Page 7 of 14 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314 LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 202

Thread: Why can't God sin?

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    10,811

    Re: Why can't God sin?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    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!

    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?

    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.
    No, I take the side of scripture which says he was God and that he was man. Scripture does not say he had two natures. If you think that, you think that, but not because of scripture. I apply the word nature correctly.

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    88
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Why can't God sin?

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb View Post
    No, I take the side of scripture which says he was God and that he was man. Scripture does not say he had two natures. If you think that, you think that, but not because of scripture. I apply the word nature correctly.
    Son of God and Son of man is used to see 2 natures.
    John's gospel sees only a divine nature because God cannot be tempted (James 1:13). John spent a lot of time with James on the church council in Jerusalem. This is why we don't find any temptations of Jesus in John. John says Jesus is God and James said that God cannot be tempted. 1 John explains and defends John with the begotten of God does not sin.

  3. #93

    Re: Why can't God sin?

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb View Post
    No, I take the side of scripture which says he was God and that he was man. Scripture does not say he had two natures. If you think that, you think that, but not because of scripture. I apply the word nature correctly.
    My Dad used to keep a saying framed on the wall: "If you can keep a level head in all this confusion, you just don't understand the situation."

    If you don't see the connection between the Deity and Humanity of Christ and the divine nature and human nature of Christ I can't help you. And no, I don't believe you use the word "nature" the same way the Early Church Fathers used it.

    As I said, there are many words not specifically used in Scriptures that are used by others to say the same things. For example, the word "Trinity" is not in Scriptures. Nevertheless, others use the word Trinity to describe the fact that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Spirit is God. Now you can argue all you want that the Trinity is not true because it is nonexistent in Scripture. And yet others use the word Trinity to accurately portray what is biblically true, that all three persons of the Trinity are divine.

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    10,811

    Re: Why can't God sin?

    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch987 View Post
    Son of God and Son of man is used to see 2 natures.
    No. God has a nature. Man has a nature. When God became a man, that God-man had a nature. There's nothing in scripture or the word nature that implies anything else. There's just not.

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    10,811

    Re: Why can't God sin?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    My Dad used to keep a saying framed on the wall: "If you can keep a level head in all this confusion, you just don't understand the situation."

    If you don't see the connection between the Deity and Humanity of Christ and the divine nature and human nature of Christ I can't help you. And no, I don't believe you use the word "nature" the same way the Early Church Fathers used it.
    They never used the word to say one thing had two natures, so of course they used it as I do.


    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    As I said, there are many words not specifically used in Scriptures that are used by others to say the same things. For example, the word "Trinity" is not in Scriptures. Nevertheless, others use the word Trinity to describe the fact that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Spirit is God. Now you can argue all you want that the Trinity is not true because it is nonexistent in Scripture. And yet others use the word Trinity to accurately portray what is biblically true, that all three persons of the Trinity are divine.
    Not the same thing at all. The concept is undeniable, but here we have no notion whatsoever in scripture or language that Jesus had two natures or that any thing can indeed have two natures.

  6. #96

    Re: Why can't God sin?

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb View Post
    Early. 325AD ain't early.
    I was quoting from the Early Church. The Early Church Fathers contained both the earliest Church Fathers as well as the later Church Fathers. They encompassed the entire period leading up to the growth of the Church beyond the ancient Roman Empire.

    But you did not respond to my reference to the Nicene Creed, nor to my quotation of the Chalcedonian Creed. That was your kryptonite apparently? The latter is full-fledged proof of how the Early Church described the Deity and Humanity of Christ in terms of both a human nature and a divine nature. I'm not surprised you completely ignored it. You don't seem to be interested in a real exchange of ideas.

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    4,208
    Blog Entries
    30

    Re: Why can't God sin?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I was quoting from the Early Church. The Early Church Fathers contained both the earliest Church Fathers as well as the later Church Fathers. They encompassed the entire period leading up to the growth of the Church beyond the ancient Roman Empire.

    But you did not respond to my reference to the Nicene Creed, nor to my quotation of the Chalcedonian Creed. That was your kryptonite apparently? The latter is full-fledged proof of how the Early Church described the Deity and Humanity of Christ in terms of both a human nature and a divine nature. I'm not surprised you completely ignored it. You don't seem to be interested in a real exchange of ideas.
    I agree with Noeb. A thing or a person has one nature.

