Page 6 of 18 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314151617 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 265

Thread: Why can't God sin?

  1. #76
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    10,831

    Re: (4D) Why can't God sin?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    They didn't use the words of the creeds, but they did claim that the "Son of Man" was both divine and human--not a mix of each, but wholly God and wholly man. That's why the creeds say such.
    Make all the claims you want, use all the words scripture does not that you want, none of it changes scripture to say he had two natures.


    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Wrong. The Scriptures say that Jesus was "God's *only* begotten Son." That makes him unique among men.
    I'm my fathers only son and I'm unique. So what? God became flesh, not God begat God.


    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Never said they did. What I'm saying is that they take the material that causes Christians to believe in a "sin nature" and refer to it as a kind of "tendency towards sin."
    No Judaism does not. You did that. Christians do that to Judaism because of how they view scripture.


    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    After all, *everybody* under the Law had to be purified by the fire of animal sacrifice. The implication here is that all were guilty of sin, or at least *potentially* guilty of sin. But I think the implication is that all were in fact guilty of sin. The Apostle John argues in 1 John 1 that *all* are guilty of sin. In other words, *all* have a sin nature.
    Huh? How did you make that jump? We don't sin because of our nature.


    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Remember, "all of sinned and have come short of the glory of God?" Surely Paul believed in the *sin nature?*
    Again, where are you getting this?


    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Rom 1.17 For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”
    This is not talking about God's righteousness in that way. I have a thread on this as well. the righteousness of God



    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I've been telling you the opposite, that God indeed appeared in the flesh.
    but that's not enough for you. You have to give him another nature so that he's no longer flesh. You do not accept that God became flesh. You will only accept that God became a superhuman.


    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    If you don't know what the "word made flesh" is, then you can't even make an argument. The "word" is *God's word.* God's verbal communication is creative and assumed the finite form of man, while retaining His identity as God. God's word can express God in creation, and it can also express His own person in finite human flesh. God's word has unlimited capacity for self-revelation, in creating the universe, in creating a body for His own revelation, or in any way that He wishes to express Himself.
    Oh I know what it means, I was asking you.

    I said, "You describe what being Christian is and for Jesus say he had two natures and only one will. When we do it we are one nature and there are two wills."
    you said, "it is perfectly Scriptural to say that Jesus is the word of God made flesh. It is Deity revealed to us in the form of a man. So he is different from us in that he had more than just a human nature--he also had a divine nature."

    Why are you equating "word made flesh" with two natures and one will? There's just no way to make such an assumption.


    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I'm less concerned about your time wasted than others hearing the truth on this matter.
    Then why haven't you produced even just one verse to support your claim?

  2. #77
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    10,831

    Re: (4D) Why can't God sin?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    You are saying that out of apparent *ignorance!*
    No, you made it abundantly clear you place way to much value on others statements of faith.


    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    You downplay the creeds, diminish their value
    OK, but I would never equate a statement of faith with scripture.


    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    and suggest that your knowledge of the subject is limited.
    Oh yes, they're so complicated.


    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Now if you downplayed the creeds after showing a lot of knowledge about it, that would be different.
    Seriously? What's to know? What's so complicated about them?


    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    But if you've studied the creeds
    Why would anyone studied others statement of faith? If you mean Church History and why they say what they do, that's what I've done for 20 years.


    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    then you defeat your argument--you show by studying them that you recognize their importance!
    It's important to know what others believe and why. Other than that....


    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    What I'm saying is that *if you will study the creeds* you will discover that they are an attempt by sincere and godly people to translate the Scriptures into a systematic theology that *excludes heresies.*
    I know what they are, and they are not translation or systematic theology, and they did not succeed.


    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I'm not saying I'm smarter or more educated than you--just that I seem to be more experienced on this particular topic, which is, in my opinion, very important. I was raised confessing the creeds, but really only began to appreciate their value in a personal way when I got, for a short time, into a Christian cult. It was reliance upon creedal formulas that helped me decipher where this group had gone wrong, where I had gone wrong, and where other sects go wrong. So I'm personally grateful for the creeds--for the work other Christians have done way before I came along!
    Why wasn't scripture enough?


    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I will repeat: the Scriptures explicitly describe the Son as being fully human and fully God. If we translate that into the language of systematic theology, we would formulate that the Son of God had two natures, one divine and one human.
    No, that's what you have formulated. Scripture says he was man and it says he was God. Nothing in scripture implies two natures.


    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I don't know. I don't know anything about you, except that you denounce things without showing the knowledge to debate their value. For all I know you just don't want to know. Show me some knowledge of the creeds, and then denounce them, if that's where study brings you. But don't denounce the creeds without actually studying them.
    Denounce? Strong word isn't it? They're just there. I love Church History so of course I have read through creeds but really, like the ECF's they're mostly fine and sometimes not, but denounce the ECF's? I have no problem with someone saying a creed says x or y or z, and here's where scripture does as well, but you have claimed a creed says something because scripture does, without providing any scripture, which is just wrong. Since you couldn't produce scripture for Jesus having two natures you turned to a creed, as if the creed wouldn't say it if it were not true. C'mon man, the ECF's and the creeds are not infallible. They are not scripture. They are not right because "they are an attempt by sincere and godly people to translate the Scriptures into a systematic theology that *excludes heresies.*"

  3. #78

    Re: (4D) Why can't God sin?

