and turn from it, and ask Him to forgive me. The Christian life involves a lifetime of repentance and prayer, until we are finally fully sanctified [b]at the rapture,[/b] when we receive our new, glorified bodies.

This might help:

[url=http://www.gotquestions.org/great-white-throne-judgment.html]Great White Throne[/url]

God bless you, brother

Walter

ceedub wrote:
Walter, thanks for the encouragement to read my bible. A good reminder.

And please read my previous posts which say over and over that I believe we inherit a sinful nature from Adam.

My question is, Why does God, in the bible, include many passages that lay out how 'guilt' is procured?

ie...

Eze 18:2 What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge?

God rebuked them for trying to say that guilt could be inherited, and rather twice in this context affirmed that 'the soul that SINS shall die'.

We read that the children under a certain age were not held responsible for following the 10 spies as opposed to Joshua and Caleb. Why?

In Rev 20, at the final judgement, the books are opened and those outside Christ are judged by their 'deeds', things they've done in the flesh. This is where the guilt comes from. The bible doesn't say that the books were opened and all those with sin natures were judged to hell.

And I realize MacArthur believes infants go to heaven, I never said he didn't. If you go back you'll see I said he believes in inherited guilt that Christ covers. (MacArthur is my favorite author and I think I've read every book he's written. The comment wasn't derrogatory)

My question has been from the beginning, how do we inherit guilt from Adam when the bible says guilt will come from the things we do?

All have sinned (Rom 5:12). To sin is to transgress the law of God; to do wrong. The apostle in this expression does not say that all have sinned in Adam, or that their nature has become corrupt, which is true, but which is not affirmed here; nor that the sin of Adam is imputed to them; but simply affirms that all men have sinned. He speaks evidently of the great universal fact that all men are sinners. He is not settling a metaphysical difficulty; nor does he speak of the condition of man as he comes into the world. He speaks as other men would; he addresses himself to the common sense of the world; and is discoursing of universal, well-known facts. Here is the fact—that all men experience calamity, condemnation, death. How is this to be accounted for? The answer is, “All have sinned.” This is a sufficient answer; it meets the case. And as his design cannot be shown to be to discuss a metaphysical question about the nature of man, or about the character of infants, the passage should be interpreted according to his design, and should not be pressed to bear on that of which he says nothing, and to which the passage evidently has no reference. I understand it, therefore, as referring to the fact that men sin in their own persons, sin themselves—as, indeed, how can they sin in any other way?—and that therefore they die. If men maintain that it refers to any metaphysical properties of the nature of man, or to infants, they should not infer or suppose this, but should show distinctly that it is in the text. Where is there evidence of any such reference?

Barnes

To ceedub:

You stated:
"So then you agree that the Great White Throne Judgement is based on what those there have done and not what Adam did?"

NO, I DO NOT AGREE, ALSOLUTLEY NOT. WE ARE ALL EITHER IN ADAM, AND THEREFORE IN SIN, OR WE ARE IN CHRIST, AND THEREFORE REEDEMED. THERE IS NO OTHER POSITION FOR HUMANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!

Man is born into sin. Without his acceptance of the work of Jesus Christ on the Cross, and in his death burial and resurrection, he appears before God as vile and filthy, and is not fit for heaven. Without accepting God's plan of salvation, man is stuck with whatever plan he puts together for himself, and will end up in hell with Satan, where he belongs.

No matter what he does, man is nothing more than a mud ball, a worm, shouting at the God who made him, and in some sickening way, thinks that he, fallen man, is the one that is worthy.

The definition of sin, established by God in the Bible, is the breaking of His law one time.

At the sermon on the mount, Christ taught that even getting angry with our brother was equal to murder--GUILTY. He taught that even looking on a woman in lust, was equal with ADULTERY--GUILTY!.

How do you judge yourself, or anyone that has ever lived as SINLESS, after understanding what Christ meant? Without His atoning death and resurrection, and payment for sin, there is no hope. [b] 23. For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;[/b] (Romans 3:23)--

[b]THAT MEANS EVERYONE THAT HAS EVER LIVED ON THIS PLANET HAS SINNED.[/b]

God created hell originally for Satan and his fallen angels. Fallen man, without the belief and acceptance of the work of the Jesus Christ, will join them for eternity

[b]I would suggest to you the sermon series by Paul Washer entitled "The Joy set before Him", that might provide additional understanding about who God really is, and the relationship between God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, and of his creation that He created for His Son.

In this time of declension (falling away into apostacy) the creature has finally come to the conclusion (due to it's fallen nature) that it is Holy, and God is not.[/b]

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KCNcUxyUo8&feature=PlayList&p=13E902B071E2E19A&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=24]For The Joy Set Before Him[/url]

Sincerely,

Walter

To ceedub:

To be honest, I am having trouble with your position that someone on earth can be sinless without the covering of the shed blood of Jesus Christ. Who is that "someone" in your life, that you are so concerned about?

You posted:

"You stated:
"So then you agree that the Great White Throne Judgement is based on what those there have done and not what Adam did?"

My response:

All people have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. They are born with a sin nature. They have no choice but to sin.

You continue to bring up the possibility that some human has never sinned.

Since Adam sinned, all humans have sinned. The punishment for sin is eternity in Hell.

1 Cor 15:22
22. Everyone dies because all of us are related to Adam, being members of his sinful race, and wherever there is sin, death results. But all who are related to Christ will rise again.

Humans not only sin by deeds, by actually committing the act, but also by thoughts of wanting to commit the act, eventhough they never follow through.

All humans have two choices.

1. They can disagree with God's assessment of their characters,that they are sinful rot, and refuse God's plan of salvation, and create their own law, and follow Adam & Eve, who in the Garden of eden sinned because Eve wanted to be like God. If you take this choice, you are "in" Adam.

2. Agree with God's assessment of your character, that you are sinful rot, in need of a Savior, and accept God's free gift, Salvation, and live with Him forever. If you take this choice, you are "in" Christ.

There are no other positions--either "in" Adam or "in" Christ.

[b]You have asked this question, again and again:

Several posts ago, you asked:

“My question has been from the beginning, how do we inherit guilt from Adam when the bible says guilt will come from the things we do?”[/b]

Because the Bible teaches us that we (all humans) sin—----all of us:

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: (Romans 3:10)--[b]The Bible![/b]

The Bible also teaches that God has planted His Word in our heart, His Law. When we sin, our own hearts make us feel guilty of breaking His law.

If you believe the Bible, then your question is meaningless. If you don’t believe the Bible, then you will continue asking the same question, again and again, exactly like you have on this thread.

In Conclusion: All (that means evey person ever born) sins, and falls short of the Glory of God

Romans 3:23 “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;”--[b]The Bible![/b]

That is crystal clear to me, and it has been crystal clear to the believing Church for the past 2,000 years.

[b]The Gnostics did not believe in the doctrine of original sin. Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in original sin. Mormons do not believe in original sin. All of the cults do not believe in original sin either![/b]

NO ONE, NOT EVEN A CRYING BABY, THAT WANTS WANTS IT’S WAY, IS FREE FROM THE SIN NATURE INHERITED FROM ADAM. THE SIN NATURE THAT WANTS IT'S WAY!

Sincerely,

Walter

ceedub wrote:
To be honest, I'm having serious trouble following your line of thinking, and why you keep bringing up the basic gospel and means of salvation. I'm fully aware of the doctrines of grace, as well as the OT teaching on the sacrifices and the Day of Atonement. I appreciate your concern that I don't understand the basics tennets of the Christian faith, but I assure you I do. Thanks for your responses.

When the police officer pulls you over and issues you a ticket for what he knows you'll do in the future, I know you'll be glad to pay.

I believe that God judges on what we've done, not what we will do.

And you're exactly right about salvation. Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

Scripture says God judges based on works. He Justifies based on Christ.

To Ceedub:

Here we are again.

[b]Ceedub said:[/b]
So being tempted is the same as sinning. Hebrews says Christ was tempted in every way just like us, yet without sin. I don't think a temptation is sin unless it is carried out

[b]My response to the above:[/b]
The Bible tells us we do sin, just by our thoughts. Please read the sermon on the Mount, by Jesus Christ
(Matt 5:1-48)
Here is only one of many examples:
27. Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28. But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Ceedub, you err, because you do not understand the Scriptures. The Scripture teaches us that within Jesus Christ was the fullness of the Godhead bodily. How can you possibly even compare yourself to God in the flesh, to Jesus Christ? He was sinless, and you and I are full of sin!:

Col 2:9-10
9. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. 10. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

Hebrews 4:15 says simply and clearly that He was "tempted in every way, just as (in exactly the same way as) we are."

Jesus' person as true God and as true man is a miracle beyond our understanding. If we could completely understand how he could be both fully God and fully man, we could understand better exactly what happened in Jesus when he was tempted.[b] As true man, we can see that he could be tempted exactly the way we are, and as true God we can see how he could pass the test of each temptation and "yet was without sin--HE NEVER SINNED ONCE, BY THOUGHT OR DEED!!! (Hebrews 4:15).[/b]

[b][color=990000]Though we cannot fully understand how all this can be, we rejoice that God's Word tells us that he passed every temptation without sinning and so was the perfect Savior we needed who could pay the full price to take all our sins away. In Matthew 4:1-11 we have a clear example of Jesus being tempted by Satan who also tempts us. But we see how Jesus answered Satan each time with a Bible passage and passed each test without sinning.

Jesus' victory is also our victory because Jesus' perfect life (his active obedience, Galatians 4:4 "born under law to redeem those under law"), along with his suffering and death to pay for our sins (his passive obedience, 1 John 2:2), is credited to us by faith for our salvation.[/color][/b]

When we "put on" Jesus Christ, when we accept Him as Lord and Savior, we are "in" Christ, & supernaturally we are "in" His perfection.

[b]In sanctification we work out the implications of our union with Christ's death, burial and resurrection. We are one with him. He is the vine; we are the branches. We are united.

We died to sin, but we are raised with Christ. For what purpose? To live a new life. Now, there are a lot of people who profess to be born again and profess to be justified and be united with Jesus Christ. That doesn't make them Christians. Your profession doesn't make you a Christian. Look at what Jesus Christ said in the Sermon on the Mount: Many would call him, "Lord, Lord." (Matthew 7:21-23) Your calling him, "Lord, Lord," does not make you a Christian. There are so many people in the Christian church who are not born again, who are not justified, who are not by faith united to Jesus Christ in his death and burial and resurrection, and they find sanctification to be what? An impossible task. Because of this the church just lowered the standard and said, "It's okay to live like the devil. It's all right. You just receive Jesus as Savior. We know that it is not easy to receive him as Lord." What the church should be saying is, "You must be born again." And where there is new birth and justification, there is also the divine work of sanctification.

So sanctification is really a working out of the implications of our union with Jesus Christ. Christ was raised from the dead, and with Christ we are also raised to live a new life of resurrection power. That's why we can say, "I can do all things through Jesus Christ who strengtheneth me." What we need is strength, and it is coming to me. The resurrection life is flowing into me and making me able to do what God wants me to do with all joy and delight.

Now the next point is that sanctification - victorious Christian life - is a life of choosing to obey. I don't think when we get to heaven we will have to choose between holiness and wickedness. I believe that sin will be completely dealt with and eradicated. The conflict will be over. Isn't that true? But now, from the moment you are born again, from the moment you are justified, you are led into an arena of battle and fighting and conflict. In your being there are now two contrary urgings.

Turn to Galatians 5:16: "So I say, live by the Spirit" - that is Holy Spirit here - "and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature." You see, the issue here is that the desire of sinful nature is registering in your being, in your consciousness. But not only is the desire of the sinful nature is registering in your consciousness, but the desire of the Holy Spirit is also registering in your consciousness. This, then, is the conflict. Some people say, "Well, this means I am not a Christian." Actually, this means you are a Christian. You didn't have any problem before. You didn't have any conflict before. But now you have a conflict because the divine life has entered into you. The Holy Spirit has come into you. You have been given a new nature, and the old sin did not go away. It is still in our members. So we read, "So I say, live by the Spirit" - in other words, obey the Spirit, follow the Spirit, listen to the Spirit, do what the Holy Spirit is prompting you to do - "and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit desires what is contrary to the sinful nature." The desires of the flesh and the desires of the Holy Spirit are mutually exclusive.

So the issue here is that IF I/YOU am born of God, then the Holy Spirit is dwelling in me. He is causing me to understand and do his desires, in opposition to the desires of the flesh that also register in my being at the same time. That's why I like the expression, "Endure hardship as a good soldier." Christian life is soldiering. You may want to sleep on. You may want to continue to sleep, but the Holy Spirit says this is the time for you to pray. So you have to make a decision. You have to choose between these two urgings. If you are a Christian indwelt by the Holy Spirit, you have the capacity to obey the Holy Spirit, thereby proving to the world that you are a child of God, that you are a Christian, that you are light and not darkness.[

Unless you or I accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, unless we are "in" Christ, we are "in" Adam and on our way to hell.[/b]
xxxxx

Also Ceedub, you stated this in your last post:

Walter, thanks for your responses. It's been enough if it is going to come to personal attacks that I'm like a JW that denies original sin.

On the contrary, I was all but forced out of the last church I attended along with a small group of others for not being willing to compromise on original sin, total depravity and the doctrines of grace.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

My response:

If you came to our Church, with the beliefs that you have expressed here, we would ask you to join our New Believers Bible study. After studying God's Word, with young and old men alike, and you persisted in your false beliefs, we would be forced to ask you to leave as well.

Think nothing personal about what I said about the Mormons, the JW's, or any of the other cults out there. It was not a slam, it was the truth. Their belief's about sin mirror your own.

Sincerely,

Walter

ceedub wrote:

Humans not only sin by deeds, by actually committing the act, but also by thoughts of wanting to commit the act, eventhough they never follow through.

So being tempted is the same as sinning. Hebrews says Christ was tempted in every way just like us, yet without sin. I don't think a temptation is sin unless it is carried out.

If you believe the Bible, then your question is meaningless. If you don’t believe the Bible, then you will continue asking the same question, again and again, exactly like you have on this thread.

Thanks. I'd pass your advice along to Calvin, MacArthur, Henry, Bunyan, Barnes, and Spurgeon if possible to let them know they either don't believe the bible or are/have been wasting their time.

Romans 3:23 “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;”--The Bible!

Crystal clear? You've gone back and forth over and over. One time it's Adam's guilt that they owned 1 moment after conception that will take them to hell, and the next it's because they sinned themselves.

The Gnostics did not believe in the doctrine of original sin. Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in original sin. Mormons do not believe in original sin. All of the cults do not believe in original sin either!

And finally, thanks (sarcasm) for insinuating I'm at cult level for agreeing with Barnes, Bunyan and many others that see God telling us in scripture that we will be judged by our deeds.
Those of us that have sinful deeds, ie all that have broken God's law, ie all except infants or others that never reach accountability, will be held guilty and hell bound but for God's saving grace through Christ alone.

Walter, thanks for your responses. It's been enough if it is going to come to personal attacks that I'm like a JW that denies original sin.

On the contrary, I was all but forced out of the last church I attended along with a small group of others for not being willing to compromise on original sin, total depravity and the doctrines of grace.

Not once have I asserted a sinless state in adults. Not once have I denied original sin and the death and sin nature that came with it.

I've only questioned how those that never reach an age of accountability (ie a day old life in the womb) can be found guilty when God says he finds guilt based on deeds done in the flesh.

The only response that remains is the one that shows clearly that God will hold me guilty for the sins of Adam. That I need never sin in the womb myself, but by Adam I am found guilty in the womb nonetheless. Not sinful, for that only states what is inevitable. Not dead either, for babies die in the womb through abortion with no guilt on their hands. Christ died a physical death as well, and in Him was no sin. (Please don't feel the need to explain substitionary atonement as I understand it).

I don't mean to sound impatient, but I didn't expect such a misrepresentation of my views, nor being compared to cults because I've voiced the same theology as the bible and many commentators before me who've forgotten more than I know.

I guess I do see an age of accountability. I don't see God charging hell-worthy guilt to infants in the womb who've never transgressed the law.

I do see physical death with infants. That broad stroke of judgement that fell on the whole humnan race when Adam sinned.

I see a sinful nature within all that have ever been born since Adam, save Christ himself.

But not guilt through Adam. That comes from personal sin.

I would really urge you all, particuraly Bro Ceedub, don't even respond to Waltern's latest posting. Let him be "right", what gain could be gleaned from refuting him, he's always "right".

only religious pride could keep this thread going, there's no fruit on this tree.

neil

To Clint:

Is Adams [b][color=000000]SIN "imputed"[/color][/b] to man?

Is Christ's[b][color=CC0000] RIGHTEOUSNESS "imputed" [/color][/b]to man?

Noah Websters 1828 Dictionary:
[b]IMPU'TE, v.t. [L. imputo; in and puto, to think, to reckon; properly, to set, to put, to throw to or on.][/b]

1. To charge; to attribute; to set to the account of; generally ill, sometimes good. We impute crimes,sins, trespasses, faults, blame, &c., to the guilty persons. We impute wrong actions to bad motives, or to ignorance, or to folly and rashness. We impute misfortunes and miscarriages to imprudence.

[b][color=CC0000] "And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. (Romans 4:1-25)[/color][/b]

2. To attribute; to ascribe.
I have read a book imputed to lord Bathurst.

[b][color=000000]3. To reckon to one what does not belong to him.

It has been held that Adam's sin is imputed to all his posterity.[/color][/b]

[b][color=CC0000]Thy merit Imputed shall absolve them who renounce Their own both righteous and unrighteous deeds.[/color][/b]

[b]IMPU'TED, pp. Charged to the account of; attributed; ascribed.[/b]

[b]IMPU'TER, n. One that imputes or attributes

IMPU'TING, ppr. Charging to the account of; attributing; ascribing.[/b]

Your response would be much appreciated.

Sincerely,

Walter

broclint wrote:
I too have been watching this thread and will have to agree with you Denver and Neil...

The original question and the repeat of the question has been clear enough, but the rants in between have been totally useless.

For the record, put me down on the side of those commentators who believe that we will be judged for our deeds rather than our fathers, et al. 2 Chronicles 25:1 and the following verses appear very clear on that point along with what has been quoted from Ezekiel 18:20 and the following verses. It would preposterous to say the least to be commanded repeatedly and warned repeatedly against the breaking of commands, and told repeatedly how we will be judged and for what we will be judged if it all had to do with what someone before us did.

Actually the whole long argument comes down to a moot point for those of us who have lived long enough to make some decisions on our own, because indeed we have all sinned.

I trust totally and completely the character of God who answered the prayer of Abraham for his less than noble nephew Lot. The judge of all the earth will do right.

My two bits :-)

Clint

Hello ceedub:

I posted some of this previously, but you must have missed it. I'll post again:

[b]Ceedub, your previously posted the following:[/b]

So being tempted is the same as sinning. Hebrews says Christ was tempted in every way just like us, yet without sin[b]. "I don't think a temptation is sin unless it is carried out"[/b]

[b]My response to the above:[/b]

[b]The Bible does not care about what we think. The Bible was given by God to present to mankind His thoughts and His positions and His Standard on all issues. To show mankind that His standard is above their sinful standard. For the Christian, the Bible is the Standard, the Bible is the anvil.

[Christ, when looking at a woman, even though she might have been totally nude,was never tempted with lust as man would be, as you or I would be.

Jesus Christ was the perfect man. He had to be, to take on the entire sin of humanity. He had to be sinless, in order to take on our sin--He who knew no sin became sin.]

The Bible disagrees with your opinion posted above. The Bible tells us that our sinful thoughts are considered to be sin—By just looking at another person in lust makes us just as guilty as committing the physical act of adultery with that person.

Please read the sermon on the Mount, by Jesus Christ
(Matt 5:1-48)
Here are several examples:
27. Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28. But I say unto you, [b]That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.[/b]

21. Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time,[b] Thou shalt not kill[/b]; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
22.[b] But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.[/b]

Ceedub, you err, because you do not understand the Scriptures. The Scripture teaches us that within Jesus Christ was the fullness of the Godhead bodily. How can you possibly even compare yourself to God in the flesh, to Jesus Christ? He was sinless, and you and I are full of sin!:

Col 2:9-10
9. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. 10. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

Hebrews 4:15 says simply and clearly that He was "tempted in every way, just as (in exactly the same way as) we are."

Jesus' person as true God and as true man is a miracle beyond our understanding. If we could completely understand how he could be both fully God and fully man, we could understand better exactly what happened in Jesus when he was tempted. As true man, we can see that he could be tempted exactly the way we are, and as true God we can see how he could pass the test of each temptation and "yet was without sin--HE NEVER SINNED ONCE, BY THOUGHT OR DEED!!! (Hebrews 4:15).

Though we cannot fully understand how all this can be, we rejoice that God's Word tells us that he passed every temptation without sinning and so was the perfect Savior we needed who could pay the full price to take all our sins away. In Matthew 4:1-11 we have a clear example of Jesus being tempted by Satan who also tempts us. But we see how Jesus answered Satan each time with a Bible passage and passed each test without sinning.