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    10,811

    Re: Why can't God sin?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I was quoting from the Early Church. The Early Church Fathers contained both the earliest Church Fathers as well as the later Church Fathers. They encompassed the entire period leading up to the growth of the Church beyond the ancient Roman Empire.

    But you did not respond to my reference to the Nicene Creed, nor to my quotation of the Chalcedonian Creed. That was your kryptonite apparently? The latter is full-fledged proof of how the Early Church described the Deity and Humanity of Christ in terms of both a human nature and a divine nature. I'm not surprised you completely ignored it. You don't seem to be interested in a real exchange of ideas.
    You use "Early" loosely, I don't. I understand why many do, but the level of corruption beyond 200AD is concerning. Between mystery religions and Rome ... Well, red flag city. How then could what they said be kryptonite? As your dad said, "If you can keep a level head in all this confusion, you just don't understand the situation."
    Early means early, hence the distinction between early fathers and just fathers. We will of course disagree, I'm sure.

  9. #99

    Re: Why can't God sin?

    Quote Originally Posted by CadyandZoe View Post
    I agree with Noeb. A thing or a person has one nature.
    That's fine, but that is no more an argument that what Noeb is arguing. I put before him that the Early Church Fathers used the word "nature" to explain that Christ had two natures, a divine nature and a human nature. Noeb diverted to argue that the Nicene Creed in 325 AD is not "early," and completely ignored the argument that the Early Church Fathers used "nature" to depict the fact Christ had two natures, and not just one. I argued, therefore, that Noeb was using the word "nature" differently than how they used it, because it denied that "nature" could mean anything other than a single nature in one person.

    All you're doing here is agreeing with his position--not arguing the point I was making. I have no problem with you believing in a non-orthodox position, except that it grieves me that Christian brothers do not want to embrace historical positions that have held near-universal acceptance. In fact, it saddens me that the one thing that has kept much of the Church together throughout the centuries is continually assaulted by Christians, leaving what I believe to be unifying elements in disarray. But your complaint is noted, though left unargued.

    This is how the Early Church Fathers used the word "nature" to depict the fact Christ had two natures, and not just one. It is from the Chalcedonian Creed in 451 AD...

    one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather of the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God, the Word the Lord Jesus Christ.

  10. #100

    Re: Why can't God sin?

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb View Post
    You use "Early" loosely, I don't. I understand why many do, but the level of corruption beyond 200AD is concerning. Between mystery religions and Rome ... Well, red flag city. How then could what they said be kryptonite? As your dad said, "If you can keep a level head in all this confusion, you just don't understand the situation."
    Early means early, hence the distinction between early fathers and just fathers. We will of course disagree, I'm sure.
    I'm not even arguing what specific period of time we're talking about before 800 AD. I'm just saying that the creeds were developed in the Early Church to produce a unifying formula among conservative Christians who wanted to hold to Scriptural, Apostolic truth, as opposed to all of the heresies swirling around in that early time period. You are completely diverting the discussion away from the main argument, that "nature" is being defined in a certain way by the Church Fathers. And I'm using the exact same definition, which clearly allows for two natures in one person.

  11. #101
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    4,208
    Blog Entries
    30

    Re: Why can't God sin?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I'm not even arguing what specific period of time we're talking about before 800 AD. I'm just saying that the creeds were developed in the Early Church to produce a unifying formula among conservative Christians who wanted to hold to Scriptural, Apostolic truth, as opposed to all of the heresies swirling around in that early time period. You are completely diverting the discussion away from the main argument, that "nature" is being defined in a certain way by the Church Fathers. And I'm using the exact same definition, which clearly allows for two natures in one person.
    And we conclude that the so called "fathers" were wrong in this instance. They brought their Greek Philosophy to the Bible. They didn't find there.