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb View Post
    No, you made it abundantly clear you place way to much value on others statements of faith.
    You do that every time you rely on the authors of Scripture!

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb
    OK, but I would never equate a statement of faith with scripture.
    No, they are not the same. However, when the creeds state the same truths as Scripture then they can indeed be relied on. For example, if I pass out a Christian tract on salvation, I can hand it to someone on the street and rely on the Christian tract when it quotes Scriptures and makes Christian statements derived from the Scriptures.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb
    Oh yes, they're so complicated.
    Seriously? What's to know? What's so complicated about them?
    The subjects being discussed in the creeds are very, very complicated. Have you ever read the Cappadocian Fathers, for example? Have you ever read the discussions of the Trinity? Probably not, if you think all this is so simple. Of course, just stating belief in the creeds is a simple thing to do. And if this is all you're doing, is affirming beliefs without understanding, I can understand your concern. But I assure you, the creeds represent much more than this, and it is in fact very, very complicated.

    I agree with you that we should not just make dogmatic statements and accept Christian dogma without first understanding them for ourselves. Scholasticism became this kind of excessive formulation of doctrine without thinking through to get a full meaning. I agree with you that doctrine can be meaningless if we don't understand fully what we're asserting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb
    Why would anyone studied others statement of faith? If you mean Church History and why they say what they do, that's what I've done for 20 years.
    That surprises me when you just sort of "blow off" discussion of the Trinity, the Incarnation, etc. There are many big subjects discussed in Church history, from salvation to church structure to the Communion to whatever. I'm actually happy to hear you've studied, unless you dismiss the theological discussion in favor of other aspects of Church history?

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb
    It's important to know what others believe and why. Other than that....
    Yes, it's when I got confused that I found it necessary to study. And after learning I found it useful to know things in order to help others avoid problems.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb
    I know what they are, and they are not translation or systematic theology, and they did not succeed.
    They are a formulation of fundamentals derived from the apostles' doctrines, in order to prevent the spread of heresies. And they have very much succeeded, despite a relative few differences among different church traditions. You do not know what the creeds are if you don't understand this. Do you understand, for example, the relationship between the creeds and Arianism? Do you understand the relationship between the creeds and other heresies in the Early Church? If you think that these heresies were not part of the formulation of the creeds, no, you don't know the creeds very well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb
    Why wasn't scripture enough?
    For the very reason that the Hebrew Bible is not enough for you or me. It has to be translated into our own language and into our own cultural understanding. There were many new issues that came up when the gospel advanced beyond the Hebrew culture into the whole world, with a great diversity of languages and cultures. It is *up to us* to translate Scriptural truth into a language that our neighbors can understand. It is the same truth, but applied in a specific context. There is in fact a danger of just parroting a truth. If you cannot say something in your own words you may not really understand it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb
    No, that's what you have formulated. Scripture says he was man and it says he was God. Nothing in scripture implies two natures.
    If you studied this you would realize that the doctrine of the two natures of Christ is just that--belief that Christ was both divine and human, 100% divine and 100% human. He was not half divine and half human. That would truly be a "freak!"

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb
    Denounce? Strong word isn't it? They're just there. I love Church History so of course I have read through creeds but really, like the ECF's they're mostly fine and sometimes not, but denounce the ECF's? I have no problem with someone saying a creed says x or y or z, and here's where scripture does as well, but you have claimed a creed says something because scripture does, without providing any scripture, which is just wrong. Since you couldn't produce scripture for Jesus having two natures you turned to a creed, as if the creed wouldn't say it if it were not true. C'mon man, the ECF's and the creeds are not infallible. They are not scripture. They are not right because "they are an attempt by sincere and godly people to translate the Scriptures into a systematic theology that *excludes heresies.*"
    I don't doubt that you have a surface knowledge of Church History. I can't say that I have great depth either. But plainly you have read very little of the Church Fathers. If you had you'd know what I'm talking about. I'm not just citing the creeds as proof. I'm referring to them with the assumption that you know what they represent.

    But clearly you don't know *in depth* what the creeds represent. I could easily prove that the Scriptures are referenced in the creeds. Jesus was "born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried." All this is based on Scriptures. That these points were formulated was in fact designed to avoid error. The Nicene Creed was designed to avoid errors like Arianism. The fact you only know what the creeds are, but do not understand their purpose, is why you disregard them.

    Okay, you don't "denounce" them. Good. But I think it would be worth your time and test your intellectual endurance by reading a little of the Church Fathers. You'll soon know what I'm talking about.

  4. #79
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    10,831

    Re: (4D) Why can't God sin?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    You do that every time you rely on the authors of Scripture!
    Nonsense


    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    No, they are not the same.
    Which is it? Do you "do that every time you rely on the authors of Scripture" or not?