Jesus' victory is also our victory because Jesus' perfect life (his active obedience, Galatians 4:4 "born under law to redeem those under law"), along with his suffering and death to pay for our sins (his passive obedience, 1 John 2:2), is credited to us by faith for our salvation.

When we "put on" Jesus Christ, when we accept Him as Lord and Savior, we are "in" Christ, & supernaturally we are "in" His perfection.

In sanctification we work out the implications of our union with Christ's death, burial and resurrection. We are one with him. He is the vine; we are the branches. We are united.

We died to sin, but we are raised with Christ. For what purpose? To live a new life. Now, there are a lot of people who profess to be born again and profess to be justified and be united with Jesus Christ. That doesn't make them Christians. Your profession doesn't make you a Christian. Look at what Jesus Christ said in the Sermon on the Mount: Many would call him, "Lord, Lord." (Matthew 7:21-23) Your calling him, "Lord, Lord," does not make you a Christian. There are so many people in the Christian church who are not born again, who are not justified, who are not by faith united to Jesus Christ in his death and burial and resurrection, and they find sanctification to be what? An impossible task. Because of this the church just lowered the standard and said, "It's okay to live like the devil. It's all right. You just receive Jesus as Savior. We know that it is not easy to receive him as Lord." What the church should be saying is, "You must be born again." And where there is new birth and justification, there is also the divine work of sanctification.

So sanctification is really a working out of the implications of our union with Jesus Christ. Christ was raised from the dead, and with Christ we are also raised to live a new life of resurrection power. That's why we can say, "I can do all things through Jesus Christ who strengtheneth me." What we need is strength, and it is coming to me. The resurrection life is flowing into me and making me able to do what God wants me to do with all joy and delight.

Now the next point is that sanctification - victorious Christian life - is a life of choosing to obey. I don't think when we get to heaven we will have to choose between holiness and wickedness. I believe that sin will be completely dealt with and eradicated. The conflict will be over. Isn't that true? But now, from the moment you are born again, from the moment you are justified, you are led into an arena of battle and fighting and conflict. In your being there are now two contrary urgings.

Turn to Galatians 5:16: "So I say, live by the Spirit" - that is Holy Spirit here - "and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature." You see, the issue here is that the desire of sinful nature is registering in your being, in your consciousness. But not only is the desire of the sinful nature is registering in your consciousness, but the desire of the Holy Spirit is also registering in your consciousness. This, then, is the conflict. Some people say, "Well, this means I am not a Christian." Actually, this means you are a Christian. You didn't have any problem before. You didn't have any conflict before. But now you have a conflict because the divine life has entered into you. The Holy Spirit has come into you. You have been given a new nature, and the old sin did not go away. It is still in our members. So we read, "So I say, live by the Spirit" - in other words, obey the Spirit, follow the Spirit, listen to the Spirit, do what the Holy Spirit is prompting you to do - "and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit desires what is contrary to the sinful nature." The desires of the flesh and the desires of the Holy Spirit are mutually exclusive.

So the issue here is that IF I/YOU am born of God, then the Holy Spirit is dwelling in me. He is causing me to understand and do his desires, in opposition to the desires of the flesh that also register in my being at the same time. That's why I like the expression, "Endure hardship as a good soldier." Christian life is soldiering. You may want to sleep on. You may want to continue to sleep, but the Holy Spirit says this is the time for you to pray. So you have to make a decision. You have to choose between these two urgings. If you are a Christian indwelt by the Holy Spirit, you have the capacity to obey the Holy Spirit, thereby proving to the world that you are a child of God, that you are a Christian, that you are light and not darkness.[

Unless you or I accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, unless we are "in" Christ, we are "in" Adam and on our way to hell.
xxxxx

Also Ceedub, you stated this in your last post:

Walter, thanks for your responses. It's been enough if it is going to come to personal attacks that I'm like a JW that denies original sin.

On the contrary, I was all but forced out of the last church I attended along with a small group of others for not being willing to compromise on original sin, total depravity and the doctrines of grace.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

My response:

If you came to our Church, with the beliefs that you have expressed here, we would ask you to join our New Believers Bible study. After studying God's Word, with young and old men alike, and you persisted in your false beliefs, we would be forced to ask you to leave as well.

Think nothing personal about what I said about the Mormons, the JW's, or any of the other cults out there. It was not a slam, it was the truth. Their belief's about sin mirror your own.

Sincerely,

Walter

Is Adams SIN "imputed" to man?

Is Christ's RIGHTEOUSNESS "imputed" to man?

If I may offer a suggestion: The op is not saying that the [b]penalty[/b] for Adam's transgression was not passed on, i.e., separation from the actual presence of God, but he guilt of it. It is very important to make that distinction when arguing this out. Therefore it is the penalty that is imputed and not the guilt. My conscience never condemned me for Adam's sin, but my own. Anyone who says differently, isn't telling the truth.

Jesus died on the cross to erase the penalty, thus providing a way back into the presence of God; a way for righteousness to be imputed.

As with the righteousness of Jesus that is imputed on condition of our faith likewise, unrighteousness is imputed on condition, i.e., OUR sin[s].

Though innocence is not reconciliation in and of itself, innocence can never be, guilt. Jesus paid the price for the "innocent" to enter heaven and made a way whereby all could be made innocent by His Blood shed on Calvary.

With regards to:

Albert Barnes and Stuart don't believe that guilty is imputed but rather the nature or propensity to sin. John Bunyan believes the law was there, but only in the hearts of men (ie Cain's countenance and Romans 1) and therefore were guilty of their own sin, not Adam's.

I would say that the propensity to lust was imputed from the beginning, it being the thing God was after in Adam.

Hello Micah:

You posted:

Are you REALLY trying to pitch that temptation is sin? What your trying to say flies in the face of...

1 Cor 10:13

13There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

Sounds to me that one can resist temptation. Your pitching that if someone is tempting you, then you have already sinned???

My Response:

Absolutely, when we are tempted in our hearts, we actually sin. That is what Christ teaches us on the Sermon on the Mount.

When I accepted Jesus Christ as Lord & Savior of my life, He came into my heart. It is a supernatural event that I cannot take any credit for. He is the one that drew me to Him and He is the one sanctifying me. He is the one that is conforming me to His image.

Today, if I get angry at my brother, I am guilty of murder. Today, If I look at a beautiful woman in lust (and what man does not?), I am guilty of adultery. When events like this happen, I repent of my sin, and turn to Christ, and ask Him for forgiveness. That is the Christian walk.

[b]My walk is not in any way like the walk of Christ. He was NEVER angry at his brother. He NEVER lusted after women. Christ was the perfect man, while I am a fallen man, with the continuous propensity to sin. Why? Because I have a sin nature inherited from Adam. I do not want to sin, but I do. Not by deed anymore, but by thoughts.[/b]

As a Christian believer I CANNOT in any way compare my “walk” with the walk of Jesus Christ, the God Man! Jesus Christ never had to pray to the Father to ask for forgiveness of His sin one time. Why? Because He was without sin. The Scripture teaches us that within Jesus Christ was the fullness of the Godhead bodily. How can we filthy mudball christians ever compare ourselves to Jesus Christ? He was God in the flesh, sinless, and we are full of sin!:

Col 2:9-10
9. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. 10. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

Hebrews 4:15 says simply and clearly that He was "tempted in every way, just as (in exactly the same way as) we are."

[b]I have formulated a biblical defense of not only the sinlessness of Christ, but the fact that He did not have even the desire to sin.[/b] The Scriptures we will focus on are:

Hebrews 2:18—For in that He Himself has suffered (lit., experienced) being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted.

Hebrews 4:15—For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.

James 1:13-15—Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.

Galatians 1:17—For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish.

Genesis 3:15—“And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel.”

Some other verses we will look at later: Luke 22:31; 1st Corinthians 5:5; 1st Timothy 1:20; Job 2:6.

[b]Since we know that Scripture does not contradict Scripture, and that Christ was without sin, how do we reconcile the fact that James said God cannot be tested with evil, yet the writer of Hebrews tells us that Christ was tested in all things like we are? The answer is not simple, but here is (briefly) what I have learned from studying this subject. And I do not claim to have perfect knowledge of it, but I have read what some great men of God have had to say about it, and I think I’m getting close.[/b]

Let us begin with James 1:14, which tells us that a man is tempted (tested) when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Go back to the Garden (Genesis 3). Man had not fallen yet. So who had to test the first people? Satan, because man had not yet been stained by sin. Satan enticed our parents with their desire, which was what? To be like God. Since then, every man (and woman) who has ever lived has sought to live their own way, and to put their own desires above those of God. Our desires lead us to rebel against God and His commands. Always have, always will.

That is why James said in 1:13 that we cannot say we have been tested by God—because we are not in fact tested by God, but by our own lusts. (Coram, I think that’s what you were getting at in your email, which led me to do some more digging.). Christ, however, did not have those desires and lusts because He did not have the sinful nature that we inherited from Adam. That’s why the writer of Hebrews said that although Christ was tested in all points like we are, He was without sin. He was tested in all the same areas we are—but not in the same fashion that we are. He was the seed of woman, and not man. So Satan himself had to come after Christ because Christ did not have sin dwelling within Him. Therefore, (a) Satan had nothing to use to lead Christ to sin, and (b) Christ would never lead Himself to rebel against the Father. So while Christ may have been tested to see if He would sin, He could not be led to harbor a desire to commit sin.

We, however, are tested by our own lusts. James 1:14—But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Christ had no such lusts. We are tested from within, Christ HAD TO BE tested from without. God allows us to be tempted and tested by our own desires to see whether we will follow our flesh or whether we will follow the Spirit. That’s why He doesn’t make us perfect when He saves us. (That is, He does take away our sins, but He does not take away our humanity). Because Jesus did not have that struggle within, He had to be tempted by Satan himself. Christ is able to sympathize with us in our temptations—not because He had the same sinful feelings we have, but because He came face-to-face with THE tempter. Christ was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.
So now we come back to James. When we are tested by our flesh, the temptation gives birth to lust. And lust when it is fully grown brings death (1:15).[b] Christ experienced temptation (Hebrews 2:18) but only because it was brought to Him, not because it was within Him. He did not have the internal struggle against sin that a born-again believer has. There was no place inside of Him for the “seed” of sin to grow and bring forth lust (and by extension death). When we are being tested by our desires, a war begins inside of us because the Holy Spirit dwells within (1st Corinthians 6:19), yet we are still trapped in these bodies of flesh (Romans 7:24). So what happens? The flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another (Galatians 5:17). The Spirit is leading us to follow God, while the flesh is leading us be our own God.
Again, Christ faced no such struggle because His one and only desire was to do the will of the Father. He could not be led to stray even when He was at the point of death. Matthew 27:34, Mark 15:23—Then they gave Him wine mingled with myrrh to drink, but He did not take it. He would not so much as take anything to dull the pain of the torture He was enduring.[/b]

Consider some others who were handed over to Satan:

Some were so faithful to God that nothing this world has to offer could entice them to sin.
•\tLuke 22:31-32—And the Lord said, “Simon, Simon! Indeed, Satan has asked for you, that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren.”
•\tJob 2:6—And YHVH said to Satan, “Behold, he is in your hand, but spare his life.”
Others had fallen away, and the only way to bring them back was to let them see for themselves the master they were serving with their sins.
•\t1st Corinthians 5:1, 5—It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles—that a man has his father’s wife!…Deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
•\t1st Timothy 1:18-20—…wage the good warfare, having faith and a good conscience, which some, having rejected, concerning the faith have suffered shipwreck, of whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.
So to conclude, I would sum up this issue like this: While Satan may have tested Jesus, to see if He would sin, and while Satan tried every way he could to lead Jesus to sin, there was no way that Jesus would have ever even considered sinning against the Father—because He did not have our sinful nature. We, however, are tested by our own fleshly lusts and desires that bring forth nothing but death.

Here are what some others have had to say about the verses from Hebrews and James:
Hebrews 2:18:
•\t[b]Albert Barnes says of the biblical meaning of “tempt”—“It means to ‘put to the proof;’ to try the nature or character of; and this may be done either:
(1) by subjecting a person to ‘afflictions’ or ‘sufferings’ that his true character may be tried - that it may be seen whether he has sincere piety and love to God; or.
(2) by allowing one to fall into ‘temptation,’ properly so called - where some strong inducement to evil is presented to the mind, and where it becomes thus a “trial” of virtue.”
[/b]•\t[b]John Gill—“For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted… By Satan, at his entrance on his public ministry, and a little before his death; which was done, not by stirring up sin in him, for he had none, nor by putting any into him, which could not be done, nor could Satan get any advantage over him.”
Hebrews 4:15:[/b]
•\t[b]Adam Clarke—“His mind, or human soul, being free from all sin, being every way perfect, could feel no irregular temper, nothing that was inconsistent with infinite purity.”
[/b]•\tAT Robertson (Robertson’s Word Pictures)—[b]“This is the outstanding difference that must never be overlooked in considering the actual humanity of Jesus. He did not yield to sin. But more than this is true. There was no latent sin in Jesus to be stirred by temptation and no habits of sin to be overcome. But he did have ‘weaknesses’ (astheneiai) common to our human nature (hunger, thirst, weariness, etc.). Satan used his strongest weapons against Jesus, did it repeatedly, and failed.”[/b]
James 1:13:
•\t[b]John Gill[/b]—“he may be tempted by evil men, and with evil things, but he cannot be tempted ‘to evil,’ (as the Ethiopic version renders it)…”[/b]

[url=http://defendingcontending.com/2009/04/15/was-christ-tempted-or-tested/]Was Christ Tempted or Tested?[/url]

Sincerely,

Walter

Miccah wrote:
Waltern...

Are you REALLY trying to pitch that temptation is sin? What your trying to say flies in the face of...

DELETED

But I must admit I'm finding this thread...amusing...not the subject matter, nay, but the fact that it just keeps going on and on and on, with this hyper religiostic engine driving it, that I can't discern what the conundrum is.......and here's what I'm wondering, at what post count is it finally going to........drift away? ...or maybe the moderators will ascertain that this thread is no longer edifying, and lock it.

Why? Why do we fuss over such matters, that we really are one accord on? Boredom? Religious pride?

Christiaan, off topic, I've been wanting so bad to drive up to the Driftless Region of our beautiful state Wisconsin, but business matters have kept me here on my days off!!

I'm going to go make my especiale meat loaf now, with sweet baby Ray's b-b-q sauce and crushed red pepper, and finish re-reading "Azusa Street".....one of my favorite books, very edifying.

God bless and love you all...now quit, neil

A hearty Amen! to that ceedub.

To be guilty, as most church tradition has it, is to make us a victim, who Jesus sympathizes with. The traditional church seems to have us glory in that identification which keeps us in the thinking we are just sinners saved by grace instead of saints learning how not to sin.

Someone here needs to read Oswald Chambers:

\t[b]INTEREST OR IDENTIFICATION?[/b]
\t

"I have been crucified with Christ." Galatians 2:20

The imperative need spiritually is to sign the death warrant of the disposition of sin, to turn all emotional impressions and intellectual beliefs into a moral verdict against the disposition of sin, viz., my claim to my right to myself. Paul says - "I have been crucified with Christ"; he does not say - "I have determined to imitate Jesus Christ," or, "I will endeavour to follow Him" - but - "I have been identified with Him in His death." When I come to such a moral decision and act upon it, then all that Christ wrought for me on the Cross is wrought in me. The free committal of myself to God gives the Holy Spirit the chance to impart to me the holiness of Jesus Christ.

". . . nevertheless I live. . . ." The individuality remains, but the mainspring, the ruling disposition, is radically altered. The same human body remains, but the old satanic right to myself is destroyed.

"And the life which I now live in the flesh . . . ," not the life which I long to live and pray to live, but the life I now live in my mortal flesh, the life which men can see, "I live by the faith of the Son of God." This faith is not Paul's faith in Jesus Christ, but the faith that the Son of God has imparted to him - "the faith of the Son of God." It is no longer faith in faith, but faith which has overleapt all conscious bounds, the identical faith of the Son of God.

My Response:

"Absolutely, when we are tempted in our hearts, we actually sin. That is what Christ teaches us on the Sermon on the Mount." Waltern

I'll try to make this brief. The Bible says Jesus was tempted by Satan in the desert, the Bible also says Jesus was also without sin.

Paul said that Jesus "WAS TEMPTED IN EVERY WAY YET WAS WITHOUT SIN". There is a clear separation here and Paul distinguishes this quite unequivocally.

The ACT OF LUSTING after another woman in one's heart isn't temptation... it's sin. Lusting is an action verb here, it's a willing and continuous focus. We are tempted to lust in our hearts in a participatory manner that engages without much thought to the offense or much attempt to overcome it. The sin is an active and willful participation, not a random thought or image that is quick and fleeting. Sin can begin with a thought, but the thought is not sin itself. The coveting of the thought and the engagement of the imagination is sin. I can look at another woman and be tempted with an image of her that isn't appropriate. Now I can choose to actively continue with that thought and engage in further flesh pleasing imagery or I can dismiss it and receive the strength of Christ. Or if I stumble, I can find grace in confession and repentance.

Temptation is not sin.... otherwise Jesus would not have been a sinless offering for us. The devil tempts us to sin. We cannot prevent temptation, but we can overcome it just as it was stated by someone quoting the book of James.

[b][color=0066FF]It appears that everyone who has responded to my last post did not actually read my entire post.

Is that possible?[/color][/b]

Also, for all of you "saints" out there, I challenge you to tell me that you have not been angry with your brother in the last year. I challenge you to tell me that the last time you were at the mall, that the half naked women walking toward or away from you did not arouse you to lust.

This is the part (I hope) that you have all missed:

Since we know that Scripture does not contradict Scripture, and that Christ was without sin, how do we reconcile the fact that James said God cannot be tested with evil, yet the writer of Hebrews tells us that Christ was tested in all things like we are? The answer is not simple, but here is (briefly) what I have learned from studying this subject. And I do not claim to have perfect knowledge of it, but I have read what some great men of God have had to say about it, and I think I’m getting close.

[b]Let us begin with James 1:14, which tells us that a man is tempted (tested) when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Go back to the Garden (Genesis 3). Man had not fallen yet. So who had to test the first people? Satan, because man had not yet been stained by sin. Satan enticed our parents with their desire, which was what? To be like God. Since then, every man (and woman) who has ever lived has sought to live their own way, and to put their own desires above those of God. Our desires lead us to rebel against God and His commands. Always have, always will.

That is why James said in 1:13 that we cannot say we have been tested by God—because we are not in fact tested by God, but by our own lusts. (Coram, I think that’s what you were getting at in your email, which led me to do some more digging.). Christ, however, did not have those desires and lusts because He did not have the sinful nature that we inherited from Adam. That’s why the writer of Hebrews said that although Christ was tested in all points like we are, He was without sin. He was tested in all the same areas we are—but not in the same fashion that we are. He was the seed of woman, and not man. So Satan himself had to come after Christ because Christ did not have sin dwelling within Him. Therefore, (a) Satan had nothing to use to lead Christ to sin, and (b) Christ would never lead Himself to rebel against the Father. So while Christ may have been tested to see if He would sin, He could not be led to harbor a desire to commit sin.

We, however, are tested by our own lusts. James 1:14—But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Christ had no such lusts. We are tested from within, Christ HAD TO BE tested from without. God allows us to be tempted and tested by our own desires to see whether we will follow our flesh or whether we will follow the Spirit. That’s why He doesn’t make us perfect when He saves us. (That is, He does take away our sins, but He does not take away our humanity). Because Jesus did not have that struggle within, He had to be tempted by Satan himself. Christ is able to sympathize with us in our temptations—not because He had the same sinful feelings we have, but because He came face-to-face with THE tempter. Christ was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.
So now we come back to James. When we are tested by our flesh, the temptation gives birth to lust. And lust when it is fully grown brings death
(1:15).

Christ experienced temptation (Hebrews 2:18) but only because it was brought to Him, not because it was within Him. He did not have the internal struggle against sin that a born-again believer has. There was no place inside of Him for the “seed” of sin to grow and bring forth lust (and by extension death). When we are being tested by our desires, a war begins inside of us because the Holy Spirit dwells within (1st Corinthians 6:19), yet we are still trapped in these bodies of flesh (Romans 7:24). So what happens? The flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another (Galatians 5:17). The Spirit is leading us to follow God, while the flesh is leading us be our own God.

Again, Christ faced no such struggle because His one and only desire was to do the will of the Father. He could not be led to stray even when He was at the point of death. Matthew 27:34, Mark 15:23—Then they gave Him wine mingled with myrrh to drink, but He did not take it. He would not so much as take anything to dull the pain of the torture He was enduring.

Consider some others who were handed over to Satan:

Some were so faithful to God that nothing this world has to offer could entice them to sin.
• Luke 22:31-32—And the Lord said, “Simon, Simon! Indeed, Satan has asked for you, that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren.”

• Job 2:6—And YHVH said to Satan, “Behold, he is in your hand, but spare his life.”
Others had fallen away, and the only way to bring them back was to let them see for themselves the master they were serving with their sins.

• 1st Corinthians 5:1, 5—It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles—that a man has his father’s wife!…Deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

• 1st Timothy 1:18-20—…wage the good warfare, having faith and a good conscience, which some, having rejected, concerning the faith have suffered shipwreck, of whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.

