toldailytopic: What issues are you most dogmatic about?

[The Horn]

Yay opera ! I've been a huge opera fan since I was a teenager.It's one of the greatest inventions of mankind.
I'm not much of an Oprah fan, but I do watch her program once in a while. She has some loopy notions, but at least she's not dogmatic about them, and unlike those insufferablely sanctimonious Bible-thumpers, she's never claimed that all those who don't share her silly New Age beliefs are doomed to eternal hellfire.

 

[serpentdove]

Amen, sound theology.

How is Jesus different from men born in Adam? :smokie: 1 Cor 15:42.

 

[bybee]

Yay opera ! I've been a huge opera fan since I was a teenager.It's one of the greatest inventions of mankind.
I'm not much of an Oprah fan, but I do watch her program once in a while. She has some loopy notions, but at least she's not dogmatic about them, and unlike those insufferablely sanctimonious Bible-thumpers, she's never claimed that all those who don't share her silly New Age beliefs are doomed to eternal hellfire.

I also love opera. I cry every time Madame Butterfly gives up her child.
I especially love Gilbert and Sullivan.

 

[bybee]

:up:

The Lord loves a humble heart.

 

[godrulz]

How is Jesus different from men born in Adam? :smokie: 1 Cor 15:42.

He is God, the God-Man, one person with two natures. He never sinned, unlike the rest of us (sin is moral/volitional, not metaphysical/substance).

 

[godrulz]

Yay opera ! I've been a huge opera fan since I was a teenager.It's one of the greatest inventions of mankind.
I'm not much of an Oprah fan, but I do watch her program once in a while. She has some loopy notions, but at least she's not dogmatic about them, and unlike those insufferablely sanctimonious Bible-thumpers, she's never claimed that all those who don't share her silly New Age beliefs are doomed to eternal hellfire.

There is truth and the lie. Relativism is false compared to absolutes revealed from God. We can be dogmatic about the Word of God properly interpreted. Believing a lie is not meritorious and foolish in the end.

In your view, the God-Man/Greatest Teacher is a fool (Jn. 14:6; Jn. 1:1; Acts 4:12; Jn. 3:16).

 

[serpentdove]

He is God, the God-Man, one person with two natures. He never sinned, unlike the rest of us (sin is moral/volitional, not metaphysical/substance).

Why didn't he sin? Heb 4:15.

If you are right--that Jesus could have sinned--then he's no great high priest.

For such a High Priest was fitting for us, rwho is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, sand has become higher than the heavens; who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His town sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. For the law appoints as high priests men who have weakness, but the word of the oath, which came after the law, appoints the Son who has been perfected forever. r [2 Cor. 5:21]; Heb. 4:15
9 innocent
s Eph. 1:20
t Lev. 9:7; 16:6; Heb. 5:3The New King James Version. Nashville : Thomas Nelson, 1982, S. Heb 7:26-28

7:26–28 "Christ’s divine and holy character is yet another proof of the superiority of His priesthood..." Heb 7:26

"Only God is inherently righteous (Deut. 32:4; Job 9:2; Pss. 11:7; 116:5; John 17:25; Rom. 3:10; 1 John 2:1; Rev. 16:5), and man falls woefully short of the divine standard of moral perfection (3:23; Matt. 5:48). But the gospel reveals that on the basis of faith—and faith alone—God will impute His righteousness to ungodly sinners (see notes on 3:21–24; 4:5; 2 Cor. 5:21; Phil. 3:8, 9). from faith to faith..." Ro 1:17

"3:21–5:21 Having conclusively proved the universal sinfulness of man and his need for righteousness (1:18–3:20), Paul develops the theme he introduced in 1:17, i.e., God has graciously provided a righteousness that comes from Him on the basis of faith alone (3:21–5:21)."
MacArthur, John Jr: The MacArthur Study Bible. electronic ed. Nashville : Word Pub., 1997, c1997, S. Ro 3:21

 

[Nick M]

The gospel of grace first and foremost, and what it means. All else is a back seat for theology.

 

[godrulz]

The gospel of grace first and foremost, and what it means. All else is a back seat for theology.

Rom. 1:16; I Cor. 15:1-4

 

[godrulz]

Why didn't he sin? Heb 4:15.