    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    However, when the creeds state the same truths as Scripture then they can indeed be relied on.
    Then you are not relying on a statement of faith.


    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    The subjects being discussed in the creeds are very, very complicated. Have you ever read the Cappadocian Fathers, for example? Have you ever read the discussions of the Trinity? Probably not, if you think all this is so simple. Of course, just stating belief in the creeds is a simple thing to do. And if this is all you're doing, is affirming beliefs without understanding, I can understand your concern. But I assure you, the creeds represent much more than this, and it is in fact very, very complicated.

    I agree with you that we should not just make dogmatic statements and accept Christian dogma without first understanding them for ourselves. Scholasticism became this kind of excessive formulation of doctrine without thinking through to get a full meaning. I agree with you that doctrine can be meaningless if we don't understand fully what we're asserting.


    That surprises me when you just sort of "blow off" discussion of the Trinity, the Incarnation, etc. There are many big subjects discussed in Church history, from salvation to church structure to the Communion to whatever. I'm actually happy to hear you've studied, unless you dismiss the theological discussion in favor of other aspects of Church history?


    Yes, it's when I got confused that I found it necessary to study. And after learning I found it useful to know things in order to help others avoid problems.


    They are a formulation of fundamentals derived from the apostles' doctrines, in order to prevent the spread of heresies. And they have very much succeeded, despite a relative few differences among different church traditions. You do not know what the creeds are if you don't understand this. Do you understand, for example, the relationship between the creeds and Arianism? Do you understand the relationship between the creeds and other heresies in the Early Church? If you think that these heresies were not part of the formulation of the creeds, no, you don't know the creeds very well.


    For the very reason that the Hebrew Bible is not enough for you or me. It has to be translated into our own language and into our own cultural understanding. There were many new issues that came up when the gospel advanced beyond the Hebrew culture into the whole world, with a great diversity of languages and cultures. It is *up to us* to translate Scriptural truth into a language that our neighbors can understand. It is the same truth, but applied in a specific context. There is in fact a danger of just parroting a truth. If you cannot say something in your own words you may not really understand it.


    If you studied this you would realize that the doctrine of the two natures of Christ is just that--belief that Christ was both divine and human, 100% divine and 100% human. He was not half divine and half human. That would truly be a "freak!"


    I don't doubt that you have a surface knowledge of Church History. I can't say that I have great depth either. But plainly you have read very little of the Church Fathers. If you had you'd know what I'm talking about. I'm not just citing the creeds as proof. I'm referring to them with the assumption that you know what they represent.

    But clearly you don't know *in depth* what the creeds represent. I could easily prove that the Scriptures are referenced in the creeds. Jesus was "born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried." All this is based on Scriptures. That these points were formulated was in fact designed to avoid error. The Nicene Creed was designed to avoid errors like Arianism. The fact you only know what the creeds are, but do not understand their purpose, is why you disregard them.

    Okay, you don't "denounce" them. Good. But I think it would be worth your time and test your intellectual endurance by reading a little of the Church Fathers. You'll soon know what I'm talking about.
    Here's what you said in another thread 44 minutes before the above.
    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    So let's stop accusing others of "shabby scholarship." We need to learn to "submit to one another," and to "edify one another."
    Practice what you preach.
    I already said, "If you mean Church History and why they say what they do, that's what I've done for 20 years."
    In post# 64 I said, "Church History IS my interest. I did not say otherwise. I said they are wrong sometimes and not scripture."
    I'm talking about us and now. We have scripture in our language. We don't need someone else to tell us what it says.
    I don't need Wikipedia and popular Christian websites to tell me what I should believe.
    I don't ""blow off" discussion of the Trinity, the Incarnation, etc". That's just another false accusation.
    Accusing me of not knowing history (after admitting there's no way to know this) doesn't validate your claims of Jesus. It's only discrediting you. Diversion is the oldest trick in the book.

  5. #80

    Re: (4D) Why can't God sin?

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb View Post
    Make all the claims you want, use all the words scripture does not that you want, none of it changes scripture to say he had two natures.
    So what are you saying, that Jesus was not both divine and human?

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb
    I'm my fathers only son and I'm unique. So what? God became flesh, not God begat God.
    God begat His Son, who is a God-man. Jesus is defined as both God and man--not just God.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb
    No Judaism does not. You did that. Christians do that to Judaism because of how they view scripture.
    You've never heard of the "evil inclination" that many Jews believe in?

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb
    Huh? How did you make that jump? We don't sin because of our nature.
    If you don't have a sin nature you don't sin. If you do have a sin nature you do sin.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb
    Again, where are you getting this?
    If Paul said that all of mankind sins, the implication is that we all have a sin nature, prompting us in the direction of sin.