[b][color=990000]So to conclude, I would sum up this issue like this: While Satan may have tested Jesus, to see if He would sin, and while Satan tried every way he could to lead Jesus to sin, there was no way that Jesus would have ever even considered sinning against the Father—because He did not have our sinful nature. We, however, are tested by our own fleshly lusts and desires that bring forth nothing but death.[/color][/b]

[b]Here are what some others have had to say about the verses from Hebrews and James:
Hebrews 2:18:
• Albert Barnes says of the biblical meaning of “tempt”—“It means to ‘put to the proof;’ to try the nature or character of; and this may be done either:
(1) by subjecting a person to ‘afflictions’ or ‘sufferings’ that his true character may be tried - that it may be seen whether he has sincere piety and love to God; or.
(2) by allowing one to fall into ‘temptation,’ properly so called - where some strong inducement to evil is presented to the mind, and where it becomes thus a “trial” of virtue.”
• John Gill—“For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted… By Satan, at his entrance on his public ministry, and a little before his death; which was done, not by stirring up sin in him, for he had none, nor by putting any into him, which could not be done, nor could Satan get any advantage over him.”
Hebrews 4:15:
• Adam Clarke—“His mind, or human soul, being free from all sin, being every way perfect, could feel no irregular temper, nothing that was inconsistent with infinite purity.”
• AT Robertson (Robertson’s Word Pictures)—“This is the outstanding difference that must never be overlooked in considering the actual humanity of Jesus. He did not yield to sin. But more than this is true. There was no latent sin in Jesus to be stirred by temptation and no habits of sin to be overcome. But he did have ‘weaknesses’ (astheneiai) common to our human nature (hunger, thirst, weariness, etc.). Satan used his strongest weapons against Jesus, did it repeatedly, and failed.”
James 1:13:
• John Gill—“he may be tempted by evil men, and with evil things, but he cannot be tempted ‘to evil,’ (as the Ethiopic version renders it)…”[/b]

Was Christ Tempted or Tested?

Sincerely,

Walter

A valid definition for temptation is, "solicitation".

Jesus was solicited. so was Adam? Both were men. Why did Adam cave in and Jesus didn't?

Driftless Region? In Wisconsin? Been here for 33 years. Never heard anyplace called that before.?.? Have heard of meatloaf though

Oh yessir! "Region"...or more appropriately "Area".......we call it "Freelandia", I call it "God's country"

here's the "wiki" piece on it, I think you'll find it fascinating.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driftless_Region]Driftless Area/Region USA[/url]

It's a long entry and you might want to go to the "Wisconsin" part, its the part of the Midwest that the glaciers didnt grind down into flatland, we're all north of the Wisconsin River and west of Spring Green.

The beautiful part of the land is threefold, you have some nice bottomland, also good ridgeland, you have abundant hardwood stands, for farwood, and you have more than abundant spring water from limestone aquifiers, deep deep aquifers.

I know of one spring, my favorite, the stone springhouse was built in 1910, maybe 20, its just a 8 by 3 stone box, and out of issues this beautiful cold clear drinking water, and when I put my hand down to the water and drink, I always think of Jesus and the Living Waters from which we will never thirst, and I give silent thanks and praise to the Lord.

Even just thinking about that area, and writing about, makes me want to praise God for His genius and His mercy at crafting such an area, a land that literally flows with milk and honey.

And in these rural areas, aparsely populated, its "dry", dry in the sense that most folks worship the Green Bay Packers more than they do Jesus, which on the surface one would find disheartening, but I find it encouraging in the sense that THIS is the kind of area, that God could set ablaze in Holy Ghost Fire.

Why? I don't know, just a leading. There are so many church "buildings", y'know in the county seats of 3,000 souls, and in the smaller towns, 500 to 1500, but these churches are as dry as a desert.

and "dry wood" burns the best, doesn't it?

The Driftless Region Revival, may it be so Lord, amen.

REVIVAL! For HIS GLORY!

Thats what we need, real Revival, we don't need turgid polemic cyber theo-tussles. (Walter! "saints"? in quotation marks? come now, what spirit of love is that?...please older brother, for Jesus' sake)

Revival, Christiaan, think of it! Glorious revival in the Sovereignity of God, souls saved before they even reach a church, which they hurry to reach with the same speed that they used to drive to the Kwikstop to get a case of beer before a packers game.......instead they rush to the church, weeping, mourning like doves, crying out like they did in the Hebrides, "hell is too good for me!!!"

May it be so.

in Jesus' love, neil

oh ps...the meatloaf is spot on! better than filet mignon, thank You LORD!!

Question: Why pray for another revival when the first one didn't work?

I asked a bible study group of 20 guys one night what was the main thing that kept them from sharring the gospel and the answer was virtually unanimous. 'We don't know what we believe.

With regards to this church, whats wrong with this picture? It is not so much who is to blame but rather what is to blame doctrinally; foundationally that I ask?

In asking this question, I ask objectively, not intending to single out this particular church because I have seen it across the board.

"Also, for all of you "saints" out there, I challenge you to tell me that you have not been angry with your brother in the last year. I challenge you to tell me that the last time you were at the mall, that the half naked women walking toward or away from you did not arouse you to lust." Waltern

What part of the fact that Jesus was tempted in the desert but did not sin did you not understand???

What part of the fact that Jesus was 'tempted in every way yet WITHOUT SIN' don't you understand???

What part of 'he will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you can bear but will provide and escape (from the sinful act)' do you not understand.

1 Corinthians

13No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.

14Therefore, my dear friends, flee from idolatry.

GALATIANS 6:1

Doing Good to All

1Brothers, if someone is caught in a SIN, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be TEMPTED (to fall into the same sin). (tell me Waltern, why are the terms mutually exclusive here? Are you saying that 'in sin' and 'tempted' are one in the same here? If so, it would be hard to restore their brother with repenting on the spot. If the sinful brother stole money from another brother, does' tempted' mean they have done the same already???)

Whether or not I've ever been angry or lusted isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not temptation is sin. The answer is no, the Bible states it.

Have you ever been tempted to do something and didn't do it? What do you think the Bible meant by FLEE? Do you think flee means engage and focus on the woman at the mall? Does flee mean hold a grudge and be angry in your heart? Flee is to turn from the temptation and or sin. That's my simple, common sense, definition. (If you wish to run to your dictionary to find all ten meanings but little context then that's your issue). It is possible to be tempted and not sin. That's not preaching sinless perfection, that's not saying we don't ever lust or get angry or whatever... it's simply to say there's a difference..... that THEY ARE NOT ONE AND THE SAME.

Are there times when we are 'at the mall' and look away from a half naked woman without lusting? Have you never resisted once to quell the oncoming thoughts? Have you NEVER resisted to look or have EVER resisted the urge to let it capture your imagination? Have you ever been tempted to be angry at someone but let it go and forgiven them on the spot??? Do you think there are any Christians who have been tempted to lie to their boss, spouse, friend or whoever but didn't and chose the truth? If once you have been successful at this then you were tempted but did not sin. You challenge me on the sin side so I challenge you on the tempt side. Have you NEVER been successful in resisting lust, anger, jealousy, envy, to lie, to steal, to use the Lord's name in vain??? OR do you just react to every little temptation your heart desires???

The Bible is clear that temptation and sin are two different things, yet you give us these hyper-myopic breakdowns of five different meanings within the word itself from some Biblical lexicon that has much definition but little context.

And your "saints" comment needs to be challenged more than your theology. Your condescending rants lend to your inability to understand anything other than what you write. Just because we may not agree with your theology doesn't make us any more or less a saint than yourself. Yet you want to distinguish yourself from us in your quotations. That says more about you than us. I stand by all those here who claim that many of your rants are purely argumentative and self absorbed.

GOD Bless you for this post ceedub.

There were about 4 churches represented there. What's wrong with the picture? In my humble opinion, much of the church's problems have come from abondoning doctrinal study, especially when it leads to debate.Many times I've been approached with doctrinal questions from a believer who's church leaders or bible study group's response has been, 'Oh, we don't go there!' followed up by a knowing, smirk.

That's the problem. When the church gives the impression that doctrine doesn't matter enough to work through the hard issues, is it any wonder that there's a growing disregard and ignorance in the doctrines that make the church strong?

That is the problem, isn't it? [i][/i] The "church" trying to protect it's "income". Hardly the CHURCH, wouldn't you say?

It is easy to do when being taught Jesus is God without explanation of His manhood, we are given as our role model. "The tendency to-day to “annul,” i.e. “dissolve by analysis,” the Person of Jesus, does untold damage to moral and spiritual understanding"..Chambers

Does one pray for revival in this [these] church[s] of rather that God would send Himself instead?

Consider this: Any Bible study, worth its salt, should aid one in the process of tranforming his imputed innocence into holiness. That is the Ultimate end of things for the one born again of the Life of the Son God. See Gal.2.20

Amen!! Praise God for Tozer! Now, where to begin?

Something to ponder: Any excitable, hysterical testimony from a tide of revival is apt to be more welcome to the majority of sanctified people than the bedrock teaching of the New Testament. With what result? “. . . because they had no root, they withered away.”.... Chambers

Speaking as an individual, if the spirit of me is not of God so also is my soul that expresses itself in the body, is not of God. Can this not also be said of the church?

Question: Why pray for another revival when the first one didn't work?

fair question, which I will answer with a question, when the battery in your car becomes dead, maybe because its 20 degrees below zero, what do you do?

You get jumper cables and a friend, or neighbor, attaches the cables to his or her battery and you get a "jump", then you get in that car and "drive" around until you are certain the battery has "juice".

Besides, who said the "first one" didnt work?

The first revival, the way I read Scripture was on the day of Pentecost, Shavuot, the Feast of Weeks, and the Holy Spirit blew into the Upper Room, with a mighty rushing wind, and tongues of fire, and believers started praising God in various other languages, Peter gets up in the Power of the Holy Spirit, and PREACHES the Gospel and three thousand souls were swept into the Kingdom of God, thats the first revival....didnt work?

The only things that have impeded revival are when man gets in the way or inserts himself, like a roman emperor, who decides to paint "crosses" on his soliders shields, his guys take the day, murder the enemy, and this emperor co-labouring with the devil decides to ABSCOND with this Glorious Mercy of God, and declares "Chrestus" as the official " imperial religion" of the "Holy" roman empire.

the devil thinks he's so clever, but was once hidden is being brought to the light. that's right, this "holy" roman institution is being exposed for what it is, a haunt for homosexual pedophiles, and everything that is unclean, thieves and murderers, liars abound in this devilish enterprise,and their crimes of the flesh are costing them, big money, and if you mention the words, "catholic priest" whats the first thought, word association that comes to any person's mind, including secular minds? a "catholic priest" might be ....what? You know the answer.

Look in your house or apartment, every single household item, (usually) has these words on it, "Made in China". Our supposedly "Judeo-Christian" nation has utterly ceded our production base, and sent BILLIONS of dollars trading with a COMMUNIST REGIME who's demonic forefather, Mao, kicked out every single Christian worker and missionary, made Christianity illegal, and we, our companies in their greed trade with a penal colony like the People's Republic of China, who to this very day, jail, beat, murder, torture humble followers of Jesus, house church pastors, workers IN CHRIST, but....has this stymied the growth of the Body of Christ in China?

No, it's getting stronger, and larger, and growing in the Holy Ghost!

Look at Korea, south Korea, 56 years ago it lay in ruins, utter devastation, hunger and death stalked the land, and maybe those who professed a relationship with Jesus was in the single digits. Today? The Church of Jesus Christ in South Korea is stronger than ever! a praying Church, a weeping Church, strong vibrant, and though the US sends out, I believe about 10,000 plus missionaries a year, guess which country is a close second with 10,000 plus also?

thats right, South Korea.

Let me tell you something as the Lord leads, would to God, that this lil empire, turn on the Church, make it "illegal" to profess to follow Jesus, make ownership of Holy Scripture, Bibles ILLEGAL, and you watch what happens. It would be the best thing that ever happened to the Body of Christ in America, then the Church would really grow, strong and vibrant.

How do I "know" this? Look at the past, persecute the Church, and it grows. period.

and if anybody here thinks that such a move would be engineered by the "liberals" or the democratic party alone, think again. Both "parties" are same-same, they both worship on money and power, it's just that cynical, craven elements of the republican party know how to USE well-meaning "evangelicals" better than the dem's by pushing a few hot button issue's, to GET YOUR VOTE, but in the end, your eyes will be opened.

When they make Bible ownership illegal, how many of you all will quote Romans 13? and how many, will, at the risk of death torture and imprisonment, continue to follow Jesus, Lamb of God?

Those will be GLORY DAYS!

May it be so Lord, amen.

In my humble opinion, much of the church's problems have come from abondoning doctrinal study, especially when it leads to debate.

Thats the "problem"? IN LOVING voice, and I mean that with my whole heart, and without any contentiousness, you beleive thats the "problem"?

The problem is NO TEARS, no weeping between the porch and the altar, yearning and seeking, desperate for the Kingdom of God, not an earthly kingdom, not a theocracy, but weeping because of our own unprofitability(and I include MY own unprofitability) weeping in repentance....this Church needs a baptism of tears! not another "doctrinal debate" (due respect)

We need to be SQUASHED, we need to die to self, die to the flesh, these are the prayers I'm praying for my own miserable nature, May the Lord have mercy on me a sinner. Squash me, make me fit for Your Work, Your Will, not mine.

and out of these tears we'll rise on weak and feeble knees and let God do the Work, thru us IN HIM! (sorry for the exclamations)

we need to stop sitting passive in pews, looking at the back of each others necks, and fall on our faces, and make the prayer meeting THE most important meeting...on our faces!

I just dont agree that what we need is more of the same "religion", we need tears. I'm not short-shrifting "doctrine", but you have a Bible, I have a Bible, and when we engage in the daily practice of reading it, breathing it in, we prayer to the Lord, "Jesus, put me on the road to Emmaus", and you will be given the doctrine of the Gospel, imputed and imparted.

God is good! Give us tears! amen.

I love you unseen brother, no arguments for me.
neil

Doctrine Defined: Instruction, Teaching.

John 7:15-17 And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned? Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me. If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

fair question, which I will answer with a question, when the battery in your car becomes dead, maybe because its 20 degrees below zero, what do you do?

However, God is not a battery. If purposed by Him, what HE DOES lasts for an eternity. What He does, doesn't need reviving. wherefore, the problem with Him being sustained in the congregation not being His problem but the hearts of them who allow their relationship with Him, for whatever reason, to go south on them. [remember the parable of the sower]Therefore, revival is not what is needed but mens hearts who claim His Name to get serious about becoming what God has purposed through His great salvation, for which revival isn't necessary.

And where is church leadership with a sustaining message? What message am I hearing every week that is a more than a salvation message? None, based on my own experiences in the traditional church. I am saved. I don't need to hear that message every week. In fact, I don't need to hear any message from the pulpit that doesn't speak of intimacy with the Lord.

I do my "homework" in learning Jesus Christ. Pity there are but few to share Him with within the traditional church.

If I need an evangelist to "revive" me, I would have to question whether or not I was ever saved much less, never mind being born again.

BTW and FWIW, The day of Pentecost was NOT a revival.

[i]"If I need an evangelist to "revive" me, I would have to question whether or not I was ever saved much less, never mind being born again."[/i]

GLORY to GOD!

Natan4Jesus,

If I may But in: I couldn't agree more however, what you speak of is from sound doctrine. It is Doctrine where debate is never necessary, producing the fruit that abides forever.

I'm at a end of my words, let me just share with you all the testimony of Duncan Campbell available on this website;

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/visit.php?lid=380]Duncan Campbell-His Testimony and Conversion[/url]

his words I agree with, meaning that besides the Voice of the Holy Spirit, that we listen to, the Voice of Holy Scripture we breath in, we also look to "older brothers" in the Faith for example in their work with Jesus, Duncan Campbell is such a man for me, but thats just me, we all must work out our won salvation with trembling and fear, but I do urge you to listen to this wonderful testimony of this dear man.

neil

ceedub wrote:

however, what you speak of is from sound doctrine. It is Doctrine where debate is never necessary

Would that statement hold up with a review of the major debates in church history?

I am sure it wouldn't however, church history is not the Doctrine of Jesus Christ. Had it been we wouldn't find ourselves where we are with organizations called church that have no life; where Christ isn't found.. For instance, there is no kingdom message in the church presented to us from the creeds of history. The Kingdom message is a sustaining message. Where is it ever taught it is entered into by *striving . . . . . after you are born again?

*In the striving, is the sustaining . . :-

If everyone in church looked to God's word first, like most on this site do, I'd agree.

God's word has become what comes from the pulpit. It is the only word of anything spiritual, most "Christians" ever hear. Those Christians follow the dictates of the church where they were "saved". Knowing Jesus Christ in a personal way beyond those dictates therefore becomes unnecessary if church doesn't teach there is more beyond redemption we are given to enter into. )

Then I guess it comes down to what is meant by, Church? ;-)

Question: If we inherit a sin nature that is at emnity with God, how is it anyone turns to Him for salvation? I would say that we inherit no such thing.

ceedub wrote:

and i agree , that we need to come to the place of hating every evil way , as God does.

Has anyone else ever noticed this about Hebrews 1:9? That it singles out Christ as the only one that loves righteousness and hates sin?

The only one? I didn't see that in that verse.

I will say this: For us to hate unrighteousness, we must have a pure relationship with God as Jesus had. "The pure in heart shall see God". It is in the striving to enter the Kingdom that our perfection in the Father is attained, the process being God's will for every life. Hating unrighteousness will be the result of knowing the Father; seeking perfection in Him..

TaylorOtwell wrote:

Question: If we inherit a sin nature that is at emnity with God, how is it anyone turns to Him for salvation? I would say that we inherit no such thing.

Isaiah 26:12; Ezek 36:26-27; Ephesians 2:8-9.

With care in Christ,
Taylor

Reconcile this: "Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice, 8 Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness: 9 When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years. 10 Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways. 11 So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.) 12 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. 13 But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. 14 For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end; 15 While it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts,. . . " Heb.3.7-15

TaylorOtwell wrote:
What do you mean reconcile it? All I did was quote Bible passages.

Don't harden your heart, that's what Hebrews says. What do you want me to add?

God rips out our heart of stone and gives us a new heart. That's why we turn to God.

When does He do that? To whom does He do it, except those who submit to Him, that they might better understand His ways and Character?

There is nothing ever arbitrary about God, is there?

TaylorOtwell wrote:

When does He do that? To whom does He do it, except those who submit to Him, that they might better understand His ways and Character? There is nothing ever arbitrary about God, is there?

No, there is nothing every arbitrary about God.

Oh? Then you aren't conveying that very well in your writing.

Deut 29:29 - God hasn't revealed His inner thoughts and purposes of election.

Oh? "Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,. . ." 1 Peter 1:20 (KJV)

"Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but [b]unto us[/b] they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into. 1 Peter 1:12 (KJV)

However, He has chosen men based on no inherent worth in themselves. "[b]Of his own will[/b] he brought us forth by the word of truth."
He did that before time began. Ephesians 1 said He did it out of His good pleasure, so "to whom" is to whom He will to elect.

Can you name one who was not foreknown of God as being righteous? While you are at it, can you explain what His good pleasure is?

Remember, friend, man has always worshiped himself, and continues to do so under the guise of Christianity.

You mean like, . . . Joseph? How many more much I mention, who worshipped God, who loved God?

TaylorOtwell wrote:

Can you name one who was not foreknown of God as being righteous?

Me.

Really?? You faked God out? I hardly think so.

What I meant by God not revealing the inner workings of election is that He did not record His entire process by which election was carried out. It was simply out of His good pleasure, and by good pleasure I mean His sovereign, free decision unaffected by anything outside of Himself.

Election=Selection. God foreknew everyone He chose/chooses. In the foreknowledge of God, He chooses because those who take up the great commandment, which is the prerequisite of anyone being chosen. In living the great commandment will the elect of God be preserved in their times of testing. In living the great commandment, they will not be deceived by "flatteries". See Dan.11.32. It is as simple as that.

]

TaylorOtwell wrote:
I didn't fake God out, such would be blasphemous. I mean he didn't choose me because I was righteous. He foreknew He would make me righteous in Christ, which is not what I thought you meant.

To the contrary. He saw you as already righteous. Is not the scripture that says: In God's reality, everything is yea and amen before it actually happens? Now, having said that, your [our]righteousness needs to be proven [worked out] inasmuch as it is God's very Nature born in us, purposed to reveal His Character. This is NOT unlike what Jesus had to do.

So, God chooses those who keep the moral law? Is that what you are trying to get across? I want to understand your position.

His law is written upon the hearts of men. Obeying it is the issue and what God is looking for in men to be the elect of Him unto the becoming of what Jesus became. . a Son, "in whom I am well pleased"..

More later, if you wish. Thanks for your sincere discussion.

