Grandstand discussion: "Ghost's Views on The Nature of Christ"

[godrulz]

I have a question--Doesn't Calvinism teach that all humans are fallen and their natures are fallen? How can Jesus have a fallen nature?

Jesus has a human nature, not a fallen nature. I imagine they would argue that the virgin birth keeps Jesus from having a fallen nature, but what about sinful Mary's contribution? Calvinism is not right about everything.

[Nang]

I have a question--Doesn't Calvinism teach that all humans are fallen and their natures are fallen? How can Jesus have a fallen nature?

Yes, Calvinists teach the Total Depravity of all men.

No, Jesus Christ had a human nature but not a fallen nature.

The difference?

We are created beings.

Jesus Christ is "uncreate" Creator.

Nang

[ghost]

Jesus has a human nature

Define "human nature".

[godrulz]

Yes, Calvinists teach the Total Depravity of all men.

No, Jesus Christ had a human nature but not a fallen nature.

The difference?

We are created beings.

Jesus Christ is "uncreate" Creator.

Nang

Logically, you link humanity with sinfulness, so I think you are being inconsistent. Mary was sinful and contributed genetically to Jesus' humanity. The usual spin is that sin is passed on through the male, but I dare you to find any logical/biblical basis for that traditional spin/loop hole.

[godrulz]

Define "human nature".

Human nature refers to the essential quality/characteristics of something, what it is to be man/woman vs animate or inanimate creation or Deity. A female nature includes common human characteristics with males, but sexual organs and genetic matter (XY vs XX, penis vs vagina) differs.

The nature of fire is to burn. The nature of salt is to preserve. The nature of a rock is to sit there. The nature of God uniquely relates to Him being sovereign, uncreated, eternal, spirit, triune, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent (unlike us). The nature of being human is to be personal with will, intellect, emotions (God and angels have this, but no physical body), blood, guts, spirit, body, bones, etc. Humans are different than primates because we are in the image of God (does not mean physical image like Mormons teach).

Human nature is what it means to be human vs God, angel, rock, dog, fire, wind, TV, computer, car, sun, moon, etc.

It is not essential on a metaphysical/physical/ontological/being/substance level for humans to be sinful since sin is a moral/volitional issue, not a physical, genetic, metaphysical/being issue.

Don't follow Augustine, Plato, Aquinas in their philosophical errors that have been uncritically embraced by lazy Christians. Follow Scripture that agrees with the gist of my view (even secular philosophers understand these distinctions better than some Christians who trust Aquinas more than common sense and Scripture).

No, I am not worried about my views on this subject sending me to hell because they won't. Denying Christ's Deity/humanity/sinfulness is an issue that I am not guilty of (nor are you or AMR).

[Nang]

Logically, you link humanity with sinfulness, so I think you are being inconsistent.

Of course you do, because you deny the federal headship of Adam. Which is theologically dangerous, because then you must also deny the Federal Headship of Jesus Christ in His incarnation, which makes His cross work efficacious on our behalf. (one error leads to the next . . .)

Mary was sinful and contributed genetically to Jesus' humanity.

Mary was also justified, forgiven, and imputed with righteousness. And she did not conceive in the normal sense that results in the handing down of original sin from the parents to the child.

(AMR has posted on One on One. Are you not going to read it?)

Nang

[ghost]

Human nature refers to the essential quality/characteristics of something, what it is to be man/woman vs animate or inanimate creation or Deity. A female nature includes common human characteristics with males, but sexual organs and genetic matter (XY vs XX, penis vs vagina) differs.

The nature of fire is to burn. The nature of salt is to preserve. The nature of a rock is to sit there. The nature of God uniquely relates to Him being sovereign, uncreated, eternal, spirit, triune, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent (unlike us). The nature of being human is to be personal with will, intellect, emotions (God and angels have this, but no physical body), blood, guts, spirit, body, bones, etc. Humans are different than primates because we are in the image of God (does not mean physical image like Mormons teach).

Human nature is what it means to be human vs God, angel, rock, dog, fire, wind, TV, computer, car, sun, moon, etc.

It is not essential on a metaphysical/physical/ontological/being/substance level for humans to be sinful since sin is a moral/volitional issue, not a physical, genetic, metaphysical/being issue.

Don't follow Augustine, Plato, Aquinas in their philosophical errors that have been uncritically embraced by lazy Christians. Follow Scripture that agrees with the gist of my view (even secular philosophers understand these distinctions better than some Christians who trust Aquinas more than common sense and Scripture).

No, I am not worried about my views on this subject sending me to hell because they won't. Denying Christ's Deity/humanity/sinfulness is an issue that I am not guilty of (nor are you or AMR).

How then does Paul say that the sons of disobedience are by nature children of wrath? Eph 2:3

What makes them by nature a child of wrath?

[ghost]

I find it hard to believe that some thoughts and verses from their posts are not from a book or commentary without giving credit to the sources. I doubt they are composing original material without looking at a source off the top of their heads (not that it is totally unacceptable, but some credit should be given).