    Rom 3.9 What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. 10 As it is written:

    “There is no one righteous, not even one;
    11 there is no one who understands;
    there is no one who seeks God.
    12 All have turned away,
    they have together become worthless;
    there is no one who does good,
    not even one.”
    13 “Their throats are open graves;
    their tongues practice deceit.”
    “The poison of vipers is on their lips.”
    14 “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”
    15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
    16 ruin and misery mark their ways,
    17 and the way of peace they do not know.”
    18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”


    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb
    This is not talking about God's righteousness in that way. I have a thread on this as well. the righteousness of God
    I'll have to refer to that, I suppose.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb
    but that's not enough for you. You have to give him another nature so that he's no longer flesh. You do not accept that God became flesh. You will only accept that God became a superhuman.
    That's a terrible distortion/misrepresentation of what I believe, of what I stated I believe. I've stated that I believe Christ is defined as a God-man--not strictly as God nor strictly as a man. God did become flesh, and as such, assumed a human nature. But he did not abandon his divine nature either. He was both.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb
    Oh I know what it means, I was asking you.

    I said, "You describe what being Christian is and for Jesus say he had two natures and only one will. When we do it we are one nature and there are two wills."
    you said, "it is perfectly Scriptural to say that Jesus is the word of God made flesh. It is Deity revealed to us in the form of a man. So he is different from us in that he had more than just a human nature--he also had a divine nature."

    Why are you equating "word made flesh" with two natures and one will? There's just no way to make such an assumption.
    You are making this way more complicated than it has to be. Simply understand what I mean by "nature." It indicates the general characteristics of a particular entity. If we are talking about God's nature, we are talking about the general characteristics of Deity. If we are talking about man's nature, we are talking about the general characteristics of humanity.

    In the case of Jesus we have two natures because he is not exclusively divine and not exclusively human--he is both! So Jesus is, using this language, consisting of two natures, and not just one, as we have.

    Jesus cannot be divided up into two wills, because he is defined as a God-man. That means you cannot sacrifice his humanity while talking about his divinity. So as a man he had a single will, both human and divine.

    But when talking about exclusive Deity and about the exclusive humanity of Christ you can speak of two separate wills between Father and Son. But the Son refers to a single human will. He is defined as having a single human will. His divine nature is restricted by his single human will.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb
    Then why haven't you produced even just one verse to support your claim?
    Others here will understand the reference to Scriptures which underlay the arguments.

  6. #81

    Re: (4D) Why can't God sin?

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb View Post
    Nonsense


    Which is it? Do you "do that every time you rely on the authors of Scripture" or not?


    Then you are not relying on a statement of faith.



    Here's what you said in another thread 44 minutes before the above.
    Practice what you preach.
    I already said, "If you mean Church History and why they say what they do, that's what I've done for 20 years."
    In post# 64 I said, "Church History IS my interest. I did not say otherwise. I said they are wrong sometimes and not scripture."
    I'm talking about us and now. We have scripture in our language. We don't need someone else to tell us what it says.
    I don't need Wikipedia and popular Christian websites to tell me what I should believe.
    I don't ""blow off" discussion of the Trinity, the Incarnation, etc". That's just another false accusation.
    Accusing me of not knowing history (after admitting there's no way to know this) doesn't validate your claims of Jesus. It's only discrediting you. Diversion is the oldest trick in the book.
    You haven't demonstrate much knowledge of what *underlay* the creeds, eg the discussion of heresies. I've not heard you acknowledge that once. And yet that is at the very core of the creeds. And so, even if you've spent lots of time in history, you haven't demonstrated any recognition of what the creeds were intended to do. I do appreciate your interest in history, as I have the same. However, if you're going to tackle an area of history, you have to show some recognition of it beneath a strictly surface view. History is a very extensive subject, and neither of us would have expertise in *all* areas of history. You either understand the creeds and refuse to acknowledge their purpose, or you don't have any in-depth understanding of them at all. This isn't meant to insult you, but to direct you away from the false impressions you may have acquired.

  7. #82
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    10,831

    Re: (4D) Why can't God sin?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    So what are you saying, that Jesus was not both divine and human?
    Answered this already, so why does being both require two natures?


    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    God begat His Son, who is a God-man. Jesus is defined as both God and man--not just God.
    Right but again, it does not say God came into flesh, it says God became flesh. Saying Jesus was unique is irrelvant, we are all unique. Again, not one verse of scripture distinguishes Jesus from other men because of his nature. If that were not true you would have produced scripture and proven me wrong, but you can't do that.


    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    You've never heard of the "evil inclination" that many Jews believe in?
    They do not say it is a result of our nature.


    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    If you don't have a sin nature you don't sin.
    Tell that to angels and Adam and Eve.


    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    If you do have a sin nature you do sin.
    not supported by scripture.


    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    If Paul said that all of mankind sins, the implication is that we all have a sin nature, prompting us in the direction of sin.
    Where does scripture imply this? You assume this then force the implication. It's the very same thing you have done with Jesus having two natures.
    -Since he is God and man he must have two natures.
    -Since we sin we must have a nature as the cause.
    Scripture does not agree with you on either of these.


    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    That's a terrible distortion/misrepresentation of what I believe, of what I stated I believe.
    Is it though?


    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I've stated that I believe Christ is defined as a God-man--not strictly as God nor strictly as a man. God did become flesh, and as such, assumed a human nature. But he did not abandon his divine nature either. He was both.
    Lets try this. What is the divine nature?