Duties call . . ))

Ceedub, in your first post you stated:

[b]“But too many passages indicate that GOD DOESN’T PASS GUILt until we ourselves sin.”[/b]

In your second post you stated:

[b]“'The SOUL that SINS shall die' seems to indicate a need for personal transgression before actual GUILT will be assessed by God. I know as a consequence of Adam's sin death came upon all men, but guilt?”[/b]

In your third post you said:

"I am a strong believer in original sin and all that it carries (death, nature etc.) yet I don't see scripture saying that[b] Adam's guilt[/b] for his personal transgression carries to us.[b] Death yes, but not guilt."[/b]

In your fourth post:

[b]"The verse you quoted in defense of IMPUTED GUILT THROUGH ADAM actually says the opposite"[/b]

[b][color=990000]My question to you, Ceedub, is where in the Bible does IMPUTED GUILT appear? What Book or Books in the Bible teach the doctrine of IMPUTED GUILT? What does the Bible teach about guilt, and where it comes from?[/color][/b]

In Acts 17, Paul considered the Berean’s as being noble. Why? Because they searched the Scriptures to daily, to see of the things that Paul was teaching them was true:

(Acts 17:10-11)
10. And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
11. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Throughout 1st Timothy we are told to study “sound doctrine” from God’s Word, the Bible, in order to compare the teaching of others against the only truth, God's Word.

In 2nd Timothy the focus on the importance of Bible "Doctrine” continues. We are then told that the Christian must study God's Word, so that he will be able to sort out the truth from lies. The truth is only found in the Bible. The Bible is the anvil, where all doctrine, false and true, can be tested against it.

(2 Timothy 2:15-19)
15. Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 16. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. 17. And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; 18. Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some. 19. Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

[b][color=990000]ceedub, where is the Bible “teaching”, the Bible “Doctrine” of imputed Guilt to be found? Please, present it here, on this site, on this thread, using Bible prooftext.[/color][/b]

Sincerely,

Walter

TaylorOtwell wrote:
So, in your opinion, we are saved by living like Jesus lived? Just so I understand your position more - what was accomplished on the cross?

With care in Christ,
Taylor

By His life was the example of what God is after from us. From His death, the enablement to accomplish it.

If obedience is what makes God's people the elect, how can it be an election of grace?

Interesting here in that I don't consider all born again to be of the elect due to their disobedience. This is not about salvation in is simplest form but, son-ship in the Father; joint-heirship with Jesus Christ.

ceedub wrote:
?

By His life was the example of what God is after from us. From His death, the enablement to accomplish it.

So are you saying Christ's death enabled US to save ourselves, or Christ's death was Christ saving us by His righteousness?

Interesting. Where in my words am I saying that?

Do you see Christ's death as an Atonement or an example?

Atonement . . . and more . . enablement.

Perhaps if I added after His death, and His resurrection. Does that help?

This is not about getting saved and going to Heaven. You do see that, yes?

For three 1/2 years Jesus demonstrated by His life the "way" of the cross; the cross life principle, God desired of Adam. Jesus then went to His death to do the "work" of the cross, to make it possible from us to live in "The Way". Ever read the Christian life expressed that way, by Paul?

Question: How does one purify himself without recognising it as the "way" of the cross?

Why speak of justification if you are? The question should be "what comes after"?

No. I don't agree with your premise except, because of visionless traditional church which has made justification its main theme, folk look for excuses to reject it because they have lost interest in a dead doctrine. Hence, the continual preaching of it to a dead church.

TaylorOtwell wrote:
Actually, I think your history in that comment may could be reconsidered. The "high times" of the church have been periods with justification flourished. I'm thinking primarily of the Puritan era and the 17th century as well. Since then, there has been a decay of understanding regarding justification, thus you see the horrible shape the professing church is in today. Before the Reformation, most of the professing church was "dead" because it had no concept of justification before God, and therefore no joy and thankfulness to motivate them to live godly lives.

And we have self-help books, right? Thats progress, eh?

It's impossible to have true sanctification without a pure understanding of justification. If you lack a proper apprehension of justification, your works are all self-centered in an effort to save self, and therefore selfish.

Tell that to the believer in God who believes without ever hearing the gospel. . . which raises the question of the reason is for the gospel being preached.

Justification should be the main theme, because without there is no sanctification (or anything else for that matter).

I have heard it all. How many more times must I hear it? How many diferent ways can it be explained that still doesn't make a pep rally in an effort to sustain weak, untaught, Christians?

ceedub wrote:

No. I don't agree with your premise except, because of visionless traditional church which has made justification its main theme, folk look for excuses to reject it because they have lost interest in a dead doctrine. Hence, the continual preaching of it to a dead church.

But if your above quote is right, were/are the following men preaching dead doctrine in a dead church?....

Spurgeon, Edwards, Whitefield, Warfield, Bunyan, Tyndale, Piper, MacArthur, Dabney, Wycliffe, Carey, White, Gill, Henry, Lloyd-Jones, Grudem, Carson, Broadus, Boyce, etc

I think your statement is erroneous.

If you had said that today's church that is looking more at themselves than the work of Christ (evident in today's music filled with the "I will"'s that belong rather to the God of the New Cov't) then I'd have to agree.

Not wishing to come across as arrogant and fearing the worse for my reply: Which one do you want me to start in on? All deny the Pentecostal experience of Acts 2. All left Jerusalem before being clothed in the Linen Garment of unction amd make excuses for not needing it. Where are their children today?

The only theme any of them know is, justification.

I didn't notice Chambers, Wesley, Mantles, Finney, or even Luther, in your list.

TaylorOtwell wrote:
Intense,

Are you a member of a public, visible church?

With care in Christ,
Taylor

I was all my life until this contemporay thing came on the scene.

I have seen the good, bad and the ugly.

This what I believe:

INTEREST OR IDENTIFICATION?

"I have been crucified with Christ." Galatians 2:20

The imperative need spiritually is to sign the death warrant of the disposition of sin, to turn all emotional impressions and intellectual beliefs into a moral verdict against the disposition of sin, viz., my claim to my right to myself. Paul says - "I have been crucified with Christ"; he does not say - "I have determined to imitate Jesus Christ," or, "I will endeavour to follow Him" - but - "I have been identified with Him in His death." When I come to such a moral decision and act upon it, then all that Christ wrought for me on the Cross is wrought in me. The free committal of myself to God gives the Holy Spirit the chance to impart to me the holiness of Jesus Christ.

". . . nevertheless I live. . . ." The individuality remains, but the mainspring, the ruling disposition, is radically altered. The same human body remains, but the old satanic right to myself is destroyed.

"And the life which I now live in the flesh . . . ," not the life which I long to live and pray to live, but the life I now live in my mortal flesh, the life which men can see, "I live by the faith of the Son of God." This faith is not Paul's faith in Jesus Christ, but the faith that the Son of God has imparted to him - "the faith of the Son of God." It is no longer faith in faith, but faith which has overleapt all conscious bounds, the identical faith of the Son of God. . . . Oswald Chambers

I also believe this:

AFTER OBEDIENCE - WHAT?

And straightway He constrained His disciples to get into the ship, and to go to the other side. . . ." Mark 6:45-52

We are apt to imagine that if Jesus Christ constrains us, and we obey Him, He will lead us to great success. We must never put our dreams of success as God's purpose for us; His purpose may be exactly the opposite. We have an idea that God is leading us to a particular end, a desired goal; He is not. The question of getting to a particular end is a mere incident. What we call the process, God calls the end.

What is my dream of God's purpose? His purpose is that I depend on Him and on His power now. If I can stay in the middle of the turmoil calm and unperplexed, that is the end of the purpose of God. God is not working towards a particular finish; His end is the process - that I see Him walking on the waves, no shore in sight, no success, no goal, just the absolute certainty that it is all right because I see Him walking on the sea. It is the process, not the end, which is glorifying to God.

God's training is for now, not presently. His purpose is for this minute, not for something in the future. We have nothing to do with the afterwards of obedience; we get wrong when we think of the afterwards. What men call training and preparation, God calls the end.

God's end is to enable me to see that He can walk on the chaos of my life just now. If we have a further end in view, we do not pay sufficient attention to the immediate present: if we realize that obedience is the end, then each moment as it comes is precious. . . . Oswald Chambers

TaylorOtwell wrote:
Also, the ironic thing that people often do not understand is that the very thing you complain about is the fruit of the revivalistic theologians you admire. This very thing is why I reminded this entire board in another thread that the revivalism they love today will be the liberalism they hate tomorrow if they do not strive for Biblical theology.

Which ones might they be you believe I admire to a fault?

TaylorOtwell wrote:

Which ones might they be you believe I admire to a fault?

I have no idea who you admire - I didn't mean the statement to be entirely specific. But, a general danger to watch out for. I would suppose you probably admire Finney, Wesley, Chambers, etc. most. To be blunt, I think any theologian who dabbled in Arminianism is dangerous and the contemporary situation is a direct result of it.

With care in Christ,
Taylor

Spoken like a true objective thinking, Calvinist.

ceedub wrote:

Intense wrote:
I also believe this:

God's end is to enable me to see that He can walk on the chaos of my life just now. If we have a further end in view, we do not pay sufficient attention to the immediate present: if we realize that obedience is the end, then each moment as it comes is precious. . . . Oswald Chambers

That was a good quote. And I agree.

But I think the point in question is which doctrine should have the preeminent place, Justification or Sanctification? Though both are absolutely neccessary in salvation because they both always accompany true salvation, nonetheless, in Romans 5:9-10 Paul makes it clear that justification is the greater work compared to the trials and shortcomings and perseverance in our sanctification.

In the scheme of things, .. . . .so what?

BTW, Have you read Finney's biography? Don't take the word of those whose ministries were offended by his success. AND, having said that, please don't run with the idea that I agree with all of Finney. I just know there is more than the justification at stake. . . . much more the traditional church has been remiss in teaching. The fault of which lies with much that has handled down by authors who denied the Pentecostal experience and the many, who still do.

Questioned:

In recognizing redemption/justification as the necessary thing, what do you believe was God's purpose for doing so? [Please don't say: "For His pleasure", because that says nothing.]

ceedub wrote:

In the scheme of things, .. . . .so what?

If you can convince me that would be Christ's response as well, I'm willing to listen.

Is 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

I mean no offence by this, but I'd rather mishandle Pentecost than Calvary.

Then you must be content with stopping at sanctification and going no further in Christ. You will receive little from the authors you listed in the process of son-ship in the Father. They believe it is an automatic simply by repeating the sinners prayer. The bookshelves in the Christian book stores, loaded down with "self-help" books, testify to the rightness in what I am saying.

TaylorOtwell wrote:
For His own glory, which is what Pauls says in Ephesians 3:

[i]9And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

10To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

11According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord: [/i]

Please explain it. Do you even know that Jesus revealed it to us??

But none of it is about son-ship. What part of that message do you say you understand but by your writing do not understand?

Ceedub wrote:

I see that sonship is a fact that comes with salvation. Not something extra I attain along the way.

[b]"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given[/b]: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." Isaiah 9:6 (KJV)

Lets just take the part in bold text first and explain it. You go first. :-)

Son-ship is the result of the process of purifying your soul, overcoming the flesh as Jesus overcame His. Now think of the born again experience to be for that reason.

Ceedub, will you please explain this?

[b]"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given:[/b].. . . . . ." Isaiah 9:6 (KJV)

Hint: Think Roman adoption.

Well, to understand it has much to do realizing our relationship to God, as Father and how it is established, after being born again.. Of course Isaiah had no idea of the ramifications of his prophetic utterance. There are many things in the life of Jesus we can talk of that reveal what it is we are purposed to embrace, to arrive at what He ultimately became, i.e., the first Divine Human to sit in the Godhead.

Here: "For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren" Hebrews 2:10-11 (KJV)

. . . Joint-heirs.

ceedub wrote:
I think our sonship is established BY our being born again, not some time AFTER being born again.

I am not going to argue. Study Roman adoption. Then come back. FWIW, The movie "Bur Hur" illustrated roman adoption quite nicely when He received the ring of his adopted father.

As far as being joint-heirs, that comes from the fact that Christ was the heir of the Abrahamic Cov't (Galatians), by which we are now joint-heirs if we are in Christ.

Sure, and everyone is going to wear the same crown, right? If not, why not?

We're joint heirs because of what was promised to Christ, not because we earn it by really good living.

Promised to Christ?? If He did what, might I ask? and if you believe I am talking about "really good living" to attain son-ship as opposed to obeying God as a Father, you haven't understood a word I have written.

Doesn't it seem odd to put forward an attained sonship when you'd never think of doing the same with your own son, knowing he's a son because he's family, not because he earned it?

Wouldn't it seem odd to you if I gave my "new born" son, the keys to my Cadillac or entrusted him with the household treasury?

But tell me more about one must actually do to attain this sonship as you see it? I'm interested, as I've not yet heard about this till now.

sincerely.

I am quite sure that on the internet there are sites that speak of Roman adoption.

Fwiw, Jesus was never called a Son by His Heavenly Father until His coming day.

Greetings to all,

I have read the last page of this thread only, and probably don't have time to contribute more than this post. From the title of the thread, to the content of p17, this thread has morphed; I am addressing the current discussion on adoption, beginning with a useful quote from the website of Phil Goble, whom God called to evangelise orthodox Jews in New York.

(To find the exact place of the quote, use 'Find on this page' from the Edit menu on [url=http://www.afii.org/Moshiach.html]Credentials of Messiah[/url] to search for 'son')

Dr Goble is laying out the reasons for believing that Jesus, through His natural geneology, is the Christ. First, He has to be descended from David. But we all know Joseph wasn't His 'natural' father. Dr Goble explains:

[color=000033][i]Now let me pause and say something very obvious. There are two genealogies that everyone has, one is the genealogy of one’s mother and the other is the genealogy of one’s father. Now, in the case of the genealogy of the father, here we are talking about the LEGAL or FOSTER father. And the Mishnah says that if anyone claims someone as his son, when he says, “This is my son,” he is to be “believed.” It says that in Baba Bathra in the Babylonian Talmud. And it’s really the reason why Yosef Ben Dovid was able, as the LEGAL father and also heir to the throne of Dovid, that he was able, that he was authorized to confer upon his adopted son the right to inherit King David’s throne. And what does this mean? It means simply that Yosef Ben Dovid adopted a Jewish child and subsequently conferred on him the rights of his son and the rights of his firstborn heir, which includes the throne of King Dovid.[/i][/color]

I would add these scriptures to back up InTheLight's contribution above, and to show how this was based on God's pattern (spiritual) rather than that God copied a human (natural) pattern when thus He spoke to Jesus.

[color=003399]Galatians 4
1 Now I say, [That] the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; 2 But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father; 3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: 4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. 6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. 7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ. [/color]

Jesus baptism: Matthew 3:17

Mount of transfiguration Matthew 17:5

In the parable, the status of the son as his father's ambassador is recognised Luke 20:13

John 12 from v 20, especially v 28 Then came there a voice from heaven, [saying], I have both glorified [it], and will glorify [it] again.

Peter remembers to us, the importance of God's word to His Son in John 12; 2 Peter 1:17

So, it seems even in Roman adoption, that sonship comes at the moment of adoption. True, certain responsiblilities may come with age and proven responsibility (as in any family), but I still would contend with the idea that sonship in the family is earned. In a natural family as well as a Roman adoption, sonship comes with entering into the family

Thanks for the direction, I learned a few things today.

Thank you for taking the time to research it some.

Though I agree with your findings, legally, I am afraid to say this writer is incomplete in his timetable of when a son is adopted, to say nothing of the fact that the son isn't taught of the father but by a pedagogue, a schoolmaster in the father's house. Let me put it this way: By nature the son is the son however it remains that the son LEARN the father's character and ways and a ring be placed upon his finger that signifies full rights as one..This usually accompanied by a coming out event[party]. The Jews still celebrate this sort of thing.

It was no different with Jesus. He was never never called by God, His son until His "coming out day"; until He was baptised by JTB and the Holy Ghost. It was then, as the scripture declares, He was sent into the world. It is for reasons of unction that we discover in Jesus that He commanded His disciples not to leave Jerusalem before they were baptised with the Holy Ghost, those who were already water baptised and born again.. His own life in this from His birth, is the pattern.

Notice also, though JTB spoke of Jesus as the mighty baptiser, Jesus never baptised anyone while on Earth. This authority signifies something beyond son-ship but rather, Godhead authority; Something He earned and His graduation day being His Transfiguration on the Mount: "For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings." Hebrews 2:10 (KJV)

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called [b]Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.[/b]" Isaiah 9:6 (KJV)

While upon Earth, when was Jesus ever called those titles?

So we see that we have Him as first the, Child and then the Son, and the Gloried Human, sitting in the Godhead as Son of Man who will come again in clouds of Glory.

When we are born again we are as a child born into the family of God with the same Nature of the Father Jesus possessed, to learn the Father's Character as he was given to learn it. That is the job assigned the pedagogue of our new life; Holy Ghost. At some point in time we are "clothed and a ring placed on our finger" by Jesus Christ, the baptiser and sent into the world to demonstrate the Character of the Father to the world. Those that have faith in God will receive the message to become disciples. Learning that is what preaching Jesus is to be about. Consider Paul's conversation with those on Mars Hill to be a picture of this.

I hope that helps.

Dear Intense,

Could I ask you to consider these scriptures (in light of this part of your post)?

It is for reasons of unction that we discover in Jesus that He commanded His disciples not to leave Jerusalem before they were baptised with the Holy Ghost, those who were already water baptised and born again.. His own life in this from His birth, is the pattern.

32 And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, 33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. Acts 13

Regarding our baptism into Christ (rather than John), I quote philologos in an old thread discussing meaning of the death of Christ in its impact upon our salvation. This is closer to the title of the thread in its exposition:

A question was asked: 'So, are you saying that there is a vital difference between our sins being laid 'on' Him, and our sin(s) being borne 'in' Him?'

philologos answered: [color=006699]'Christ spoke of his death as a baptism. Into what was he baptized? As a 'sin offering' He certainly bore in his body our sins. This is the figure of the scapegoat. Lev 14

But there is a darker picture in John 3:14-16 where Christ used the figure of an uplifted snake. Baptism has the effect of united the baptized into the element into which he is baptized. “For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection,”

(Rom 6:5 NKJV) This 'uniting with' in the consequence of the 'baptism into death' of verse 3.

He was baptized into what we had become. He was united with it so that the judgement that came upon Him came upon it. Once and for all. He was baptized into 'our death' [u]and we must be baptized into His[/u]. He was united by baptism to what we were and we are united by baptism (not water) to what he is.

He became Sin and the judgement that was wreaked upon Him was wreaked upon Sin. Not 'sins'; they had to be forgiven but Sin cannot be forgiven it must be executed.'[/color]

(I have added the underline in the quote.)

Romans contains the best analysis of how God pronounces us 'guilty' -
Rom 3:19.

He was baptized into what we had become. He was united with it so that the judgement that came upon Him came upon it. Once and for all. He was baptized into 'our death' and we must be baptized into His. He was united by baptism to what we were and we are united by baptism (not water) to what he is.

Jesus was born of Holy Ghost. What then was the reason for His Baptism by it?

Hey Alive!! That is a good paper re: "what of sinful nature. Thanks for posting it up here. However, so far I find him wrong on one big count, i.e., the birth of Jesus and how the heredity of Adam had to severed for Jesus to be born sinless. This has nothing to do with Gnosticism or Augustinian interpretations. The virgin birth part of it had to satisfy the OT; that the first to open the womb was consecrated to God. That was the reason for Mary as virgin and why Jesus came by supernatural seed; sinless seed of the Father..

Alive-to-God wrote:
Dear Intense,

Could I ask you to consider these scriptures (in light of this part of your post)?

It is for reasons of unction that we discover in Jesus that He commanded His disciples not to leave Jerusalem before they were baptised with the Holy Ghost, those who were already water baptised and born again.. His own life in this from His birth, is the pattern.

2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. 4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 5 When they heard [this], they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Acts 19

Who He? Paul?

32 And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, 33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. Acts 13

What is the "Promise" here that Paul is speaking of?

Regarding our baptism into Christ (rather than John), I quote philologos in an old thread discussing meaning of the death of Christ in its impact upon our salvation. This is closer to the title of the thread in its exposition:

A question was asked: 'So, are you saying that there is a vital difference between our sins being laid 'on' Him, and our sin(s) being borne 'in' Him?'

philologos answered: [color=006699]'Christ spoke of his death as a baptism. Into what was he baptized? As a 'sin offering' He certainly bore in his body our sins. This is the figure of the scapegoat. Lev 14

But there is a darker picture in John 3:14-16 where Christ used the figure of an uplifted snake. Baptism has the effect of united the baptized into the element into which he is baptized. “For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection,”

Meaning what? Beyond water baptism, the new birth and baptism of Jesus Christ, there yet remains the determination on our part that must be sustained by us. It is the living out His life FROM us that must be "actualized". Gal 2.20.

(Rom 6:5 NKJV) This 'uniting with' in the consequence of the 'baptism into death' of verse 3.

Pentecost is a Baptism of Life; the "unction to function" in our new born skin.

He was baptized into what we had become. He was united with it so that the judgement that came upon Him came upon it. Once and for all. He was baptized into 'our death' [u]and we must be baptized into His[/u]. He was united by baptism to what we were and we are united by baptism (not water) to what he is.