I can't speak for AMR, but when I answered the verses, I did not even look over any of my own notes from the past, let alone any other persons view or opinion. As I always do, I go directly to God and pray earnestly for Him to give me the right words to speak in order that He is glorified.

When you see me telling people to go to hell and calling them liars etc, that is all me and my rather limited vocabulary.

[CabinetMaker]

Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion It would be helpful to the discussion, Ghost, if you refrain from responding until I have responded to your interpretation of the passage. Originally Posted by Ghost No problem, I'm not even going to take the time to read this one.

An interesting development has occurred, one of the participants in the one-on-one is refusing to follow the rules of the one-on-one that he insisted upon. The tantrum continues.

[ghost]

Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion It would be helpful to the discussion, Ghost, if you refrain from responding until I have responded to your interpretation of the passage. Originally Posted by Ghost No problem, I'm not even going to take the time to read this one.

An interesting development has occurred, one of the participants in the one-on-one is refusing to follow the rules of the one-on-one that he insisted upon. The tantrum continues.

What rule is that?

[godrulz]

Of course you do, because you deny the federal headship of Adam. Which is theologically dangerous, because then you must also deny the Federal Headship of Jesus Christ in His incarnation, which makes His cross work efficacious on our behalf. (one error leads to the next . . .)




Mary was also justified, forgiven, and imputed with righteousness. And she did not conceive in the normal sense that results in the handing down of original sin from the parents to the child.

(AMR has posted on One on One. Are you not going to read it?)

Nang

Sounds Catholic/Augustinian vs biblical to me.

Federal Headship is a theory, not fact. Importing it to Rom. 5 could lead to proof texting that logically leads to universalism, which we both deny.

Adam's sin did lead to physical depravity that taints the human race (genetic). You make the mistake of confusing physical and moral depravity, the latter being volitional.

Denying original sin is not a denial of Christ's sinlessness nor the efficacy of the cross (TULIP is also wrong). One can safely reject Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Calvin, Nang since it is not a rejection of Scripture, Christ, gospel, cross. You beg the question by assuming your view is infallible or the only possible credible way to look at things (that Scripture does not resolve like a systematic theology text).

So, you think sin is passed through the male vs female? Where do you find that in Scripture or logic?!

[godrulz]

I can't speak for AMR, but when I answered the verses, I did not even look over any of my own notes from the past, let alone any other persons view or opinion. As I always do, I go directly to God and pray earnestly for Him to give me the right words to speak in order that He is glorified.

When you see me telling people to go to hell and calling them liars etc, that is all me and my rather limited vocabulary.

I would be slow to use the Lord's name in vain to endorse your imperfections and flesh. You are sounding charismatic. I can subjectively pray to God and assume the impressions are an endorsement for my beliefs and practices?

I will concede that you have a good heart and mind, but I will not concede that all your beliefs and practices are godly and infallible.

[CabinetMaker]

What rule is that?

This one:

2. We don't move to a new question, until the first question is settled that we are either in agreement or immovable

You have neither reached an agreement nor an impasse, you simply decided to ignore AMR's post.

[ghost]

This one:

2. We don't move to a new question, until the first question is settled that we are either in agreement or immovable

You have neither reached an agreement nor an impasse, you simply decided to ignore AMR's post.

AMR's post does not address mine (as he himself stated). He is just telling (whoever he thinks will listen) what his view of the text is. That doesn't concern me. The onus is on him to prove that what I believe is unbiblical and reflects the teachings of Docetism. His recent post is just him showing off. It's a common practice of religious people who boast in their flesh. You, more than anyone, should know that.

[godrulz]

How then does Paul say that the sons of disobedience are by nature children of wrath? Eph 2:3

What makes them by nature a child of wrath?

Thx for your patience with a slow, dull nit wit like me. Your leading questions towards the trap may just work.

My present understanding is that the reason we are by nature objects of wrath is because we sin (Eph. 2; Rom. 1-3; Rom. 5:12 why? BECAUSE ALL SINNED...cf. Rom. 3:23....nothing about Adam...we follow in his footsteps but are guilty/objects of wrath because we each sin...I am not responsible for Hitler's sin).

The issue is WHEN we became objects of wrath. I do not believe an aborted fetus is an object of wrath because they lack mental and moral capacity to sin. The abortionist is the sinner, not the 'product of conception'/fetus/infant. We become sinners when we sin. We become humans when we are conceived (vs Mormon or evolution ideas). Eph. 2 and Rom. 1-3 links our status as sinners and objects of wrath with volitional sin (you will talk about sin vs sins, as I once did because of Miles Stanford, texts we used in Bible College for sanctification studies).

We are sinners because we sin (Bible). We sin because we are born sinners (Augustine, based on a couple figurative language texts with alternate, better understanding Ps. 51 Hebraism).

http://www.gospeltruth.net/menbornsinners/mbsindex.htm

(yes, Finney was not wrong about everything)

Moral vs physical depravity is one issue that would bring clarity to your misunderstanding of Paul.