    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    You are making this way more complicated than it has to be.
    I am? You're the one saying he had two natures/one will. I say one nature/one will.


    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Simply understand what I mean by "nature." It indicates the general characteristics of a particular entity.
    What was divine about his nature?


    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    In the case of Jesus we have two natures because he is not exclusively divine and not exclusively human--he is both!
    This does not demand two natures, just as sinning does not demand we have a nature to sin.


    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Others here will understand the reference to Scriptures which underlay the arguments.
    Hogwash. That's not how this works. You don't even have any scriptures which underlay the arguments. All you have are your assumptions that you force on the text as implications.

  8. #83
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    10,831

    Re: (4D) Why can't God sin?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    You haven't demonstrate much knowledge of what *underlay* the creeds, eg the discussion of heresies. I've not heard you acknowledge that once. And yet that is at the very core of the creeds.
    We aren't discussing the reason for the creeds, so why would I have demonstrated or acknowledged this? I said "I'm talking about us and now. We have scripture in our language. We don't need someone else to tell us what it says.". The creeds do not validate scripture. Scripture can validate creeds, but in your case, scripture does not validate a creed stating Jesus had two natures.

  9. #84

    Re: (4D) Why can't God sin?

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb View Post
    Answered this already, so why does being both require two natures?
    If you're to understand what people mean by the words they choose to use you must understand how they are defining those words. If people use the word "nature" you must understand how they mean to use "nature." It is *their choice* to use the word "nature." So you must understand what *they mean* by the use of that word!

    The consensus view in the early church is that "nature" referred to the different kinds of attributes belonging to Christ--human and divine. Christ had a *human nature,* and he had a *divine nature." Using the word "nature" they hoped to show that Jesus was both human and divine. If he had divine attributes he was divine. If he had human attributes he was human.

    The consensus opinion in the creeds came to be that Jesus was both *fully human* and *fully God.* That is what *they meant* by using the word "nature." They mean that the attributes present in Jesus indicated he was both divine and human, ie he had both a human nature and a divine nature. It is just a matter of understanding how the language people choose to use are being used by them. It doesn't matter how *you* are using the term "nature." What matters, if you're going to understand *them,* is how *they* are using the word "nature!"

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb
    Right but again, it does not say God came into flesh, it says God became flesh. Saying Jesus was unique is irrelvant, we are all unique. Again, not one verse of scripture distinguishes Jesus from other men because of his nature. If that were not true you would have produced scripture and proven me wrong, but you can't do that.
    I *immediately* gave you the Scripture where it says that God begat His *only-begotten* Son! That indicates that Jesus was definitely unique and distinct from other men. As the God-man Jesus is different from ordinary men who are not God.

    I have not said that God *came into* flesh, or *came into* a man. I fully concur that *God became flesh!* The point is that Jesus was a God-man, and not just a divinely-inspired, or divinely-inhabited man. He *was* in fact Deity! In this he was and is very different from the rest of us. And there is not just one but *many Scriptures* that indicate this. For example, he was "the image of the invisible God, firstborn over all creation." (Col 1.15)

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb
    They do not say it is a result of our nature.
    I'm not here defining how they use the word "nature." I'm just saying many Jews believe in an "evil inclination" in human nature.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb
    Tell that to angels and Adam and Eve.
    My argument is that once sin is chosen a *sin nature* is acquired. Thereafter, there is a tendency to sin. There is a contamination of the spiritual nature in which there is a tendency to rebel against God's word.

    Prior to having a sin nature there is perhaps a predisposition towards choosing between God's word and one's own selfish interests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb
    not supported by scripture.
    "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Romans 3.23

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb
    Where does scripture imply this? You assume this then force the implication. It's the very same thing you have done with Jesus having two natures.
    -Since he is God and man he must have two natures.
    -Since we sin we must have a nature as the cause.
    Scripture does not agree with you on either of these.


    Is it though?
    Lets try this. What is the divine nature?
    Again, communication is a matter of not strictly how *I* or *you* use a particular word. We must all agree on how we are collectively using a word in order to mean the same thing by use of that word. If we are to discuss "nature" we must all agree on what we mean by using that word. In the Early Church they all used the word "nature" to express the attributes of either deity or humanity. It was synonymous with "characteristics." Jesus had divine "characteristics." Therefore, he was Deity.

    Since Jesus' deity was limited by his humanity, the divine characteristics he demonstrated was fully divine but had to be limited to his human representation. Thus, he could not show divine characteristics in all ways strictly limited to his humanity. A man cannot be omnipresent, or everywhere at once.

    But since Jesus was fully God this aspect of his Deity, ie his omnipresence, had to be possessed by virtue of his connection with his Father. His relationship with the Father was, therefore, an essential union. But his humanity also showed his Deity within his strictly human representation. He was sinless, and had miraculous powers. More than these things he expressed the *divine personality.* He indicated he was, in fact, the divine person!