Very true, if I read that all correctly.

He became Sin and the judgement that was wreaked upon Him was wreaked upon Sin. Not 'sins'; they had to be forgiven but Sin cannot be forgiven it must be executed.'[/color]

(I have added the underline in the quote.)

Romans contains the best analysis of how God pronounces us 'guilty' -
Rom 3:19.

Only insofar as Adam sinned and, by heredity, passed the penalty of it on to all of mankind. Thus, in Adam, all become guilty. Even with the righteous and blameless before God, the "guilty verdict" remained; could not be erased. That which was given Adam, was thus given to us. Enter Jesus Christ by a virgin, who changed that by the shedding of His sinless Blood purposed to give man a fresh start in a new creation.

"And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that[b]*holy thing[/b] which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Luke 1:35 (KJV)

*Perfect sinless Blood.

TaylorOtwell wrote:
Intense,

So was Jesus in fact 100% God / 100% man from conception and birth?

With care in Christ,
Taylor

Jesus was a man, sinless from birth who sustained His sinless-ness through temptations and sufferings to become the Author of our salvation. Jesus didn't know certain things about what God held only for himself to know. So, in that, we can see Jesus in a limited relationship to the Father, limited by His yet unproven humanity, but be one of consummate intimacy with the Father, a fully human relationship by design but attainable strictly through a perfect sinless life. He indeed was unique. He was released from His limitation when He was Transfigured on the Mount and then again, laid the Glory aside to suffer death that we might come into the same glory as He.

So to answer your question: I believe in reality, He always was God however, in actuality, as son of man, He had to be proven that the names given Him in Isa. 9.6 would be bestowed upon Him.

Consider this: Though Jesus was full of the Holy Ghost while on Earth, He never administered the Holy Ghost to anyone until He was glorified. See John 20.22. That was the first occasion.

Hi Intense,

Just want to draw to your attention that it was Logic who posted the paper 'what of sinful nature' (p17).

You said:

the heredity of Adam had to severed for Jesus to be born sinless

The writer to Hebrews chooses his words carefully: chapter 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; 15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. 16 For verily he took not on [him the nature of] angels; but he took on [him] the seed of Abraham. 17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto [his] brethren,

Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in [u]the likeness of sinful flesh[/u], and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

The virgin birth part of it had to satisfy the OT; that the first to open the womb was consecrated to God.

Interesting that we know this about Mary's cousin Elisabeth: Luke 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife [was] of the daughters of Aaron, and her name [was] Elisabeth.

But: Psalms 110:4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

the reason for Mary as virgin

Jesus was born of Holy Ghost. What then was the reason for His Baptism by it?

The appearance of the Holy Spirit as a dove at His water baptism, together with the word from God His Father, confirmed His Apostleship.

Yes, we might call it His 'anointing' but from what scriptural precedent? And should we separate this event from Paul's clear interpretation from the verse in Psalm 2, which was inspired by the Holy Spirit?

There is a glorious parallel in the fire on the top of Mount Sinai, with the flame which sat on the heads of those in the upper room in Acts 2, but fire is far from events at His Jordan baptism, except by symbolic inference. Surely, the death into which He longed to be baptised, and set His face as a flint to go to Jerusalem to accomplish, was His consuming passion; Luke 9:31, Luke 22:15.

Personally, I'm not sure that His baptism was the moment He was 'baptised in the Spirit', because of the verse I quoted earlier, where Paul says He was 'begotten' of the Father (born again) by His resurrection from the dead. Thus began a whole new phase of His ministry - forty days on earth, revealing Himself to many followers and believers, and expounding the scriptures irrefutably. There was much the disciples had never understood of what He had told them, until after His resurrection. Also, He recommissioned them to go in His name, as apostles, even though [i]they[/i] had not as yet been baptised in the Holy Spirit (born again).

If you can begin to see 'baptism in the Spirit' as new birth, it irons out a lot of difficulties presented by other scriptures. First, begin with the truth that the natural is patterned on the spiritual. Think about natural birth.

This would mean that the unction spoken of by John the apostle, is internal. upon the inner man, rather than the Old Testament picture of anointing oil on kings and priests which was external, (although that still has relevance during prayer for healing of the physical body).

If you accept the post I quoted from philologos (on which you might comment), then while Jesus was becoming all that we had become, he was not 'baptised in the Spirit', because at that moment, 'He became sin for us, who knew no sin'; 2 Cor 5:21 and, Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. 1 Peter 2:24, 25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

In all this, we must (I believe), remember that Jesus was a real time Man, living through real time Jewish history. He was going through the process of fulfilling three thousand years of prophecy about Himself.

Hebrews 9:14 How much more shall [u]the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot[/u] to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Hebrews 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, 21 Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ;

When we are baptised in the Spirit, the great I AM accepts us in the well-beloved, to be baptised into Himself. It has to signify our real death to sin, as Paul explained every possible way, in Romans 6.

I've written more than I intended, probably because of the verse in Acts 13 where Paul interprets Psalm 2:7 - 12. It made me realise that this was God the Father accepting the Word Incarnate, into His presence again. This is awesome! As preachers have previously declared with excitement 'There's a MAN in the glory!'

EDIT: Intense, your post was not up when I began mine. I will now read yours, and decide if I should reply.

Hello again, Intense,

To be clear about the first point I think you're addressing, I was questioning that the disciples could be 'born again' before Pentecost, but in your reply to Taylor, I see you have mentioned John 20:22, which has been discussed many times on SI, and I'm not going to challenge your interpretation any further than to suggest that He was [u]instructing[/u] (commissioning?) them, not [i]baptising[/i] them with His breath.

Who He? Paul?

That's why Christ's death [i]for Christ[/i] was also a significant milestone in His own experience. John 10:15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, [and] one shepherd. 17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. 18 [u]No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself[/u]. I have power to lay it down, and [u]I have power to take it again[/u]. [b]This commandment have I received of my Father[/b].

Meaning what? Beyond water baptism, the new birth and baptism of Jesus Christ, there yet remains the determination on our part that must be sustained by us. It is the living out His life FROM us that must be "actualized". Gal 2.20.

Pentecost is a Baptism of Life; the "unction to function" in our new born skin.

What is the "Promise" here that Paul is speaking of?

The second is: 14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; [b]that [u]we[/u] might receive the promise[/b] of the Spirit through faith - Gal 3 - which also fits the 'olive tree' and 'one fold' declarations of scripture.

Note that Paul reckoned himself at one time as having been branch 'cut off' by unbelief, Rom 11:23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.

I hope this clarifies my understanding to you.

I look forward to Taylor's response to your other thoughts about the Word made Flesh.

Alive-to-God wrote:
Hi Intense,

Just want to draw to your attention that it was Logic who posted the paper 'what of sinful nature' (p17).

Ah, ok. Thanks.

You said:

the heredity of Adam had to severed for Jesus to be born sinless

Not really that it could be anything other than the way He chose. "A paid up fire inseurance policy" is only incidental in the overall purpose of God's necessary plan of redemption, Divine humanity being the chiefest reason, as we see Jesus who was made a little lower than the angels and then was highly exhaulted above all Heavenly hosts as He came forth in the Glory of the Father.

If there had been a man on Earth who could have redeemed man, that man of necessity having sinless blood, would God not have used him for the shedding of it. Sinless blood was the only requirement for cancreling out Adam's transgression. So what more was Jesus all about by His Life on Earth, death upon a cross and resurrection to Glory if not to tell us and show us and require of us that we were created to be as He is. . . . "Many sons brought unto Glory" Heb 2.10. Adam failed, Jesus succeeded.

TaylorOtwell wrote:
Intense,

As you have time, I would like to know if you agree of disagree with the following statement. If you disagree, with which parts do you disagree?
[i]
Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.[/i]

Also, I would like to know your agreement or disagreement with the following:
[i]
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.[/i]

While I can a gree with most all in those creed statements I nevertheless know they need qualification to be affirmed as being accurate.

I have posted several posts you have not regarded, to comment on. For instance: When was Jesus, while on Earth, ever called Emanuel or Wonderful counselor, everlasting Father or Prince of peace, per Isa.9.6.? Jesus was called by JTB the baptiser in the Holy Ghost. When did the man Jesus ever do that?

How was it the "God-man" had to suffer and die? God can't die. Who was exhaulted and given a name above all others, a God or a man? Who is coming again in cliuds of glory, Son of God or Son of Man?

I think Taylor, that you must needs begin to make some distinctions, that you be better able to ascertain when something in the scripture speaks of Jesus Christ you first recognize when it was spoken, i.e., before or after His Human glorification.
For instance: John 1.1-15 was all written after the fact of Jesus' life on Earth.. John didn't know to write the account until he came through it with Jesus.

Alive-to-God wrote:
Hello again, Intense,

To be clear about the first point I think you're addressing, I was questioning that the disciples could be 'born again' before Pentecost, but in your reply to Taylor, I see you have mentioned John 20:22, which has been discussed many times on SI, and I'm not going to challenge your interpretation any further than to suggest that He was [u]instructing[/u] (commissioning?) them, not [i]baptising[/i] them with His breath.

Well, if conclusions drawn in those postings was other than they, in Jn.20.22, were the first to be born again, that they were already redeemed by the Blood of the Lamb, I would have to question the motivation of those who would doubt the account as written. What more was necessary than the Blood for their redemption and faith in God for their salvation? And they had Jesus for three + years! No, to dispute that is to deny Pentecost for what it was and the necessity of in the lives of Christians today.

Who He? Paul?

I'm not sure what you're asking, here. If you read Acts 19

Yes, I just didn't know what your point was in bringing Paul into the dicussion.

it is clear who is doing what.

I quoted it because Paul was not prepared to pray for them to receive the Holy Spirit, purely under the baptism of repentance.

Who says? Besides that, he didn't have to.

Presumably he explained the necessity to be baptised into Christ's death.

Presumed? Into what?? His death?? Where you get that thinking? I don't believe, given the text, Paul thought of it being anything but a requirement for power as Jesus intimated by the command not to leave Jerusalem without it. They were already believers otherwise Pauls questions and answers would have reflected their lack.

That's why Christ's death [i]for Christ[/i] was also a significant milestone in His own experience. John 10:15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, [and] one shepherd. 17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. 18 [u]No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself[/u]. I have power to lay it down, and [u]I have power to take it again[/u]. [b]This commandment have I received of my Father[/b].

Sorry, I don't understand where you are going in this.

Meaning what? Beyond water baptism, the new birth and baptism of Jesus Christ, there yet remains the determination on our part that must be sustained by us. It is the living out His life FROM us that must be "actualized". Gal 2.20.

I think the writer's emphasis is more on the relationship to death preceding life, and yes, Gal 2:20 follows Rom 6:6.

Pentecost is a Baptism of Life; the "unction to function" in our new born skin.

Indeed He did! His baptism in water and then by the Holy Ghost, was His "Coming out day". That was the first time God ever called Him His son.
#0 years of being indwelt by the Holy Ghost and then clothed with His priestly garment of the Holy Ghost, a ring slipped on His finger and then driven into the wilderness by the same Spirit He was baptised with. Question: What do you think would have happened had He left for the wilderness before the Baptism of the Holy Ghost? Give an answer, please.

It was the disciples and other onlookers who needed to understand that He had been sent by the Father. He Himself was in no doubt: Psa 22:9 But thou [art] he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope [when I was] upon my mother's breasts.

The record, the account, says otherwise. So that is just conjecture. No one heard God speak but JTB and even he had problems later on when in jail by Herod.

What is the "Promise" here that Paul is speaking of?

The Promise was the Baptism of the Holy Ghost per Joel. This is "that" the prophet Joel spoke of Peter stated in Acts 2.38

The second is: 14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; [b]that [u]we[/u] might receive the promise[/b] of the Spirit through faith - Gal 3 - which also fits the 'olive tree' and 'one fold' declarations of scripture.

Note that Paul reckoned himself at one time as having been branch 'cut off' by unbelief, Rom 11:23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.

I hope this clarifies my understanding to you.

Too intellectual for me, sorry. I don't see any relevance at all except to muddy the waters for anyone trying see their way through the NT, to the becoming what Father has intended for those who love Him.

I look forward to Taylor's response to your other thoughts about the Word made Flesh.

Hello Intense,

Thanks for the reply. I will try to be clearer about the reason I'm quoting certain scripture, as it should not be 'too intellectual' for anyone.

You said: Quote:
the heredity of Adam had to severed for Jesus to be born sinless

Sinless blood

No, to dispute that is to deny Pentecost for what it was and the necessity of in the lives of Christians today.

It is believed that Jesus had to ascend to His Father first, before the Father [i][b]could[/b][/i] send the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost.

Furthermore, Jesus Himself told them to wait in Jerusalem for 'the promise of the Father' which would 'endue' them with 'power from on high'. This suggests that [i]Jesus[/i] didn't think He had baptised them in the Spirit in John 20:22, [i]either[/i].

The Promise was the Baptism of the Holy Ghost per Joel. This is "that" the prophet Joel spoke of Peter stated in Acts 2.38

Indeed He did! His baptism in water and then by the Holy Ghost, was His "Coming out day". That was the first time God ever called Him His son.Indeed He did! His baptism in water and then by the Holy Ghost, was His "Coming out day". That was the first time God ever called Him His son. #0 years of being indwelt by the Holy Ghost and then clothed with His priestly garment of the Holy Ghost, a ring slipped on His finger and then driven into the wilderness by the same Spirit He was baptised with. Question: What do you think would have happened had He left for the wilderness before the Baptism of the Holy Ghost? Give an answer, please.

Luke 4:1 And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness,

That was the first time God ever called Him His son.

then clothed with His priestly garment of the Holy Ghost

a ring slipped on His finger

The record, the account, says otherwise. So that is just conjecture. No one heard God speak but JTB

Please compare these two accounts. First Matthew's chapter 3 (who was an eyewitness) 16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: 17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Now the Baptist:31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. 32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. 33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. John 1

I don't see any relevance at all except to muddy the waters for anyone trying see their way through the NT

I noticed you said somewhere that God could not die. This is not what Paul said about God the Father fulfilling His promise to Jesus His Son, in raising Him from death. 19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, 20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, Ephesians 1.

Why would God do that, if His Son had not died?

Intense, I realise I forgot to reply to some of your questions, and since my last seemed long, I'll just make a fresh post.

I said
I quoted it because Paul was not prepared to pray for them to receive the Holy Spirit, purely under the baptism of repentance

You said
Who says? Besides that, he didn't have to.

This is colossal food for thought. It really, really mattered. We dare not make light of it (I believe). We can be sure it [u]did[/u] matter.

I said
Presumably he explained the necessity to be baptised into Christ's death.

You said
Paul thought of it being anything but a requirement for power as Jesus intimated by the command not to leave Jerusalem without it. They were already believers otherwise Pauls questions and answers would have reflected their lack.

Presumed? Into what?? His death?? Where you get that thinking? I don't believe, given the text,

and here: 12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with [him] through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Colossians 2

From the verses in Romans, you'll see (I hope) why I mentioned the sequence of death before life. This is borne out by what Jesus said to the Greeks who sought to see Him in John 12:24. Later in Romans 6 and Rom 7:4, Paul talks about 'fruit' (meaning, naturally able to reproduce a like [i]life[/i], as in the original creation, which shows us things about Himself (Rom 1:20); for instance, Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good).

These pictures are about the life we are supposed to be living unto God, 'crucified' inside and out, through the faith of the Son of God.

Alive-to-God wrote:
Hello Intense,

Thanks for the reply. I will try to be clearer about the reason I'm quoting certain scripture, as it should not be 'too intellectual' for anyone.

You said: Quote:
the heredity of Adam had to severed for Jesus to be born sinless

This was a quote from your post. I was not disagreeing with you.

Can you post the exact words in the quote? I don't believe I said the heredity of Adam HAD TO BE BROKEN for Jesus to be born sinless. If I did, II want to change that from me.

Sinless blood

Alive, do you not know that Jesus was the Lamb of God? I know you believe He died to redeem man however, what part of His death do you believe accomplished the task?

No, to dispute that is to deny Pentecost for what it was and the necessity of in the lives of Christians today.

It is believed that Jesus had to ascend to His Father first, before the Father [i][b]could[/b][/i] send the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. Or administer the Holy Spirit for the indwelling, in John 20.22.

Furthermore, Jesus Himself told them to wait in Jerusalem for 'the promise of the Father' which would 'endue' them with 'power from on high'. This suggests that [i]Jesus[/i] didn't think He had baptised them in the Spirit in John 20:22, [i]either[/i].

It is quite clear that He didn't baptize them in John 20.22. Receiving isn't a baptism.

The Promise was the Baptism of the Holy Ghost per Joel. This is "that" the prspoke of Peter stated in Acts 2.38

In Acts 13, Paul is referring to the promise of salvation, not the Promise of any baptism of the Holy ghost.

Indeed He did! His baptism in water and then by the Holy Ghost, was His "Coming out day". That was the first time God ever called Him His son.Indeed He did!

30 years of being indwelt by the Holy Ghost and then clothed with His priestly garment of the Holy Ghost, a ring slipped on His finger and then driven into the wilderness by the same Spirit He was baptised with. Question: What do you think would have happened had He left for the wilderness before the Baptism of the Holy Ghost? Give an answer, please.

I know that He didn't. I asked you what do you think would have happened had He done so? No power to function.

{quote]I think the Holy Ghost was free to fill Him when He was born.

Not in the least. You need to study that out. Jesus was certainly not ready for service when in His diapers, right?

At His baptism, which John the Baptist pointed out was unnecessary - and Jesus had to ask him to do it anyway - the Holy Ghost descended on Him in the form of a dove - which may be taken as His 'anointing' for service. So may I ask why do you believe the Holy Ghost was [u]not[/u] already 'in' Him (since we know He was born without sin)? (Please answer.)

But I already stated that He was indwelt from birth. The "coming upon" of the Holy Ghost is for power to function in ministry. Now, what was your question?

Luke 4:1 And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness,

That was the first time God ever called Him His son.

Show me the scriptures where Jesus was called God's son, by God?

then clothed with His priestly garment of the Holy Ghost

a ring slipped on His finger

Read Eze.44.17-18 for the typology and reason and then read Act1.4,5. and Luke 24.49. Some translations say endued with power while others say, "clothed".

The record, the account, says otherwise. So that is just conjecture. No one heard God speak but JTB

Please compare these two accounts. First Matthew's chapter 3 (who was an eyewitness) 16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: 17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

So here you admit He was baptised of the Holy Ghost ["clothed" with power] and yet don't see that He was indwelt from birth. You need to get that sorted out better in your thinking, doncha think?

Now the Baptist:31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. 32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. 33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. John 1

I don't see any relevance at all except to muddy the waters for anyone trying see their way through the NT

I noticed you said somewhere that God could not die. This is not what Paul said about God the Father fulfilling His promise to Jesus His Son, in raising Him from death. 19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, 20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, Ephesians 1.

If Jesus was God at the point in time of His death, He would have seated Himself, doncha think?
God raised a sinless man from the grave not God. God then gave Him a Name above all others. In fact the wages of sin is death. Jesus was sinless therefore, death couldn't hold Him. Hence, He raised Himself.

I think you need to get into a Bible study that will explain some these things to you. Certainly not one where the teacher believes Jesus was God from the day He was born without qualifying what he is saying.

I asked this before and it has gone unanswered: Who is coming again in clouds of Glory Jesus the son of man or Jesus the Son of God?

rbanks wrote:
Intense,

It may be a while before I post again but I have been over-joyed at reading your last few posts. I agree with you whole heartily concerning the baptism in the Holy Ghost.

I thank God for you being on here and taking your time to write. If only more people on here could see the difference in receiving the Holy Spirit and in the baptism of the Holy Spirit with power.

I am looking forward to the day that the Son of Man comes in the Clouds of Glory.

Blessings to you!

Thank you Brother. I needed that. I was beginning to wonder if I was standing alone on this forum. . :-)

[color=000000]This from Chambers, can say much to the one who is trying to sort out the son of man, Son of God issue. It needs to be thought out:

"The New Testament reveals that the birth of Jesus was an advent, not a beginning—an advent that put Him on the plane, humanly speaking, that Adam was on. The first Adam and the last Adam came direct from the hand of God.

God did not create Adam holy, He created him innocent, without self-consciousness (as we understand the word) before God; the one thing Adam was conscious of was God and only of himself in relation to the Being Whose commands he was to fulfil; the main trend of his spirit was towards God. Adam was intended by God to take part in his own development by a series of moral choices whereby he would transform innocence into holiness. Adam failed to do this, Jesus Christ came on the same platform as Adam and did not fail. Supposing Adam had transformed the natural life into the spiritual by obedience, what would have happened? Transfiguration; he would have “spiritualised” the natural life and made it all that God wanted it to be. The natural life is neither good nor bad, moral nor immoral; it is the principle within that makes it good or bad, moral or immoral."

Our Lord transformed innocence into holiness by a series of moral choices. Satan tempted Him along this line: “Do God’s will according to Your own understanding; don’t sacrifice the life of nature to the will of God.” Jesus made invariably one answer—“For I am come down from heaven, not to do Mine own will, but the will of Him that sent Me”††† (John 6:38).