  12. #102
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    10,811

    Re: Why can't God sin?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I'm not even arguing what specific period of time we're talking about before 800 AD. I'm just saying that the creeds were developed in the Early Church to produce a unifying formula among conservative Christians who wanted to hold to Scriptural, Apostolic truth, as opposed to all of the heresies swirling around in that early time period. You are completely diverting the discussion away from the main argument, that "nature" is being defined in a certain way by the Church Fathers. And I'm using the exact same definition, which clearly allows for two natures in one person.
    Not everyone had and could read the Bible then. Like they wanted everyone to take their word for it, you ask the same of us, but we have and can read the Bible and other writings of the time. I'm not "diverting the discussion away from the main argument, that "nature" is being defined in a certain way by the Church Fathers." I'm outright dismissing it for this very reason. The Bible and early fathers do not agree with them and you.

  13. #103

    Re: Why can't God sin?

    Quote Originally Posted by CadyandZoe View Post
    And we conclude that the so called "fathers" were wrong in this instance. They brought their Greek Philosophy to the Bible. They didn't find there.
    I don't know why I always see this kind of reactionary opposition to solid Christian leaders in the Early Church? I hear that they were corrupted by Greek philosophy, contaminated by the State Church, too intellectual, too dogmatic, and just...not us.

    Well, who are you to say you're better than these early Christian leaders? Have you ever taken time to read them? I found them to be powerful, dedicated Christians. But our views are often tainted by other Christians who want to criticize them, focusing on a particular error or two, and then defining their entire life by those errors!

    One of the best books on Christian history I ever read was by Baptist Kenneth Latourette. He had such a "large" perspective, tending to see the best efforts of Christianity overall, instead of discarding every fresh new move of Christianity as flawed, and therefore disqualified. He didn't deny the problems or the errors. He just held to a more balanced, more positive, view of our forbears.

  14. #104
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    4,208
    Blog Entries
    30

    Re: Why can't God sin?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I don't know why I always see this kind of reactionary opposition to solid Christian leaders in the Early Church?
    Because they aren't infallible, their writings are not inspired, and they are often times wrong.

    Well, who are you to say you're better than these early Christian leaders?
    Who made them leaders?

    Have you ever taken time to read them? I found them to be powerful, dedicated Christians.
    Someone can be dedicated and still wrong.

    But our views are often tainted by other Christians who want to criticize them, focusing on a particular error or two, and then defining their entire life by those errors!
    I didn't say anything about their character. They are just wrong at times.

    One of the best books on Christian history I ever read was by Baptist Kenneth Latourette. He had such a "large" perspective, tending to see the best efforts of Christianity overall, instead of discarding every fresh new move of Christianity as flawed, and therefore disqualified. He didn't deny the problems or the errors. He just held to a more balanced, more positive, view of our forbears.
    There is no balance for error. They are either wrong or right. No balance is necessary or desired. Your romantic notion of a set of "fathers" who ostensibly guide us in matters of doctrine and practice is unwarranted and dangerous.

  15. #105

    Re: Why can't God sin?

    Quote Originally Posted by CadyandZoe View Post
    Because they aren't infallible, their writings are not inspired, and they are often times wrong.
    But if they were true Christians--and they were--they were certainly filled with the Spirit and inspired. I'm not saying everything they said was right or true. It's just that all of us who have been filled with the Holy Spirit are in fact "inspired." What that means in a practical sense is that even if we are wrong or have errors there is going to be coming something good out of what we do and say. We will have the "fruit of the Spirit"--the love of Christ that spills over to brothers and sisters in the Lord. We should pay our respects to mature brothers and sisters in the past who were in positions of church leadership. In fact we are commanded to do so in the Scriptures!

    Quote Originally Posted by CadyandZoe
    Who made them leaders?
    The Church Fathers were recognized church leaders--ministers within the Christian Church. If you didn't know this I'm not in the least surprised you distrust them. I don't even fault you for it, if other Christians have poisoned you against them. But now it's your job to do the research, if you hope to argue against them or to deny their basic Christianity.

    Quote Originally Posted by CadyandZoe
    Someone can be dedicated and still wrong.

    I didn't say anything about their character. They are just wrong at times.

    There is no balance for error. They are either wrong or right. No balance is necessary or desired. Your romantic notion of a set of "fathers" who ostensibly guide us in matters of doctrine and practice is unwarranted and dangerous.
    Have you read them without bias?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (2 members and 1 guests)

  1. Kalahari,
  2. Noeb

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
  •