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb
    I am? You're the one saying he had two natures/one will. I say one nature/one will.
    What was divine about his nature?
    This does not demand two natures, just as sinning does not demand we have a nature to sin.
    Hogwash. That's not how this works. You don't even have any scriptures which underlay the arguments. All you have are your assumptions that you force on the text as implications.

  10. #85
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    10,831

    Re: (4D) Why can't God sin?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    If you're to understand what people mean by the words they choose to use you must understand how they are defining those words. If people use the word "nature" you must understand how they mean to use "nature." It is *their choice* to use the word "nature." So you must understand what *they mean* by the use of that word!

    The consensus view in the early church is that "nature" referred to the different kinds of attributes belonging to Christ--human and divine. Christ had a *human nature,* and he had a *divine nature." Using the word "nature" they hoped to show that Jesus was both human and divine. If he had divine attributes he was divine. If he had human attributes he was human.

    The consensus opinion in the creeds came to be that Jesus was both *fully human* and *fully God.* That is what *they meant* by using the word "nature." They mean that the attributes present in Jesus indicated he was both divine and human, ie he had both a human nature and a divine nature. It is just a matter of understanding how the language people choose to use are being used by them. It doesn't matter how *you* are using the term "nature." What matters, if you're going to understand *them,* is how *they* are using the word "nature!"
    We are all using the term the same so that's not an issue. He was God man because of his nature, both God and man. No where does scripture say he had two natures and now where does scripture make it an necessity. Men have done this, the question is why? So again, why does being both require two natures? If the attributes of a thing (essence) is it's nature Jesus only had one. How could he have two? How could he be more than man and live for us? You have not answered any of these questions with scripture you just simply make assertions and assumptions, and that's not how things work here.


    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I *immediately* gave you the Scripture where it says that God begat His *only-begotten* Son!
    This in no way implies Jesus' nature was different from ours.


    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    That indicates that Jesus was definitely unique and distinct from other men.
    How? Why? Scripture?


    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    As the God-man Jesus is different from ordinary men who are not God.
    How? Why? Scripture?


    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I have not said that God *came into* flesh, or *came into* a man. I fully concur that *God became flesh!* The point is that Jesus was a God-man, and not just a divinely-inspired, or divinely-inhabited man. He *was* in fact Deity! In this he was and is very different from the rest of us. And there is not just one but *many Scriptures* that indicate this. For example, he was "the image of the invisible God, firstborn over all creation." (Col 1.15)
    Finally, scripture. However this is not talking about his nature alone, for Adam, and indeed man, is also the image of God in nature.


    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I'm not here defining how they use the word "nature." I'm just saying many Jews believe in an "evil inclination" in human nature.
    Oh, now it's many Jews. I started out talking about Judaism, not what some Jews believe. A lot of Jews believe a lot of things they shouldn't. So? Really, Christians believe in a sin nature without scripture so why do I care if many Jews believe " in an "evil inclination" in human nature"? If Christians can get it wrong why not Jews? Judaism simply did not have any form of Augustinian/Reformed sin nature. It just didn't.


    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    My argument is that once sin is chosen a *sin nature* is acquired. Thereafter, there is a tendency to sin. There is a contamination of the spiritual nature in which there is a tendency to rebel against God's word.
    This is the opposite of what you said. You said, "If you do have a sin nature you do sin.".


    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Romans 3.23
    That simply does not say or imply, "If you do have a sin nature you do sin."


    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Again, communication is a matter of not strictly how *I* or *you* use a particular word. We must all agree on how we are collectively using a word in order to mean the same thing by use of that word. If we are to discuss "nature" we must all agree on what we mean by using that word. In the Early Church they all used the word "nature" to express the attributes of either deity or humanity. It was synonymous with "characteristics." Jesus had divine "characteristics." Therefore, he was Deity.

    Since Jesus' deity was limited by his humanity, the divine characteristics he demonstrated was fully divine but had to be limited to his human representation. Thus, he could not show divine characteristics in all ways strictly limited to his humanity. A man cannot be omnipresent, or everywhere at once.

    But since Jesus was fully God this aspect of his Deity, ie his omnipresence, had to be possessed by virtue of his connection with his Father. His relationship with the Father was, therefore, an essential union. But his humanity also showed his Deity within his strictly human representation. He was sinless, and had miraculous powers. More than these things he expressed the *divine personality.* He indicated he was, in fact, the divine person!
    You have not offered anything that would suggest he had a second divine nature, and you describe a Christian. What am I supposed to do with that?

  11. #86

    Re: (4D) Why can't God sin?

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb View Post
    We are all using the term the same so that's not an issue. He was God man because of his nature, both God and man. No where does scripture say he had two natures and now where does scripture make it an necessity.
    No, you are *not* using the word "nature" the same way the Early Church Fathers were using the term. If you were you would be in agreement with them that Christ has both a divine nature and a human nature. You've already agreed that Christ was a "God-man." By that I assume you mean that Christ was both God and man. In saying that you are saying Christ had a divine nature and a human nature, if indeed you are using "nature" the same way they were.