How are we to “follow His steps”? By imitating Jesus? We cannot begin to. How are we going to have the innocence that Jesus had? In one way only, by being born again from above. “Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again” (John 3:7). We can be brought into a state of pristine childlike innocence before God by the regenerating work of His grace. God does something infinitely grander than give a man a new start: He re-makes him from the inside. We have the power, because we have received it, to transform the natural into the spiritual even as Jesus did, because the life generated into us is His own life.

Chambers, O. (1996, c1943). Bringing sons into glory : Studies in the life of our Lord. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott.[/color]

Good morning Intense :-)

Thanks for your response. Here is what you posted on p17. I addressed (at least) three parts of that whole post separately. Probably when you read it all, you will remember. I've added the bold.

Hey Alive!! That is a good paper re: "what of sinful nature. Thanks for posting it up here. However, so far I find him wrong on one big count, i.e., the birth of Jesus and how [b]the heredity of Adam had to severed for Jesus to be born sinless[/b]. This has nothing to do with Gnosticism or Augustinian interpretations. The virgin birth part of it had to satisfy the OT; that the first to open the womb was consecrated to God. That was the reason for Mary as virgin and why Jesus came by supernatural seed; sinless seed of the Father..

Alive, do you not know that Jesus was the Lamb of God? I know you believe He died to redeem man however, what part of His death do you believe accomplished the task?

Regarding the answer to your question above, He could have shed 'sinless blood' without dying. The earlier quote from philologos is the most precise answer I've ever seen, but you could start a new thread to discuss it further if you so desire. :-)

Many believe John 20.22 was a baptism.

It is quite clear that He didn't baptize them in John 20.22. Receiving isn't a baptism.

In Acts 13, Paul is referring to the promise of salvation, not the Promise of any baptism of the Holy ghost.

(I noticed this only recently, as I've always assumed (from Christmas carols) that the day He was 'begotten' was a reference to His [i]natural[/i] birth.)

In Acts 13, Paul is referring to the promise of salvation, not the Promise of any baptism of the Holy ghost.

No power to function.

Jesus was certainly not ready for service when in His diapers, right?

I believe the descent of the dove was a sign of His coming-of-age. He didn't begin just then to be a [i]babe in the Spirit[/i] needing spiritual milk - and then God immediately drove Him straight out into the wilderness!

He had already been through thirty years of [i]training[/i]; He was ready to walk straight into the ministry He took up when He returned from the wilderness, according to Matthew and Luke's accounts of His childhood and years of preparation.

Show me the scriptures where Jesus was called God's son, by God?

So here you admit He was baptised of the Holy Ghost ["clothed" with power] and yet don't see that He was indwelt from birth. You need to get that sorted out better in your thinking, doncha think?

However, I am reserving the term 'baptism in the Spirit' for Pentecost, particularly in the light of Paul's quote of Psa 2 in Acts 13... because, everything to do with the process through which both Jesus and the disciples went is uniquely different from most believers today; they lived through the increasing revelation and fulfilment of ancient prophecy from God about Himself, while we have immedate access to the great I AM, now. Today, an unregenerate soul who believes and engages with Rom 10:9, 10 can be immediately baptised in the Spirit - ie indwelt, or, we could call it 'born again' - [i][b]and[/b][/i] be empowered for service at the same moment.

Now I know there are many reasons it [i][b]often[/i][/b] doesn't happen like that in many people's experience, but I firmly believe it's because the need to be [u]identified personally as sentenced to death for sin[/u] is not preached clearly. Only then does [i]baptism into Christ's death[/i] become [i]really[/i] appealing. As a result, many believers can enter into only part of what God intended, until God walks them through to a deeper place, or they decide the cost to their present life is too great, and settle for something less (which may be spiritually fatal for their souls, eventually).

I'll continue my reply in the next post.

Intense said

If Jesus was God at the point in time of His death, He would have seated Himself, doncha think?

Jesus was God at the time of His death is not in doubt, for my part.

[b]God raised a sinless man from the grave not God[/b]. God then gave Him a Name above all others. In fact the wages of sin is death. Jesus was sinless therefore, death couldn't hold Him.

Hence, He raised Himself.

Young's Literal Translation
Luke 24:6 he is not here, but [u]was raised[/u]; remember how he spake to you, being yet in Galilee,

Luke 24:34 saying--`The Lord [u]was raised[/u] indeed, and was seen by Simon;'

John 2:22 when, then, he [u]was raised[/u] out of the dead, his disciples remembered that he said this to them, and they believed the Writing, and the word that Jesus said.

Romans 7:4 So that, my brethren, ye also were made dead to the law through the body of the Christ, for your becoming another's, who out of the dead [u]was raised[/u] up, that we might bear fruit to God;

Romans 8:34 who [is] he that is condemning? Christ [is] He that died, yea, rather also, [u]was raised[/u] up; who is also on the right hand of God--who also doth intercede for us.

2 Cor 5:15 and for all he died, that those living, no more to themselves may live, but to him who died for them, and [u]was raised[/u] again.

John 10:18 is not a denial of the above verses.

You'll remember Jesus commanded the disciples to 'raise the dead', as Peter raised Dorcas in Acts 9. Jesus Himself raised some, and there must be a moment when the dead person makes the choice to 'receive' their life back into their body, and rise, as their spirit comes to them; for instance, Lazarus. This is the moment of hearing, which in these cases was natural, and in Rom 10:14 it is spiritual. John 5:25

I think you need to get into a Bible study that will explain some these things to you. [b]Certainly not one where the teacher believes Jesus was God from the day He was born without qualifying what he is saying[/b].

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

or

15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. Colossians 1?

Rom 1:20? Acts 17:24 - 31? Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; 3 Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; .... ?

Matthew 1:23, Matthew 8:29, Mark 3:11, Luke 1:35, John 3:18, John 10:36, John 11:4, John 11:27, John 20:31....?????????

Totally irelevant to this discussion. That was my point and still is.

How do you read them?

[color=000000]Hey Alive!! That is a good paper re: "what of sinful nature. Thanks for posting it up here. However, so far I find him wrong on one big count, i.e., the birth of Jesus and how the heredity of Adam had to severed for Jesus to be born sinless. This has nothing to do with Gnosticism or Augustinian interpretations. The virgin birth part of it had to satisfy the OT; that the first to open the womb was consecrated to God. That was the reason for Mary as virgin and why Jesus came by supernatural seed; sinless seed of the Father..[/color]

God raised a sinless man from the grave not God. God then gave Him a Name above all others. In fact the wages of sin is death. Jesus was sinless therefore, death couldn't hold Him.

[color=000000]

(My bolds in the quote.) The deity of Christ is being discussed with you by Taylor. I'll say only that scripture does not agree that Christ was not God at the time of His death. Acts 20:28 Quote:[/color]

Quickly I'd like to comment on the quote from Chambers. His point about the moral choices which would have transformed Adam's innocence into holiness is picked up with regard to Jesus, in the small book by G W North, The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit in Romans. crsschk posted a thread called A Most Important Work, in General Topics a long time ago, which linked to it, but I can't find it now. It made this very point - the Jesus had to show Himself obedient in testing situations.

In the days when Chambers used the phrase 'moral choices', there was a general acceptance of the definition of 'moral', which has been eroded by our present culture's philosophies.

Hello Intense,

Jesus cried out: "My God, My God, why have You forsaken me!" Please begin with that one

How does this cry, in any way [i]diminish[/i] Christ's status as the Son of God?

I'm going to be offline for a good while - possibly the rest of the day - and I want to add one tiny thought to the potential discussion about distinguishing 'new birth' from amongst the other terms such as salvation and conversion (which I'm not sure I could separate to the satisfaction of theologians). It is this... There are three verses (maybe more, but I'll give these three), which establish spiritual reality as the origin of what we see naturally:

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness ...

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead...

Heb 8:2 ... of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.

If you find out some of the details of the development of a fetus, during its process from conception to the delivery of a baby, and look at the changes which occur in the child's heart [u]after[/u] birth, [u]because of birth[/u], (unless the body does not respond to the environmental changes from womb to room), and think about the afterbirth, which can take quite a few minutes to follow - what many Christians go through over a period of years, is all accounted for.

This picture is used by Paul in Gal 4:19, Col 1:13, following on from Jesus who used it first - John 3:3, 1 Peter 1:23 - and without which Old Testament prophecy about the new heart, is not only incomprehensible but unbelievable.

There are other more oblique references, but I am convinced that this is the order God always intends. If we experience something different, it is due to our dullness and unbelief, rather than to a fault in the eternal reality.

I'm sharing this because natural birth is a baptism into spirit, out of darkness into light. From the days of creation through to the soldier piercing Christ's side on the cross, there is a regular repetition of similar pictures in scripture, and other details are made clearer by the words Jesus Himself. To elaborate would be too much of a digression within this thread, but I hope the consideration of this is a blessing to all who take it up.

Alive-to-God wrote:
Hello Intense,

Jesus cried out: "My God, My God, why have You forsaken me!" Please begin with that one

Okay. How does this cry, in any way [i]diminish[/i] Christ's status as the Son of God?

Are you a son of God?

Alive-to-God wrote:
Quickly I'd like to comment on the quote from Chambers. His point about the moral choices which would have transformed Adam's innocence into holiness is picked up with regard to Jesus, in the small book by G W North, The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit in Romans. crsschk posted a thread called A Most Important Work, in General Topics a long time ago, which linked to it, but I can't find it now. It made this very point - the Jesus had to show Himself obedient in testing situations.

In the days when Chambers used the phrase 'moral choices', there was a general acceptance of the definition of 'moral', which has been eroded by our present culture's philosophies.

However, the definition and significance remains the same. I am right?

Hi Intense,

My post which you quoted was mostly in response to what you said here:

God raised a sinless man from the grave not God.

If you didn't mean that He had ceased to be the Son of God, please could you find other words to explain what you did mean? I'd appreciate that. Thanks.

I'm not prepared to take the topic away from Jesus Christ, the Word made Flesh, and on to whether I believe I'm a son of God, at this stage.

Hi Intense,

I think maybe I added to the first post on p20 without calling it an edit. Please take a look, as it goes with our discussion as an addition.

However, the definition and significance remains the same. I am right?

As for being 'right', I have no idea what your definition of 'moral' is, nor do we have of anyone else's, so I'm going to decline from comment, to avoid confusion.

We have to grow in knowledge of the mind of God, having our minds being renewed by the Holy Spirit - practising abiding in Christ, that He may abide in us. That's where spiritual living and obedience get joined up inseparably. Does that make sense?

Alive-to-God wrote:
Hi Intense,

My post which you quoted was mostly in response to what you said here:

God raised a sinless man from the grave not God.

Now, perhaps I misunderstood you, but you seem to be saying that once Christ had died - or before He died - He ceased to be the Son of God.

If you didn't mean that He had ceased to be the Son of God, please could you find other words to explain what you did mean? I'd appreciate that. Thanks.

I'm not prepared to take the topic away from Jesus Christ, the Word made Flesh, and on to whether I believe I'm a son of God, at this stage.

I am beginning to wonder more about what your motive is in this discussion, seeing that you don't answer pointed questions and are continuing to mis-represent my words.

I asked you if you considered yourself a son of God?

Hi ceedub,

I don't want to interrupt

And let's please keep it down on a level that I can follow. Condescend to my low estate!

I haven't read Pilgrim's Progress :-o so I can't comment on all your points, but recently I read something which explained that sprinkling Exo 24:6, 8 has the spiritual effect of joining things together. There is also something about the scapegoat taking away sins of omission and thought life, which is mirrored in Heb 10:22.

Another thought about sanctification is that the word itself is misleading. To sanctify is to set apart. Being set apart = holy. So, sanctification is the repetition of setting oneself apart to God. Oswald Chambers called it 'Continuous Conversion' in My Utmost for His Highst (not quite sure which date but you can search myutmost.org). However, Paul puts it this way, and this is definitely how it actually works: But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, [even] as by the Spirit of the Lord. 2 Cor 3. Tyndale does not mention 'a glass' in his translation, which makes more of a comparason with the picture of Moses having his face veiled; he puts it 'But we all behold the glory of the Lord with His face open, and are changed into the same similitude, from glory to glory, even of the Spirit of the Lord.

philologos would say that the initial separation to God is 'sanctification', and that the process which follows would rather better be called 'glorification'.

What is it exactly to walk in the Spirit?

ceedub wrote:
I don't want to interrupt, but if the point, or end, of this current topic is to see God's people come under the power of the Holy Ghost unto greater godly living, I'm all for that.

godly living? Is that all it means? What should our godly living result in?

However, none of us here have the issue of dealing with divinity/flesh as Jesus did, in the same way.

I am not going to break out a bunch of scriptures to refute that except to say, OH? (see John 17. . .just for starters.)

Hi Intense,

There is a forum rule on SI, about limiting discussion to the topic in hand, without turning it against other posters. I could easily answer your question, but it is nothing to do with mine to you. My not knowing whether you consider yourself a son of God doesn't interfere with our ability to address the several comments you've made which imply you are confused about the extent of the deity of Christ.

You've asked me twice to answer a question which implies you want me to choose between Jesus being the Son of God, or, the Son of man. My question to you to clarify your statement about God having raised 'a sinless man not God', was relevant to my asking. So, to your old question, without your answer:

Who is coming again in clouds of Glory Jesus the son of man or Jesus the Son of God?

I ask, because there are 85 entries for 'Son of man' in the New Testament, and I'm not at all sure what point you're trying to make about the ones which are connected with His return - because He was clearly the Son of God after His resurrection, before He ascended to His Father.

I hope you can shed some light on this for me? Many thanks. :-)

Alive-to-God wrote:
Hi Intense,

There is a forum rule on SI, about limiting discussion to the topic in hand, without turning it against other posters. I could easily answer your question, but it is nothing to do with mine to you. My not knowing whether you consider yourself a son of God doesn't interfere with our ability to address the several comments you've made which imply you are confused about the extent of the deity of Christ.

So answer it. Either you are or your aren't by virtue of the new birth. Do you consider yourself, born again? I doubt there is SI forum rule, preventing you from answering.

You've asked me twice to answer a question which implies you want me to choose between Jesus being the Son of God, or, the Son of man.

My question to you to clarify your statement about God having raised 'a sinless man not God', was relevant to my asking. So, to your old question, without your answer:

Who is coming again in clouds of Glory Jesus the son of man or Jesus the Son of God?

I know this is maddening but I need to know whether you are asking me to choose between two identities for Jesus - 'Son of man' and 'Son of God' - or you just want me to quote Him describing Himself as the Son of man in the verses pertaining to His return?

Why maddening when all you have to do quote the words of Jesus and ponder them, for the first time, as to why He would place one of His titles in front of the other?

I ask, because there are 85 entries for 'Son of man' in the New Testament, and I'm not at all sure what point you're trying to make about the ones which are connected with His return - because He was clearly the Son of God after His resurrection, before He ascended to His Father.

Why not wonder at why there are 85 entries of son of man mentioned? How many times is son of God mentioned? And again, why didn't God personally call Him His son before His water-Holy Ghost baptisms. Why is so hard for you to see Jesus, son of Man as not being divine before He was made so? Every Name given Him was given before His Transfiguration. How many times do we read: And His Name, "shall be" and yet never was until His ascension?

"So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee." Hebrews 5:5 (KJV)

7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;
8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
Hebrews 5:7-9 (KJV)

I hope you can shed some light on this for me? Many thanks. :-)

Without you investigating on your own to seek the answers, I don't believe what I have to say will benefit you.

Hello Intense,

Why is so hard for you to see Jesus, son of Man as not being divine before He was made so?n

There is no other way a virgin could conceive, apart from an act of God. Elisabeth knew it - Luke 1:43

Simeon knew it: Luke 2:25 And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name [was] Simeon; and the same man [was] just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him. 26 And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ. 27 And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law, 28 Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said, 29 [u]Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: 30 For mine eyes have seen thy salvation[/u], 31 Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; 32 A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel. 33 And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him. 34 And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this [child] is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against; 35 (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.

Daniel 3:25.

Earlier, I listed other scriptures which described Him as the Creator of both the seen and the invisible worlds - the Word by which [u]all[/u] things hold together. Do you reject these as proof of His eternal divinity when He became a Man - the Word made Flesh?

Could I say... I do understand how important the pronouncements by God of His Sonship were to both Himself and those with Him, but we cannot remove from scripture all previous allusions to His divinity, by whichever names it was prophesied.

Herein is your error:

He was divine as the pre-incarate Son of God;

The Word was God who became flesh. The Word was NEVER a son.

Again: Your difficulty lies in making distinctions, . . . that are supportable from scripture.

Hello Intense,

I think you might have meant to say 'insupportable from scripture'. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Herein is your error:

He was divine as the pre-incarate Son of God;

The Word was God who became flesh. The Word was NEVER a son.

Again: Your difficulty lies in making distinctions, . . . that are supportable from scripture.

9 [That] was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not...

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.

It is indeed a mystery, but I believe every word of it.

I think you might have meant to say 'insupportable from scripture'. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

To the contrary: Since it is scripture you ignore.

For instance, was the Word ever begotten? Who was ever a son in past eternity except in the foreknowledge of God? It is not a mystery as people suppose. Answer please.

I'm sure others can add more detail to this, but I'll keep to three key thoughts: 1) the verse which says Mary conceived under the shadow of the Highest, confirmed by Elisabeth's inspired eulogy, 2) her husband-to-be was told the baby was a fulfilment of the prophecy 'God with us'. (So, God was His Father, He was God from the womb) and 3) He was the Word made Flesh according to John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

9 [That] was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not...

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.

It is indeed a mystery, but I believe every word of it.

That was all written after He was revealed to be who He was; after the ascension. The mystery is no longer hidden from us as Paul spoke of it being revealed.

[color=000000]"But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil."Hebrews 5:14 (KJV)

More on topic:

Adam was not of "full age" when he partook of the tree of knowledge of good evil. He had no sensibilities in the arena of Spiritual warfare. However, there is little doubt in my mind he would have partaken of it in some point in time when better prepared to handle ALL the knowledge of good and evil. Indeed, it would require consummate intimacy with the Father or divinity itself for that ability.[/color]

Hello Intense,

That was all written after He was revealed to be who He was; after the ascension. The mystery is no longer hidden from us as Paul spoke of it being revealed.

But, there was much more going on day by day to confirm that Jesus was the Son of God, than the heavens opening at His baptism. How many people were there in Israel who didn't hear that voice? On what basis did the crowds follow Him, if not because He was showing every day, more and more signs of being the fulfilment of all prophecy about Himself?

I realised I didn't answer anything in this paragraph, so here are more thoughts.

Why not wonder at why there are 85 entries of son of man mentioned?

How many times is son of God mentioned?

And again, why didn't God personally call Him His son before His water-Holy Ghost baptisms.

Why is so hard for you to see Jesus, son of Man as not being divine before He was made so?

Every Name given Him was given before His Transfiguration. How many times do we read: And His Name, "shall be" and yet never was until His ascension?

The woman of Samaria could not have known what had happened on the banks of the Jordan when the dove descended. She judged Him by a different criteria. He showed Himself to her as 'that Prophet', Deu 18:18, 19, John 4:25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. 26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am [he]. 27 And upon this came his disciples, and marvelled that he talked with the woman: yet no man said, What seekest thou? or, Why talkest thou with her? 28 The woman then left her waterpot, and went her way into the city, and saith to the men, 29 Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ?

John 6:15 When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, [u]to make him a king[/u], he departed again into a mountain himself alone.

Exo 15:26, Num 12:13, Deut 32:39, 2 Kings 20:5, 2 Chron 30:20, Malachi 4:2, Matthew 4:23

The Old Testament was the only 'scripture' available in Jesus' day. It was imperative that He fulfil every reference to Himself in such a way that those who would believe could recognise Him. That's why the credentials of the Messiah are laid out so painstakingly and often by those prophecies. God left the Jews with no excuse. Even the blind, deaf and dumb could testify to their life-changing encounters with Him. But still there were those who determined not to believe, right in the face of all the evidence.

He was God in heaven before He came, and I don't know how He could stop being God. Then, there is the importance of His predicted geneology, that was absolutely central to establishing the identity of the Messiah [i]beyond all doubt[/i].

For instance, was the Word ever begotten? Who was ever a son in past eternity except in the foreknowledge of God? Answer please.

Hi Intense,

However, there is little doubt in my mind he would have partaken of it in some point in time when better prepared to handle ALL the knowledge of good and evil. Indeed, it would require consummate intimacy with the Father or divinity itself for that ability.

You're forgetting one very important thing... Genesis 2:17 - [u]surely[/u].

There was to be [u]no[/u] 'handle' on the knowledge of good and evil, shared with eternal life. It was a LIE that they would not die for eating from it, and still is.

[color=000000] With this I rest my case:[/color]

[color=000000] The word Son in connection with Jesus does not refer to His Deity, but to His humanity. AS GOD, Christ had no beginning, was not begotten, was not the firstborn, was not born, and therefore, was not a Son; but AS MAN HE had a beginning, was begotten, was the first-born of God, was born, and therefore became the Son of God. If one believed son-ship referred to Deity, then he would have to believe that this person of Deity had a beginning, and was not always God, was not always in existence, and therefore was not an eternal and self-existent Being. It is plainly stated in Micah 5:2- John 1:1-2; Col. 1:17; Rev. 1:8-18; John 17:5 that He had no beginning AS GOD and that He was as eternal and self-existent as the Father and the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, AS MAN it is plainly stated that He had a beginning. Note the following simple statements of Scripture that AS MAN and AS A SON. He did have a beginning, proving son-ship refers to humanity and not to Deity.

(1) "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise.... she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.... that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins" (Matt. 1:18-25). This proves that God had a Son at the same time Mary did, and neither had a Son before this. This Son was "Emmanuel .... God with us," but before the second person of the Godhead came to be with us AS MAN, HE could only exist AS GOD. AS GOD the second person of the God head is never called the Son of God, but when He became man by becoming the Son of both Mary and God, He is called "The Son of God."

The only references to His Son-ship before He became the Son of Mary and God were in prophecies foretelling this event (Isa.7:14; 9:6-7; Prov. 30:4; Ps. 2:7, 12; Heb. 1:5-6). That He was "The Son of God" and appeared in the fiery furnace as such in Dan. 3 is not stated anywhere. It was the heathen king that said "the form of the fourth is like the Son of God," literally, like a Son of God, as in the margin. In this appearance the being was an angel (Dan. 3:28) and not the second person of the Godhead who later became man and the Son of Mary and God. To this heathen king any being like an angel would be called a Son of God, because he believed in many gods and offspring of gods. He knew nothing of the true God, much less that He would someday have a Son born of a woman.

(2) "Thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall BE CALLED THE SON OF THE HIGHEST.... The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee SHALL BE CALLED THE SON OF GOD" (Luke 1:31 -35). If God or Mary had a Son before this, when was it born? Certainly this was the first time Mary had a son, for she "brought forth her firstborn son: and called his name JESUS" (Matt. 1:25). This was also the first time God had a Son, for Mary's child is also called God's "first-born" in the same sense He was Mary's "first-born" (Matt. 1:25; Ps. 89:27; Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:5-7).

If God had a Son before this, then Jesus is the second-born Son and not "firstborn" and "the only begotten Son" of God, as in John 1:18; 3:16-18, 35-36, and in the passages listed above. Or, if Sonship refers to Deity, then He became God's Son twice; once sometime back in eternity and again when God had a Son by Mary. If He was begotten as God's Son sometime in the eternal past and His Son-ship refers to Deity and not to humanity, then who was the mother of this God-Son and when did God have a Son by this other mother? There is no statement in Scripture that Jesus was God's Son from all eternity. If He were, then there still would have to be a time when He became God's Son, and if that took place at a certain time and place, He could not have always been God's Son. Neither would He always have been God, as the Bible declares in Mic. 5:2; John l:1-2; Heb. 1:8; Rev. 1:8).

To solve all these unanswerable questions of speculation, let us believe the simple statements of Scripture that the person we now know as the Son of God and Mary was not always God's Son and Mary's Son, that He was always God and a separate person along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, that He became man and the Son of both God and Mary over nineteen hundred years ago for the purpose of redemption, that it was in God's plan that one of the three persons of the Godhead should become man and the Son of the one who became the Father by the power of the Holy Ghost, and that it did not become a reality until it actually took place in Mary about nineteen hundred years ago.

(3) "Unto you is born THIS DAY in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.... when eight days were accomplished for circumcising of the child, his name WAS CALLED JESUS, which was so named by the angel BEFORE HE WAS CONCEIVED IN THE WOMB" (Luke 2:11-24).

(4) "The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us" (John 1:14). He was the "Word" and "God" and a member of the Godhead from all eternity, but He was not made flesh until God had a Son by Mary.

(5) "God gave his only begotten Son" is taken to prove that God must have had a Son before He gave Him, but this must be understood in connection with other passages. It is certain that the second person of the Godhead had to become a man and the Son of God and Mary before either God or Mary could have a Son; so God giving His Son must refer to the time of the crucifixion when God gave His Son and the Son gave Himself to redeem man "that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life."

This time is stated to be at the crucifixion, for it was then that the sins of the whole world were atoned for and all men were crucified with Him (Rom.6:4-6; 8:32, Gal. 1:4, Eph. 5:25; 1 Tim. 2:6; Tit. 2:14; 1 Pet. 2:24). The time then when God gave His Son that men should believe in Him to be saved was the time He gave Himself to save all men, and not at the time he was born. At the time He was born He did not save the world and could not have done so. He had to grow to manhood to die for men. We also read of God giving Christ the headship of the Church, and this was even after the crucifixion (Eph. 1:20-22).

The birth of Christ was necessary for God to have a Son to give to die for the world later. The purpose of the birth was that He might have a Son to give as a sacrifice to atone for the sins of the world. God did not give Him to die at the time He was born, but gave Him to die when He was a man and after He had been the Son of God and Mary for over thirty-three years. Because God now has a Son, His giving the Son can be spoken of even at birth in the same sense that He was called "Christ," as explained in Point V, 27, above.

(6) "Hath not the Scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?" (John 7:42; Mic. 5:1-2; Isa.7:14; 9:6-7; 11:1-2). The person who was to be God's Son and Christ was to come from God and man; hence, Son-ship refers to humanity, not to Deity. AS GOD He could not have been born or brought into existence, but as man He had to be (Acts 13:23; Rom.1:3; 8:3, 28-32; 9:5; Gal. 4:4; Phil. 1:8-11; Col. 1:15; Heb. 2:14-18; 7:14; 10:5-14; 1 John 4:1-6; 1 Pet. 2:24).

(7) It is stated in both Testaments that there was a certain day that God was to have a Son and a certain day in which He did have a Son. "The Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; THIS DAY have I begotten thee.... And again, I WILL BE to him a Father, and HE SHALL BE to me a Son.... And again, when he brines in the first begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him" (Ps. 2:7; Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5-6; 5:5-10; 10:5-14- Isa.7:14; 9:6-7). The words Father and Son have exactly the same meaning when used of God as when used of men. If Son-ship refers to Deity then we would have to conclude that there was a certain day when the second person of the Godhead was born and before this day He was not in existence, but this is contrary to all statements in Scripture about Him. Therefore, we must conclude that Sonship refers to humanity and that before His birthday Jesus was God, but He was not man or God's Son and that as God He had no beginning, but as man He did have a beginning. The prophets foretold how God would become a man by being begotten, but not one ever said that a person would become a God by being begotten (Gen. 3:15; 49:10; Deut. 18:15-19; Ps. 2:7; 22:1-22; 40:7; 80:17; 89:19; Isa.7:14; 9:6-7; 11:1-2; 42:1-5; 32:2; 53:1-12; Jer. 23:5; Mic. 5:2-4).

(8) The truth then is this: there were always three distinct and eternal persons unbegotten of each other from all eternity; that only one of these eternal persons of the Deity became a man and the Son of another of these eternal Beings by the power of the third; and that one took the headship part, another took the mediative part, and the third took the part of direct operation in the plan of creation and redemption of all things. It was in the plan of the Trinity to take these respective parts long before the plan began to be worked out.

It was predicted that one of the eternal Beings would become the Father, that one would become the Son, and that the other would take the place of direct operation to bring it about. This is why it was written of a certain day this was done (Ps. 2:7; Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5-6; 5:5-10; 10:5-14; Isa.7:14; 9:6-7). This plan was not carried out until the Holy Ghost came upon Mary, as in Matt. 1:18-25; Luke 1:31-35. Paul said in Gal. 4:4-5 that God's Son was "made of a woman, made under the law." According to Heb. 10:5-14 God prepared a body for the second person of the Godhead in which He was to become incarnate, and it was this man that was born of a woman and was called "the Son of God." Hence, Son-ship refers to humanity, not to deity. As God the second person of the Trinity had no beginning and was not begotten, but as a man He did have a beginning by being begotten of the Father through the Holy Spirit and through the virgin Mary. There is, therefore, no such doctrine in Scripture as the eternal son-ship of Jesus Christ or that He Eras God's Son from all eternity. There is no excuse to teach some theory that is not stated in Scripture, even if it is commonly accepted as orthodox teaching.

There are 15 prophetical statements about God having a Son in the future, born of a woman (Gen. 3:15; 12:3; 26:4; 28:14; 49:10; 2 Sam. 7:14; Ps. 69:8; 89:27; Isa.7:14; 9:6-7; 11:1; Matt. 1:21; Luke 1:30-35; 2:26). There are also 15 historical statements in the Bible showing that God did have His first and only begotten Son, born of a woman, and that this took place on a certain day in time and not in eternity past (Matt. 1:18-21; 2:1-6 with Mic. 5:1-2; Luke 2:1-11; John 1:14; Rom.1:3-4; 8:3; Gal. 4:4-5; Phil. 2:5-11; Col. 1:15-18; Acts 13:33; 1 Tim. 3:16; Heb. 1:5-6, 2:9-18; 5:5; 7:14). On the other hand, there is no Scripture in the Bible showing that God had a Son throughout all eternity- one begotten before all worlds. Nor is there a Scripture indicating that there never was a time when He did not have a Son, and no passage to prove that Christ was the Son of God before He was born of a virgin as God's only begotten Son. We find nothing in the Bible stating that eternal sonship and eternal generation is true of Jesus Christ. We can prove the pre-existence of Jesus Christ as God without claiming that He was in sonship all that time. We know that He was always God; He had no beginning as God; He was never born, begotten, and never had a mother, as God. He never had a Father God as deity in the ages past, and never became God's Son in any sense until, as predicted and fulfilled in the above Scriptures. [/color]

Alive-to-God wrote:
Hi Intense,

However, there is little doubt in my mind he would have partaken of it in some point in time when better prepared to handle ALL the knowledge of good and evil. Indeed, it would require consummate intimacy with the Father or divinity itself for that ability.

:-o

You're forgetting one very important thing... Genesis 2:17 - [u]surely[/u].

There was to be [u]no[/u] 'handle' on the knowledge of good and evil, shared with eternal life. It was a LIE that they would not die for eating from it, and still is.

I didn't forget, overlook or otherwise dismiss anything.

Hello Intense,

I didn't forget, overlook or otherwise dismiss anything.

It was predicted that one of the eternal Beings would become the Father, that one would become the Son...

The one thing that struck me about the article, was that insistence on everything being tied up nicely for the natural mind. With God, nothing is impossible.

By the way, did you write the defence of your definition of Son-ship you posted, or is it a quote from someone else? Please declare your source, thanks?

From the first paragraph:

If one believed son-ship referred to Deity, then he would have to believe that this person of Deity had a beginning, and was not always God, was not always in existence, and therefore was not an eternal and self-existent Being.

The term 'son' (Son) applies just as much to a son of God, as to a son of man, because it is a reference to the [u]nature[/u] of the 'son' being the same as the father.... Like, we get apple seeds from apples.

There is also this sentence from Ephesians 1 which is not quoted: 3 Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly [places] in Christ: 4 According as[u] he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy[/u] and without blame before him in love: 5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, 6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

God bless your evening. I'm logging off now.

I signed on but Alive-to-GOD beat me to the question of who authored this anti-eternal-sonship piece. Just curious.
I do agree with it btw. :-)

I believe we're both asking it's author because it speaks so clearly. lol.

All in good fun Brother.
Thanks again.

How could Adam ever be prepared enough to 'handle ALL the knowledge of good and evil' and not die?

By first having eaten of the Tree of Life that he become as God. . . . I.e., DIVINE.

RE: The paper I submitted. Please argue it on its own merit. Thank you.

Jesus-is-GOD wrote:
I signed on but Alive-to-GOD beat me to the question of who authored this anti-eternal-sonship piece. Just curious.
I do agree with it btw. :-)

I believe we're both asking it's author because it speaks so clearly. lol.

All in good fun Brother.
Thanks again.

People don't read. I have found that spelling out everything, folk go all over the map in their thinking and conclusions. To spell it out "clearly" would be to write a book that would not be read. If folk are serious, as I am, they will take the time to research some before "shooting down" what they [think] they disagree with or at the very least, read carefully what is written, how ever unclear they may deem it to be.

The Article was as clear as a bell Brother, but you sometimes post with "solve this puzzle" types.

Please do not think that you are the only one who diligently searches "researches" the WORD and give the benefit of the doubt that there 'may' be something in 'how' you're posting that keeps it going for pages before we understand your drift.

On an earlier page, your post read as if you were denying the Deity of Christ.

The Article cleared that up - finally.

Jesus-is-GOD wrote:
The Article was as clear as a bell Brother, but you sometimes post with "solve this puzzle" types.

Please do not think that you are the only one who diligently searches "researches" the WORD and give the benefit of the doubt that there 'may' be something in 'how' you're posting that keeps it going for pages before we understand your drift.

On an earlier page, your post read as if you were denying the Deity of Christ.

The Article cleared that up - finally.

Please point out anything I wrote, the article "made more clear".

Yes, of course.

This one sentence, without knowing that you did believe in His - The Logos' eternal Deity could be read two ways ---

[i]"Why is so hard for you to see Jesus, son of Man as not being divine before He was made so?"[/i]

It could be read that HE was 'made Divine'.

And this next sentence I just didn't agree with - that's all.

[i]"And again, why didn't God personally call Him His son before His water-Holy Ghost baptisms."[/i]

HE publically declared HIM to be the Son - but I wouldn't have said that HE hadn't 'called' HIM Son before that day, on other days or ways.

Thanks again!

Intense, just another thing because when you post longer posts, they express much better what you do believe.
At the end of page 20, you were a bit sharp with our Brother and "love" is the key to being told "Well done My good and faithful 'servant'."

You see Brother - you had Alive-to-GOD defending the Deity of Christ with all that was in him - when you could have just plainly stated that "I believe the Logos is Eternal God - but that the Son was 'begotten on a specific "day"' - ie. not the Eternal Son.

Both ceedub and Alive-to-GOD were quite polite and I was just sitting back praying that you'd see what they were 'trying' to communicate to you or that they [i]were[/i] communicating with you and hoping that is what you are here for - to 'communicate' with fellow servants.

GOD Bless you.

Jesus-is-GOD wrote:
Yes, of course.

This one sentence, without knowing that you did believe in His - The Logos' eternal Deity could be read two ways ---

[i]"Why is so hard for you to see Jesus, son of Man as not being divine before He was made so?"[/i]

It could be read that HE was 'made Divine'.

He was and made more because He became the Author of our divine life, the possibility to become as He is. Don't you realize you and I, by virtue of being born again from above, have the same life in us that He had in His human life by being born of Mary? Now, are we divine or are we re-born to be made divine? Is God's Nature imputed? Yes. Is His Character imputed? No. It is imparted as we grow in wisdom and stature leading ultimately to the full stature of Christ. In His 30 silent years He learned the Father? Is this not what are to be about when we become born again? Yes.

Ask yourself the question: Why did God have to give Jesus anything? When you do and think it through, you will see Jesus experienced everything a human, this side of glory can experience in the Father, i.e., consummate intimacy, nothing more. . . until his transfiguration when the Word of Him and His human nature became, in all actuality, inseparable. As Chambers puts it: "He could have kept on going as Lord but would never have been savior" However, while still in His Glorified state and because of His love, said no to the glory and willingly returned to the limitation of His humanity [consummate intimacy state of being with the Father] to make it possible for us tobecome as He is. Think I am wrong? Why did He sweat as great drops of blood in the garden?

And this next sentence I just didn't agree with - that's all.

[i]"And again, why didn't God personally call Him His son before His water-Holy Ghost baptisms."[/i]

HE publically declared HIM to be the Son - but I wouldn't have said that HE hadn't 'called' HIM Son before that day, on other days or ways.

Thanks again!

I was specifically asking for this from the Father:

"This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased."

You can't find it but twice in the scriptures: At His Baptism and His Transfiguration. Thats it.

[color=000000]

Jesus-is-GOD wrote:
Intense, just another thing because when you post longer posts, they express much better what you do believe.
At the end of page 20, you were a bit sharp with our Brother and "love" is the key to being told "Well done My good and faithful 'servant'."

You see Brother - you had Alive-to-GOD defending the Deity of Christ with all that was in him - when you could have just plainly stated that "I believe the Logos is Eternal God - but that the Son was 'begotten on a specific "day"' - ie. not the Eternal Son.

Both ceedub and Alive-to-GOD were quite polite and I was just sitting back praying that you'd see what they were 'trying' to communicate to you or that they [i]were[/i] communicating with you and hoping that is what you are here for - to 'communicate' with fellow servants.

GOD Bless you.

Thank you for that. I hope you will be as keen to recognize when my objective questions, intended to point up subjectivity, are ignored and my words misrepresented by those who oppose my view. And haven't you noticed, no one ever says, Gee, you are right, never saw it it that way before?[/color]

I suppose you're not counting Mary? Luk 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David

Oh boy - I have a question on this --

I said: It could be read that HE was 'made Divine'.

You said: He was and made more

How can GOD by made Divine and made more divine?

HE was the Lamb slain before the foundations of the earth.

How can GOD be made 'more' GOD?

In another place you said that we become "as God - Divine"

There is no Scripture for that.

The closest we will come is to be "like" HIM when we 'see' HIM. "Like" meaning "similar" but not 'as' GOD. To be "as GOD" is "to Be GOD" --- don't you think so?

Intense wrote:

Thank you for that. I hope you will be as keen to recognize when my objective questions, intended to point up subjectivity, are ignored and my words misrepresented by those who oppose my view. And haven't you noticed, no one ever says, Gee, you are right, never saw it it that way before?

Brother, I've followed this thread enjoying it much but at some point, what happened was the communication break down. Maybe because you were feeling on overload with two folks posting to you on page 19 or 20.

I think to just speak more plainly - like the Koine Greek used in the N.T. was the street language - I understand plain talk and you post well when you use more words, as I said. We may not all agree but at least we understand one another then.

I don't think your words were "misrepresented" but were "misunderstood" and I tried to show where. That's all. Keep at it and have patience with us as well. We're all new to each other and text communicating is the hardest method of all. amen.

Jesus-is-GOD wrote:
I suppose you're not counting Mary? Luk 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David

I have made it quite clear that God never called Jesus His son except twice in the NT. So no, Mary is out.

Oh boy - I have a question on this --

I said: It could be read that HE was 'made Divine'.

You said: He was and made more

How can GOD by made Divine and made more divine?{/quote]

[color=000000]Is this to be about trying to trip me up? I am done with this discuss if it is.[/color]

I didn't say more 'divine", did I? However,Jesus wasn't divine until His Transfiguration which was further made complete at His ascension. He earned it by obedience. That i sgood Bible. Does God "earn" anything by being obedient? He is the originator of all creation.

HE was the Lamb slain before the foundations of the earth.

How can GOD be made 'more' GOD?

God was the Author of creation, Jesus became the Author of our salvation. . . By obedience He became so.

In another place you said that we become "as God - Divine"

There is no Scripture for that.

What do you believe joint-heir-ship with Jesus means? How about The Body of Christ with Him as the Head? Or His Bride where the two are one? What does that all say to you?

The closest we will come is to be "like" HIM when we 'see' HIM. "Like" meaning "similar" but not 'as' GOD. To be "as GOD" is "to Be GOD" --- don't you think so?

Really?? What commentary did you read that out of?We will be like Him, as He is. What do believe He is, having received a glorified body. I believe He is God

Hello again, Intense,

This post has turned out to be longer than I expected, but it's worth bringing verse to mind which don't seem to go with your theory of God not having a Son until Jesus is born. Later, I bring some verses about the limitations of our God-likeness, and ask a few questions.

I've been thinking about the verses which don't figure in your article, which I've brought to your attention, which you haven't yet explained within your theory. They are Acts 20:28 and the passage from Eph 1, particularly 'he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world ... his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. 7 In whom we have redemption through his blood'. I hope you can agree that the Son is 'the beloved' from before creation.

In the article you raised the question of whether Jesus was God's second son, and declared by implication that He was not. This raises the question of one New Testament definition of Adam in Luke 3:38 - Adam, which was [the son] of God.

The explanation for Luke's statement is that Adam was modeled on the eternal, unchanging, spiritual Son. His eternal Sonship cannot in question. Additionally, Paul repeats his claim of Acts 13 regarding Psa 2:7 when in Rom 1:4 he says 'declared [to be] the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.' I notice you didn't include this verse in the article, but did include the preceding one Rom 1:3, when you wished to emphasise Christ's humanity.

The verses which follow have come to mind in the order they appear. They all bring something of the eternal nature of the Son, or His work, into view.

Heb 13:20 'Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, [u]through the blood of the everlasting covenant[/u]', which you don't seem to have reckoned with - that the New Covenant is between the Father and the Son from eternity, and we can be joined to it through faith in the Son's part on our behalf.

Throughout scripture since the fall, God intends us to become 'like' Him only one way - through faith in His Son. Eph 4:7 But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ... 13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:' Note the word 'measure', twice?