If you are right--that Jesus could have sinned--then he's no great high priest.

For such a High Priest was fitting for us, rwho is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, sand has become higher than the heavens; who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His town sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. For the law appoints as high priests men who have weakness, but the word of the oath, which came after the law, appoints the Son who has been perfected forever. r [2 Cor. 5:21]; Heb. 4:15
9 innocent
s Eph. 1:20
t Lev. 9:7; 16:6; Heb. 5:3The New King James Version. Nashville : Thomas Nelson, 1982, S. Heb 7:26-28

7:26–28 "Christ’s divine and holy character is yet another proof of the superiority of His priesthood..." Heb 7:26

"Only God is inherently righteous (Deut. 32:4; Job 9:2; Pss. 11:7; 116:5; John 17:25; Rom. 3:10; 1 John 2:1; Rev. 16:5), and man falls woefully short of the divine standard of moral perfection (3:23; Matt. 5:48). But the gospel reveals that on the basis of faith—and faith alone—God will impute His righteousness to ungodly sinners (see notes on 3:21–24; 4:5; 2 Cor. 5:21; Phil. 3:8, 9). from faith to faith..." Ro 1:17

"3:21–5:21 Having conclusively proved the universal sinfulness of man and his need for righteousness (1:18–3:20), Paul develops the theme he introduced in 1:17, i.e., God has graciously provided a righteousness that comes from Him on the basis of faith alone (3:21–5:21)."
MacArthur, John Jr: The MacArthur Study Bible. electronic ed. Nashville : Word Pub., 1997, c1997, S. Ro 3:21

Jesus was, is, forever will be sinless. He did not sin, so why could He not be High Priest? The bottom line is the same in both our views. You have a non sequitur that would only be true if He did sin (which He did not). Will not is not cannot. Your view could be seen as denying the humanity and personhood of Christ (will, intellect, emotions). My view does not compromise His Deity.

Listen to Scripture (sin is volitional, not metaphysical), not philosophical Augustine, Aquinas, Anselm, MacArthur (who is right about some things and dead wrong about other things).

 

[serpentdove]

"Will not is not cannot....Your view could be seen as denying the humanity and personhood of Christ (will, intellect, emotions)."

What will, intellect, or emotion of Jesus could have sinned?

"My view does not compromise His Deity."

Your view compromises his nature (Heb 7:26).

"Listen to Scripture (sin is volitional, not metaphysical), not philosophical Augustine, Aquinas, Anselm, MacArthur (who is right about some things and dead wrong about other things)."

:yawn: Strawman. I've told you repeatedly that I reject Augustine, Aquinas, etc.

 

[godrulz]

What will, intellect, or emotion of Jesus could have sinned?


Your view compromises his nature (Heb 7:26).


:yawn: Strawman. I've told you repeatedly that I reject Augustine, Aquinas, etc.

Your views are traditional and not in a vacuum (influenced by church history).

Heb. 7 says He is sinless. I fully affirm that Jesus is sinless and Deity/humanity in one person. This is not a proof text for or against the impeccability of Christ.

Will means a free moral agent can make choices informed by their mind. Be careful that your view does not reduce Jesus to an impersonal automaton/sock puppet. Is it more praiseworthy to never choose to sin than to be a rock that cannot sin?

 

[Nick M]

What will, intellect, or emotion of Jesus could have sinned?

You do realize you are debating a wolf in sheep's clothing? The worst one here in fact. I agree he has one nature, a divine one. He did not come from Mary. Romans 5, death spread to all men, even over those that didn't sin. So it is impossible for him to be Mary's egg.

He came in the flesh, and went through everything we went through, without spot or blemish. The Bible indicates he was offered and turned down. Satan dangles a carrot in front of him, and he wanted no part of it. I believe he is free, and can take it if he wanted, but he didn't want it. He didn't covet other peoples things.

Matthew 26

42 Again, a second time, He went away and prayed, saying, “O My Father, if this cup cannot pass away from Me unless I drink it, Your will be done.” 43 And He came and found them asleep again, for their eyes were heavy.
44 So He left them, went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words. 45 Then He came to His disciples and said to them, “Are you still sleeping and resting? Behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of Man is being betrayed into the hands of sinners. 46 Rise, let us be going. See, My betrayer is at hand.”