    Just *saying* you are using the same word does not mean you are using that word the same way. You are either using "nature" as the characteristic features of Christ, whether divine or human, or not. And you are not! So no, you aren't using "nature" the same way the Early Church Fathers were, and not the same way I am.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb
    Men have done this, the question is why? So again, why does being both require two natures? If the attributes of a thing (essence) is it's nature Jesus only had one. How could he have two? How could he be more than man and live for us? You have not answered any of these questions with scripture you just simply make assertions and assumptions, and that's not how things work here.
    The problem is, Christ could not have redeemed us from sin if he was merely a man, and not God. God is who forgives us--not just a mere man acting on behalf of God!

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb
    This in no way implies Jesus' nature was different from ours.
    You appear to be confused by the term "nature." You seemed to be arguing that Jesus was not unique among men and that Jesus cannot be distinguished from other men due to his nature. But if you define "nature" as I and others have been defining it, that the characteristics of Deity imply a divine nature, then you would have to admit that Scriptures imply Jesus has a divine nature, because Scriptures clearly show Christ to be divine.

    Again, I am not looking to prove that Scriptures use the word "nature." Words have to be translated into and explained in other languages. All I'm seeking to show you is that Scriptures show Jesus to be divine. Explaining in different language that would mean that Jesus had a divine nature. In other words, the Scriptures *characterize* Jesus as divine. Put *in other words,* Jesus had a divine nature.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb
    How? Why? Scripture?
    The same Scriptures you already quoted, that God became flesh--literally, the "Word of God became flesh and dwelt among us." And I also already quoted Col 1.15, that Christ was the "image of the invisible God." He wasn't created in the image of God as we are strictly-speaking. Rather, he was both created in the image of God and *was* himself the image of God.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb
    How? Why? Scripture?
    If you don't accept that Christ is different as Deity, in comparison with ordinary men, who are *not* Deity, then I have to wonder what cult you belong to? What you're advocating, by asking these questions, is that the Deity of Christ is not established in Scriptures! If so, why do you speak of "God becoming" flesh, unless you think ordinary Christians are "God becoming flesh" as well? But this would be heresy!

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb
    Finally, scripture. However this is not talking about his nature alone, for Adam, and indeed man, is also the image of God in nature.
    See above. Christ was himself the image of God. We were merely created *in* the image of God. We participate in the divine nature. But he *was* God and the divine identity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb
    Oh, now it's many Jews. I started out talking about Judaism, not what some Jews believe. A lot of Jews believe a lot of things they shouldn't. So? Really, Christians believe in a sin nature without scripture so why do I care if many Jews believe " in an "evil inclination" in human nature"? If Christians can get it wrong why not Jews? Judaism simply did not have any form of Augustinian/Reformed sin nature. It just didn't.
    You're changing the subject. I was talking about how a large segment of both Christians and Jews believe, namely in a human predisposition towards sinning. Many Jews, in accordance with their religious doctrines, believe in a tendency towards sin--the evil inclination. Similarly, many Christians, in accordance with their theology, believe in a sin nature. This is because the Law of Moses assumed the entire nation of Israel required cleansing from sin. And Christians feel the same way, viewing Christ's death for all men an indication all men have a sin nature, that required redemption.

    None of this requires knowing a particular percentage of these groups don't believe this. We are talking about the religious doctrines of these two groups! I'm not suggesting, and have not been suggesting, that Jews agree with Christians on this matter. I'm just pointing out the objective similarity between these two positions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb
    This is the opposite of what you said. You said, "If you do have a sin nature you do sin.".
    Before man sinned he did not have a predisposition towards sin. Rather, he had a predisposition towards making a choice between right and wrong. After sinning man acquired a disposition towards sinning. That was different from what he had before the fall, because before the fall he had a choice. If he had chosen right he would never have had a predisposition towards sinning. But inasmuch as he chose wrong he acquired a sin nature, and now tends towards evil. To combat this he must choose *against his evil nature,* which is indeed possible still. Notice that Adam and Eve did not choose for good or evil, but rather for both good and evil. Thus, men have both a good nature and an evil nature, and must now choose either to go the route of their evil nature or the route of their good nature.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb
    That simply does not say or imply, "If you do have a sin nature you do sin."
    Yes it does. Rom 3.23 says that as clearly as anything else. All have fallen. Therefore all have a sin nature. Once people sin, it confirms that they both had a sin nature and have a sin nature. And if they sinned because they had a sin nature they still must sin because they still have a sin nature.

    As John said in 1 John (paraphrased), "If you say you haven't sinned you make God a liar," and "If you claim to be without sin, you're a liar." What John's saying is that because we have sinned, we show we have a sin nature. And because we have a sin nature we still have sin, and tend to sin.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb
    You have not offered anything that would suggest he had a second divine nature, and you describe a Christian. What am I supposed to do with that?
    If you don't hold to cardinal Christian doctrines then you are not an *orthodox Christian.* To be orthodox in your beliefs you must believe that Jesus was uniquely the Son of God, and not just a son of God like we all may be sons of God. He alone was Deity. We are not. In the definition of "nature" as I'm using it, Jesus had a divine nature, and we do not.