Any other route is out of bounds. 2 Peter 1:2 '... to you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, 3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that [pertain] unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: 4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. 1 Cor 6:17, 1 Cor 12:13, Eph 2:18, Eph 5:18

1 John 2:16 For all that [is] in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. Gen 3: 6 And when the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, and that it [was] pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make [one] wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat...' Matthew 4:4

John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? 37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father [is] in me, and I in him.

John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. 5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory [u]which I had with thee before the world was[/u].

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. 24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: [u]for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world[/u]. John 17

John 10:30, I and [my] Father are one.

John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

John 6:32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but [u]my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven[/u]. 33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. 34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. 35 And [u]Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life[/u]: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. 36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. 37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. 38 [u]For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me[/u]. 39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. 40 [u]And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life[/u]: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Please also would you explain how it is possible for Paul to write this of creation using the pronoun 'his', if [u]He[/u] did not exist then? Romans 1:20

Lastly, when He said 'a body hast thou prepared me' (Heb 10:5), where was 'He' before He was in that 'body'? Psalm 40:6 Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required. 7 Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book [it is] written of me, 8 I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law [is] within my heart.

Spiritual 'ears' I guess, but nevertheless attributes of a [i]Person[/i] of the Godhead.

Now, I'd like to return to the matter of Adam and the trees. If God forbade him to eat of the tree of life [i]after[/i] eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, what makes you think that reversing the order would have been okay with God - thus producing the same result of living for ever knowing good and evil?

I didn't quite ask, previously, but now I do ask... how would that be okay by your reckoning, if God has already clearly pronounced that they should not have eaten of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil [u]and[/u] live for ever? Gen 22, 23.

I hope you'll be able to reply, but no hurry. There may be other verses to consider but these presented theselves most easily.

Blessings.

Dear Alive,

I am sorry however, I am not going to reply to your last. Two simple reasons, you have yet to explain how it is that God could beget a son in Heaven, without a wife. Explain that and all the verses you have presented will read differently to you. Secondly, your introducing random thought that has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject matter as in being, "all over the map". We are addressing only Jesus having been born sinlessly into humanity and the reason[s] of the necessity for it to be as it was; why it was that the Word of Him "emptied Himself" that Jesus had only His relationship with His Father to rely upon and how it was His allegiance to His Father sustained Him.

That is it for me. Trying to disprove me on other matters, i.e., Tree of life/knowledge of good and evil, are other side issues I'd be most happy to take up with you however, for now they serve only to derail.
I leave you with this simple question:If you can see your way clear to understand if you are born again that, by faith, you carry about in you the same Nature Jesus possessed. What does that make you? Being confident you will not answer the first question, I ask you to confine your answer to this last one. Please.

FWIW: Major Ian Thomas has an audio sermon called, "Calculated for Revolution". I highly recomend you hear it.

I am a nobody, I am no Holy Ghost referee, but this thread brings no Glory to God, and you all know it. It's just religious opinion, posturing, and pride, that is neither edifying, nor "iron sharpening iron", dont even deign to attribute those concepts to this thread long gone off the rails....so stop, please.

in Jesus love, neil

Dear brother Neil, :-D

Greetings Intense,

you have yet to explain how it is that God could beget a son in Heaven, without a wife

your introducing random thought that has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject matter as in being, "all over the map".

I leave you with this simple question:If you can see your way clear to understand if you are born again that, by faith, you carry about in you the same Nature Jesus possessed. What does that make you?

Being confident you will not answer the first question, I ask you to confine your answer to this last one. Please.

Blessings.

[color=000000]

I leave you with this simple question:If you can see your way clear to understand if you are born again that, by faith, you carry about in you the same Nature Jesus possessed. What does that make you?

Dead to sin, self and the world, and alive unto God!

Hi Intense,

You mean to say there is no divinity in you?

I thought you might be hoping I'd say simply (in reply to your question) 'a son of God', but since I wasn't sure what you'd take from that, I didn't. I also rejected 'born again' as a possible reply. Now, I'm glad of both rejections, because I wouldn't say that being a 'son of God' confers 'divinity' into me. As Peter explains, we, who believe, have been made partakers of the divine nature. 2 Pet 1:4. That's why I've previously quoted the verses about the 'one Spirit' (into which we have been made to drink, for instance).

Do you consider 'holy', and 'divine' interchangeably in your thinking? (The difference between those two is vital.) Please could you clarify this for me? Thanks!

[color=000000]

Alive-to-God wrote: Hi Intense,

You mean to say there is no divinity in you?

Interesting question! I thought you might be hoping I'd say simply (in reply to your question) 'a son of God', but since I wasn't sure what you'd take from that, I didn't. I also rejected 'born again' as a possible reply. Now, I'm glad of both rejections, because I wouldn't say that being a 'son of God' confers 'divinity' into me. As Peter explains, we, who believe, have been made partakers of the divine nature. 2 Pet 1:4.

That's why I've previously quoted the verses about the 'one Spirit' (into which we have been made to drink, for instance).

I am not trying to trip you up to destabilize you but to offer a perspective that will more fully sustain our faith and that by seeing our privilege in the Father not unlike Jesus viewed His, who "for the JOY [and vision] set before Him endured the cross". Our cross is, our flesh, the avenue to the world. We take it up every day, don't we?

Having said that: You are, in your present thinking, denying that the Nature of God within you, as being a divine Nature, the same Nature as Jesus had when He was born. His reception of it being of the physical while ours by faith however, it is no less vitally the Father's. Now, we can see that the Nature of the Father was imputed to Him, was also the Father's Character or did He learn it? Here: "And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the *grace of God was upon him." Luke 2:40 (KJV)

* Note: It says "grace of God was UPON Him" and not the Holy Ghost. Anything that was of the Father was IN Him or would be in Him in time, thirty years of it. During this 30 year time frame Jesus learned obedience that when He needed to obey, He could and would. [In this we might even see that Mary no doubt, had a very significant role to play in His life as His Mother, her being seen now as, a type a "Church" whose responsibility it is to groom for service those "chosen" of God.] That time came when He would be equipped to function in mimistry by the Baptism, power, of the Holy Ghost..

Do you consider 'holy', and 'divine' interchangeably in your thinking? (The difference between those two is vital.) Please could you clarify this for me? Thanks!

Two great "true to scripture" posts, Clintstone

ceedub wrote:
I'm brand new here but this looks like a great place to discuss. I'm curious if there's any others out there who have a problem as I do with the extent that some (even many commentators that I really admire) take the doctrine of original sin to. By that, I understand that there is a far reaching effect that includes death, the sin nature and imminent condemnation but for the grace of God. But too many passages indicate that God doesn't pass guilt until we ourselves sin.

I understand and agree with Cov't headship, but not to the degree that we are held guilty for the same crimes committed by the head. ie: Germans under Hitler were judged with many consequences that their leader brought them under, yet no one would hold them individually guilty for the same crimes.

I'm speaking on Romans 5:12 -21 in the near future and was wondering if there were any thoughts on this widely disputed topic?

This thread was your initiation Brother.

GOD BLESS YOU AND WELCOME!

:-)

Hi Jesus-is-God, Clint and ceedub, and for the post bringing the thread back on track. I'll read the Bible passage later and think if there's anything I could contribute. Meantime, busy day ahead, and I'll be back much later to comment on some of the last post from Intense. In particular, this portion requires discussion, I believe, as the Mount of Transfiguration seems to figure more prominently in Intense's belief system than anyone I've ever met.

[In this we might even see that Mary no doubt, had a very significant role to play in His life as His Mother, her being seen now as, a type a "Church" whose responsibility it is to groom for service those "chosen" of God.]

There is more in your post to me which I will answer, but I hope others will also chew over what you said, and offer their thoughts, too.

As I've said before, I can't say enough good about this site and all it has here.

Amen Brother and glad you feel that way and are here.

About age, not sure that that's a factor, but 'seeing' in the sense of 'knowing' Him seems to be and realizing Romans 8:29 is His object in vs 28 and that seems like true sanctification to me - "His Image" & that we're perfected by loving as He does, by or through Him.

But about pinheads & angels - I've been called pinhead by friends and thank GOD that angels camp round about them who fear Him. Not sure how many angels around this pinhead though.

God Bless us, everyone.

Greetings, Intense,

I was wondering if you aren't just a tiny bit curious as to the answer to your question about the Son being from eternity?

What is the Nature of God if not a divine Nature?

isn't Peter in that verse declaring that we do possess divinity?

In this I am endeavoring to strike a similarity between us and Jesus before His Transfiguration.

TaylorOtwell wrote:
Frankly, this is one of the more convoluted discussion I've seen on here, however, I wanted to try and contribute a little.

Firstly, Intense, I fear you have some strange Christology going on here that has been repeatedly been condemned by the church throughout history. To me, your views come across as a modified type of Nestorianism, or the belief that Jesus was born a man and only later took on the divine nature. This has never been the Christian position. Your view seems very similar to this.

[color=000000]Having been born of the Holy Ghost; the very Nature of the Father, I would have a difficult time understanding why anyone could believe Jesus didn't have the Nature of the Father from the instant of His conception. If fact I have repeatedly stated it as being as such. Where were you those many times?

For those who believe to be new born of Christ is something less than receiving the divine indwelling of the Life of Jesus Christ, here: "Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." Jn 14.17

Now the question remains: Does not one, born of God's Spirit, carry about within him a divine Nature? . . . . Some of you have said, no.[/color]

Please explain how it is you arrive at that, given the scripture[s] that say otherwise. . . . and that it is a necessity?

Hello rbanks,

Thanks for your post. I'm hoping you won't mind if I bring a scripture to bear on the matter of who contains God, in reply to

This is so important that we understand this-that we are the possession of God. Our sole purpose for being here is to be indwelt by God-to contain the creator. We are to be possess by God.

Taylor, thanks also for your knowledgeable post. I also had had this thought:

Not to mention, for all we know, he could have transfigured numerous times before that while away from the Apostles in prayer.

n any event, there seems to be a denial of the eternal Sonship of Christ. However, 1 John 4:10 and Mark 12 plainly state that God sent His Son to us.

I am sorry however, I am not going to reply to your last. Two simple reasons, you have yet to explain how it is that God could beget a son in Heaven, without a wife. Explain that and all the verses you have presented will read differently to you.... Being confident you will not answer the first question I ask you to confine your answer to this last one. Please.

I had said
That's why I've previously quoted the verses about the 'one Spirit' (into which we have been made to drink, for instance).

Intense replied (p24)
Yes and lets not overlook the part where we have been "made" to drink of it, as it pertains to: "filling up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church" Colossians 1:24 (KJV)

Perhaps I'm guessing too much at what you intended by your comment, so for those following the thread, I'll say what's in my mind, and you can elaborate on your meaning when you reply, if you would? Thanks.

I do see that each believer may be called to 'suffer', but it is not a requirement for salvation (and wasn't for Paul's salvation either). Don Francisco addresses this topic in his very old song [url=http://songoffaith.com/mp3s/Albums/ThePackage/TP_ThePackage_DonFrancisco.mp3]The Package[/url]

The more direct link to being filled with the Spirit is through our faith, expectation and hope, Phil 1:19, 20; or, as an automatic consequence of loving one another as Christ commanded. 1 John 4:12, 13; other verses could be quoted, such as Acts 5:32, Heb 5:9.

We cannot have the Holy Spirit, or the life of Christ, or the presence of the Father within us, except we have been grafted into His death, first. Then 'suffering', as a consequence of following Christ, takes it's rightful place
Matt 5:10, 11, 12; Luke 6:20 - 37.

Edit: Intense, I see you have posted, but I have not yet read it. My reply above is, therefore, in no way consciously a response to your last post.

Hello Intense,

I would have a difficult time understanding why anyone could believe Jesus didn't have the Nature of the Father from the instant of His conception.

You have even 'confident'ly declined to answer the many scriptures I brought to your attention. Is not this 'less' than honest scholarship?

Alive-to-God wrote:
Hello Intense,

I would have a difficult time understanding why anyone could believe Jesus didn't have the Nature of the Father from the instant of His conception.

The issue is not whether the Man Jesus Christ had the nature of His Father in heaven when He was conceived, but that you refuse to accept He - the Son - was pre-existent to that moment.

The issue is axactly that. The man Jesus was begotten . . .human. He was a ever a son in Heaven before His ascension. That is what you refuse to accept in the face of all the scripture presented you. You have been confusing the Word to be the son. He was never the son.

You have even 'confident'ly declined to answer the many scriptures I brought to your attention. Is not this 'less' than honest scholarship?

Not in the least, when they don't pertain to issue being discussed.

I have asked many questions of you, you have conveniently ignored. However, this one I will ask again: When was Jesus, while on Earth, ever called "Everlasting Father"? How about, "Emmanuel", "Wonderful Couselor", "Mighty God"?
Side question I chance to ask: Why is Jesus presently only sitting on the right hand of God?

TaylorOtwell wrote:

Secondly, your assertions that we somehow possess the same nature of Jesus before he was transfigured is not Biblical. Nobody on this earth has possessed the same nature of Jesus Christ. He was God of God, of one essence with the Father.

Then John 3.3 and 5 cannot ever apply to you.

Sorry for not responding to the rest of your post because I find it a mis-contruing of mine.

Oh, ok, well, I'll leave your dismissal of it all, the words of Jesus and anything of the rest this thread to others to address. I am done with it.

Brother Intense, I do believe you have "intensely" searched for HIM.
The only problem I see is that you have read far too many Authors in that great search.

I believe you may mean something in line with this following verse - correct me if I'm wrong - 1Jn 4:17 Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: [b]because as He is, so are we in this world.[/b]

Or when He said - "I Am The Light of the World" and then said "You are the light of the world" and similar verses.

I 'believe' you are referring to The "Spirit of Christ" dwelling within us - but some Author has it that "we" are now "Divine." To have Divinity indwelling us does not make us Divine. But we do have Jesus' earthly life as our Example, because He emptied Himself and became dependent on The Father by or through the Spirit to give Him the words to do and the acts that He did and gave us the way to walk, in that same dependent way for everything, as HE did.

I put the blame on the Authors.

I believe "The WORD of GOD" is from Eternity past to Eternity future, Whom we now call Jesus.
HE returns in Rev 19 with "a new Name" yet retains the Name "The Word of GOD" forever - The Logos.

If as that article you posted said, you only believe that HE became "the Son" at conception - there are many scholars that have no problem with that.

Adam Clarke for one says that after the Millenial Reign that HE will be ONE GOD again as HE was in the beginning of beginnings - which means 'no beginning' or eternity past.
HE will always be Eloheim - Triune - but I'll quote Clarke here to have it worded better -

Quote: 1Co 15:28
[i]"The Son also himself be subject - When the administration of the kingdom of grace is finally closed; when there shall be no longer any state of probation, and consequently no longer need of a distinction between the kingdom of grace and the kingdom of glory; then the Son, as being man and Messiah, shall cease to exercise any distinct dominion and God be all in all: there remaining no longer any distinction in the persons of the glorious Trinity, as acting any distinct or separate parts in either the kingdom of grace, or the kingdom of glory, and so the one infinite essence shall appear undivided and eternal. And yet, as there appears to be a personality essentially in the infinite Godhead, that personality must exist eternally; but how this shall be we can neither tell nor know till that time comes in which we shall See Him as He Is. 1Jo_3:2."[/i]

As seen in in the 'singular' personal pronouns -

Rev 21:1-7 "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, [b]the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself shall be 'with' them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. And He that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And He said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. And He said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. He that overcometh shall inherit all things;
and I will be his God,
and he shall be My son."

Brother, you took offense the last time I posted to you where No offense was intended at all and I mean No offense at all again in saying that I'm praying that you will believe that HE Loves you greatly and has promised you John 16:13 without the aid of human Authors. Just His Word Alone and quiet time with Him, until you actually feel and experience His Great Love.

All of His Very Best to you.
In His Peace.

Jesus-is-GOD wrote:
Brother Intense, I do believe you have "intensely" searched for HIM.
The only problem I see is that you have read far too many Authors in that great search.

I believe you may mean something in line with this following verse - correct me if I'm wrong - 1Jn 4:17 Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: [b]because as He is, so are we in this world.[/b]

Or when He said - "I Am The Light of the World" and then said "You are the light of the world" and similar verses.

I 'believe' you are referring to The "Spirit of Christ" dwelling within us - but some Author has it that "we" are now "Divine." To have Divinity indwelling us does not make us Divine.
I put the blame on the Authors.

Nor did I ever say that it did. So I can't see this from you as being based upon anything else than that 'wrong' assumption. However, why do think Jesus would declare that about us if we were not to or were already possessing, by virtue of our new birth, what He possessed? Where would the unction come from, self?

Keep this in mind: The devil wants to get to the Life of the Son of God; God's Nature in you. For him to succeed, he must go through your human nature. Consider now how Jesus protected that Life from above when in his temptations [demonic solicitations] and how it is that we are given the same power to function as He did.

Please don't blame any author in this as there are only a few in my life and I find none that have it all down pat, including Chambers. I believe God has it designed that way to keep us seeking and searching. . . . :-)

Greetings, Intense,

The man Jesus was begotten . . .human

That is what you refuse to accept in the face of all the scripture presented you.

Not in the least, when they don't pertain to issue being discussed

I can accept that you honestly don't believe them, or don't believe about them the way I do, but simply to reject them [u]all[/u] from the discussion, without explaining why you do, seems peremptory (if I may say so).

I have asked many questions of you, you have conveniently ignored.

Our cross is, our flesh, the avenue to the world. We take it up every day, don't we?

Having said that: You are, in your present thinking, denying that the Nature of God within you, as being a divine Nature, the same Nature as Jesus had when He was born.

We, however, have to die in Him, before we can [u]not sin[/u], which capacity is not because we have become 'divine', but because He has slain the enemy. In Him, (as I mentioned previously), we are dead - including our flesh, just as His flesh died on the cross - and from thence springs our victory over sin, if we will reckon ourselves dead as Paul explains in Romans 6.

This explanation - which you are free to reject of course - is why I (for one) do not see the Mount of Transfiguration as the pinnacle of Christ's accomplishment, while the terrible day of His death still lay ahead; and Luke implies as much in the brief account he gives of the discussion between Jesus, Moses and Elijah: Luke 9:31.

To summarise, if I have the Holy Spirit in me now, the spirit of adoption and somship, it is because Jesus died and rose again; not because of what the disciples saw and heard on the Mount of Transfiguration.

However, this one I will ask again: When was Jesus, while on Earth, ever called "Everlasting Father"? How about, "Emmanuel", "Wonderful Couselor", "Mighty God"?

Just for the record, He could not become the Prince of Peace until He had overcome Satan as the Lord of Hosts. That's the reason He wasn't called that one, during His ministry before the cross.

Hi Clint,

Your welcome is welcome. Thank you! :-D As to the articulation of my thoughts, I've been a member here before under a different name, now one of the many 'anonymous', so I've had a little practice in the past, but there's plenty of room for improvement... ;-)

Hi Clint,

I like that romans eight goes into praying in the Holy GHost by letting the Holy Spirit pray out the mysteries that are hid in Christ and this is a supernatural and essential key to staying built up in our most Holy commitment.[ faith ] I am so Glad that I have a teacher and comforter , that is well able, and willing , to always lead me and guide me and reveal Jesus to me so that i can walk in the spirit of a sound mind , of power , of God [Love ]. That the body of this dead flesh always have its sentence invoked upon it . This is the heart of the atonement, [ putting on Christ ] Glory to God we get to put on Christ !!! This glorious Savior of all the worlds !! I get to put Him on and serve Him with MY MIND this is the marriage of the kingdom Him and I existing as one ! oh ! to preach this with clarity , and to Truely lift Christ up , no longer wretched men , But a new creation Gloriously transformed in to our Husbands image and our husband adorning His bride with all His beauty and gifts ..

EDIT: Logic asked

BTW, has anyone read my last post

sscr01 wrote:
We were in Adam, when he sinned.

You replied
Wrong.
If your atributing this oppinion to Hebrews 7:9-10, then your in error by using an idiom or a colloquial for your doctrin.
This is dangerous.

?

To further the conversation about the Son in eternity before His Incarnation, here are Newberry's Bible notes on 'Elohim' from his elucidation of the Divine Titles, in the 1959 edition (with Foreword by FF Bruce).

ELOHIM
[i]Elohim(God, plural of Eloah) occurs about 2500 times; first, in Gen 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

Here it is joined to a verb in the singular, "God (Elohim, plural) created," (singular). Showing Trinity acting in unity.

It also frequently occurs with adjectives, pronouns, and verbs in the plural.

Gen 1:26 - "And God said, Let us make (plural) man in our image" (singular).

Gen 3:22 - "as one of us." Gen 20:13 - "When God caused me to wander."

Josh 24:19 - "He is a holy God (plural); He is a jealous God "(singular).

See also Isa 6:8.

The Chaldee form ELAHHAYAH occurs in Jer 10:11, applied to false gods.[/i]
(end of extract)

See also, please, [url=http://ldolphin.org/Names.html]The Names of God[/url] where we learn that Elohim means more than two, and occurs 32 times in Gen 1.

A further note from Newberry on JEHOVAH, states: [i]It first occurs, in connexion with Elohim, in Gen 2:4 "The LORD God (Jehovah Elohim) made."[/i]