He obviously knows Psalm 22, and knows what the Father is going to do against him. He indicates his will. We have no choice but to believe it. And his will is to do the Father's pleasing.

 

[godrulz]

Sounds like Nick is denying the humanity of Christ, a known first century heresy. A denial of will is a denial of personhood. Mary contributed genetic material to the Son of Man (I also affirm the virgin conception by the Holy Spirit contributing His divine nature). Sin is not genetic, so the virgin conception is not why Jesus is sinless. Transducianism is Augustinian, not biblical.

 

[Nick M]

Nick said;

He came in the flesh, and went through everything we went through, without spot or blemish. The Bible indicates he was offered and turned down. Satan dangles a carrot in front of him, and he wanted no part of it. I believe he is free, and can take it if he wanted, but he didn't want it. He didn't covet other peoples things.

Matthew 26

42 Again, a second time, He went away and prayed, saying, “O My Father, if this cup cannot pass away from Me unless I drink it, Your will be done.” 43 And He came and found them asleep again, for their eyes were heavy.
44 So He left them, went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words. 45 Then He came to His disciples and said to them, “Are you still sleeping and resting? Behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of Man is being betrayed into the hands of sinners. 46 Rise, let us be going. See, My betrayer is at hand.”

And you say....

Sounds like Nick is denying the humanity of Christ, a known first century heresy.

Typical of the spambot autopilot. A simple misdirection against something I didn't bring up. A tactic of a magician. Misdirection.

Sin is not genetic

You just don't care what Paul says in the Bible do you? You can't make one post denying it in front of me.

Sin=death

Romans 5

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.

That goes for G&P also, whether you like it or not. Adam disobeyed God. Jesus the man did not. Paul couldn't be more clear. Jesus was divine in his nature, and he obeyed. It is both, and no other combination.

 

[godrulz]

Jesus obeyed=volitional, not genetic. Thx.

 

[serpentdove]

"Your views are traditional and not in a vacuum (influenced by church history)."

Are your views influenced by church history? You will now :noway: discuss the view without use of a :yawn: strawman or :yawn: red herring fallacy?

"This is not a proof text for or against the impeccability of Christ."

What part of Jesus could have sinned.

See:

Could Jesus have sinned (peccability or impeccability)?

"Be careful that your view does not reduce Jesus to an impersonal automaton/sock puppet."

:yawn: Red herring.

"Is it more praiseworthy to never choose to sin than to be a rock that cannot sin?"

:yawn: Red herring. We know he chose not to sin. The question is could he have sinned? Explain the part of his character that could have sinned? An imperfect high priest cannot save (Heb 5:1-3).

 

[godrulz]

Having free will is not imperfection. Lucifer and Adam and God were have free will. The first two were created perfect, but became imperfect when they misused their will. The will, not a causative physical nature, is the seat of moral choice/responsibility.

Jesus had a will, but never misused it.

I like gotquestions, but some of their answers are weak or wrong. In this case, they assume the traditional sinful nature view. If the assumption/view is wrong, then their answer/conclusion is also wrong (so I dispute their answer due to Calvinistic bias...I also reject their understanding of Pentecostalism, Open Theism, etc.).

 

[The Horn]

I'm pretty dogmatic about these things :

1. The government has absolutely no business prying into our bedrooms or private lives.

2. What consenting adults do in private is no one else's business,
especially not the government or the police.

3. The government has absolutely no right to censor what we read or view in public or private, or to demand that certain books,magazines,
films,television programs etc be banned just because soem people happen to find it offesnive sexually or for other reasons.

4. The government has absolutely no business policing women's uteruses.

5.People should keep their religions to themselves and never try to impose their beliefs or social agenda on others.

6. Mind your own #$@&* business !!!!

 

[Ktoyou]

I don't like dogmatism at all, ...............
What gets my goat is creeping theocracy, ..........
But I don't like left-wing extremists either .....

Here is a good example of quote trimming.

The main thing is those who call themselves Christians and deny the deity of Christ. I'm also not too thrilled with those who put too much emphasis on the OT, rather than Christ.