  12. #87
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    10,831

    Re: (4D) Why can't God sin?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    No, you are *not* using the word "nature" the same way the Early Church Fathers were using the term.
    Then show me how I'm using it different. The only difference between you and me is how we use the term. I say one thing has only one nature, but you disagree. Besides, I'm not convinced the ECF's generally believed Jesus had two natures. You must be reading this into them like you read it into scripture. Making a claim doesn't make it true. People claim the ECF's believed in original sin/sin nature but that's not true either.


    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    The problem is, Christ could not have redeemed us from sin if he was merely a man, and not God. God is who forgives us--not just a mere man acting on behalf of God!
    1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;


    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    As John said in 1 John (paraphrased), "If you say you haven't sinned you make God a liar," and "If you claim to be without sin, you're a liar." What John's saying is that because we have sinned, we show we have a sin nature. And because we have a sin nature we still have sin, and tend to sin.
    Direct contradiction to the gospel. Has nothing to do with what John says. He was speaking against those that held 'sin nature'. Gnostics.


    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    If you don't hold to cardinal Christian doctrines then you are not an *orthodox Christian.*
    Thank God I am not.


    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    To be orthodox in your beliefs you must believe that Jesus was uniquely the Son of God
    I believe he was uniquely his fathers son, just as I am uniquely my fathers son, but I am not orthodox.


    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    and not just a son of God like we all may be sons of God.
    Agreed. Not the same thing. I never said it was. This is more of you reading your thoughts into what is really said.


    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    In the definition of "nature" as I'm using it, Jesus had a divine nature, and we do not.
    Right, that's just how you are using the term, using the same definition I use. I however use it correctly. No one thing has two natures. That's a direct contradiction of the word and it's meaning.

  13. #88

    Re: (4D) Why can't God sin?

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb View Post
    Then show me how I'm using it different. The only difference between you and me is how we use the term. I say one thing has only one nature, but you disagree. Besides, I'm not convinced the ECF's generally believed Jesus had two natures. You must be reading this into them like you read it into scripture. Making a claim doesn't make it true. People claim the ECF's believed in original sin/sin nature but that's not true either.
    As I understand it, the 1st great creed, the Nicene Creed, in 325 AD was designed to show the deity of Christ against the heresy of Arianism. This is described as the "divine nature" of Christ in later discussions. We see, for example, the Chalcedonian Creed in 451 AD as an attempt to establish the two natures of Christ, one divine and the other human. This is sufficient to prove how "nature" was used in this period of the Early Church.

    We also teach that we apprehend this one and only Christ-Son, Lord, only-begotten in two natures; and we do this without confusing the two natures, without transmuting one nature into the other, without dividing them into two separate categories, without contrasting them according to area or function. The distinctiveness of each nature is not nullified by the union. Instead, the "properties" of each nature are conserved and both natures concur in one "person" and in one reality. They are not divided or cut into two persons, but are together the one and only and only-begotten Word of God, the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus have the prophets of old testified; thus the Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us; thus the Symbol of Fathers has handed down to us.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb
    1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

    Direct contradiction to the gospel. Has nothing to do with what John says. He was speaking against those that held 'sin nature'. Gnostics.
    If John said that all had sinned and in fact *have sin,* then he was establishing that the human nature is *sinful!* If indeed all men are sinners then the fact Christ is sinless showed that he was unique among men. Not only did Jesus have to be sinless to redeem sinners, but he also had to be God in the flesh. He had to be God to forgive us, and he had to be human flesh to forgive what he himself experienced from sinners.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb
    Thank God I am not.
    If you are not a doctrinally-orthodox Christian it isn't any wonder that we're having this conversation!

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb
    I believe he was uniquely his fathers son, just as I am uniquely my fathers son, but I am not orthodox.
    You are then taking the side of the ancient heretics who sometimes determined that Christ was just a human, and not God. That's what makes him different from us--the fact he was God, and we aren't!

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb
    Agreed. Not the same thing. I never said it was. This is more of you reading your thoughts into what is really said.
    You're not really being specific enough about what you believe, in the context of this conversation. I'm honestly trying to understand what you believe. You admit you are not orthodox, and yet you don't specify precisely where you differ from orthodox doctrine?

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb
    Right, that's just how you are using the term, using the same definition I use. I however use it correctly. No one thing has two natures. That's a direct contradiction of the word and it's meaning.
    If you admit that Jesus was both fully God and fully man then you would admit Jesus had "two natures," if you use "nature" the same way I do--the same way the Church Fathers did. Either you do not accept that Jesus was both God and man or you do. And if you do you either use "nature" the same way I do, and admit Jesus had "two natures," or you are using "nature" differently.

  14. #89
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    10,831

    Re: Why can't God sin?

    Early. 325AD ain't early.

  15. #90
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    10,831

    Re: Why can't God sin?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    If you are not a doctrinally-orthodox Christian it isn't any wonder that we're having this conversation!
    That's true but has not been more true than with those swayed by Lutheran persuasion.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (4 members and 1 guests)

  1. randyk,
  2. Noeb,
  3. BrianW

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •