So if Christ committed adultery he would not have been guilty of sin?
If he took the name of the father in vain he would not have committed sin?
FOUR reasons I believe in the sinful nature. (original sin/ancestral sin/total depravity)
- Thread starter Dizerner
- Start date
If he took the name of the father in vain he would not have committed sin?
Not necessarily
Thou shalt surely die.] מות תמות moth tamuth; Literally, a death thou shalt die; or, dying thou shalt die. Thou shalt not only die spiritually, by losing the life of God, but from that moment thou shalt become mortal, and shalt continue in a dying state till thou die.
Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible with a Commentary and Critical Notes (vol. 1, New Edition.; Bellingham, WA: Faithlife Corporation, 2014), 42.
jeremiah1five
Well-known member
Non-Hebrew Gentiles who have never been in any of the covenants in Scripture MAKE Christ an adulterer when they claim to be "born-again" and saved and also the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Scripture declares that Israel is the Bride of Jesus Christ.
The "other woman" is the so-called Gentile Church of born-again believers who are non-Hebrew Gentiles. By manipulating and making up false interpretations of the Word of God non-Hebrew Gentiles claim to be saved by the Holy Spirit of Promise PROMISED TO ISRAEL because no one can be saved absent the Holy Spirit.
BUT Joel never promised God's Spirit to Gentiles. There is no passage of Scripture that says such a thing.
Those that claim that the "world" interpreted from John 3:16 as "everyone else" or that "nations" refer to Gentiles and that Christ died for them make Christ wed to another woman (the world) thus making Christ an adulterer to have any kind of "intercourse" with Christ and the "world" while He is engaged to be married to Israel.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
In theology we reference such thoughts as the doctrine of Impeccability. I wish more people would really come to understand the fulness of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.
Christ was incapable of sin. Christ is above sin. Morally Perfect in the Incarnation. If more people understood this then they would understand how the second Adam and first Adam were much different. Adam wasn't Impeccable.
In Philosophy, (which Theology is philosophy) ...... The implications of being "Omnipotent" are far reaching. Which brings us the fact that Christ is the law giver and morally not subject to the "law" of Moses. There are circumstances where "owners rights" prevail in all things. This is the argument that Paul makes in
Rom 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
Now, the Calvinist greatly misuses this verse for their own means. However, it sits at the top level of any good Theology. God doesn't need us. The rules God sets for us are not His rules for Him. In some sense they carry a morality that exists in God but not in the "letter" of the law, God does as He pleases and there is no unrighteousness with Him. The quality of Divinity that exists in the Person of Jesus Christ is what made the sacrifice of Jesus Christ sufficient for all things. Once for all.
You will never establish this the way you're dealing with this subject.
Last edited:
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
I already know the argument well. That is an assumption not based upon the facts.
So tell me right now that Adam had Eternal life that he lost in his "sin". Just say it and then prove it. It is easy to say and not so easy to prove.
Adam had to eat to survive. Adam wasn't complete when he was created. Adam NEEDED Eve. I've been leading you to this point for some time now. I don't mind continuing to do this but put forth the effort to actually dig into it yourself. Who cares what Adam Clarke had to say about it.
If Adam had spiritual life, there would be no need to be "born again". Adam was a work in progress. That is all you see in the creation account in Genesis. That is all that is there.
God's creation actions take time. God is Patient. It is difficult to work with something that has its own mind.......
We live this ourselves every day of our lives. We work around and interacts with people that have their own minds. We get to experience what God experiences in our very lives. We get to feel what God feels when people reject us and we can then apply to our own senses of the pain we cause God.
Only Satan could fabricate this nonsense about "Justice" being found without Grace and Mercy.
Last edited:
Of course! HE rebelled against GOD's call to come out from the Satanic reprobate so of course it was just that he was flung into the earth with them thinking he was still righteous where he was given the law not to eat to convict him of his sinfulness which he broke, an act which opened his eyes to his sinfulness and his need for a savour.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
So when did this happen and where was it recorded?
You should realize that you're saying Adam sinned because he was a sinner before he was joined to his earthly body. Would you agree? Please state you agree or restate what you already said. I'll continuing answering once you do.
This was the key I was pointing to
Thou shalt surely die.] מות תמות moth tamuth; Literally, a death thou shalt die; or, dying thou shalt die
I do not disagree Adam had to eat
Genesis 1:29–31 (LEB) — 29 And God said, “Look—I am giving to you every plant that bears seed which is on the face of the whole earth, and every kind of tree that bears fruit. They shall be yours as food.” 30 And to every kind of animal of the earth and to every bird of heaven, and to everything that moves upon the earth in which there is life I am giving every green plant as food.” And it was so. 31 And God saw everything that he had made and, behold, it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning, a sixth day.
However I will say
Adam was faced with the prospect of dying had he eaten from the tree. This must be an event he was not exposed to had he not eaten. And thus a change, not a normally expected happenstance.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
The issue is one of a "literal" sense of מות תמות. The issue is how you see a day. There is nothing in מות תמות that requires a 24 hour rotation of the earth. The context is God's perspective of day.
We are talking hypothetically.
Had he done so would he not have sinned
Regarding Your quote
God has the right to use man as he sees fit, that however does not mean God causes a man to be unrighteous or determines him from birth to be a vessel of wrath.
Romans 9:21 references
Jeremiah 18:5–12 (LEB) — 5 And the word of Yahweh came to me, saying, 6 “Like this potter, am I not able to do to you, O house of Israel?” declares Yahweh. “Look, like the clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. 7 One moment I speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom, to uproot, and to tear down, and to destroy it. 8 But if that nation turns back from its evil that I have threatened against it, then I will relent concerning the disaster that I planned to do to it. 9 And the next moment I speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom, to build, and to plant it. 10 But if it does evil in my sight, to not listen to my voice, then I will relent concerning the good that I said I would do to it. 11 “So now then, say, please, to the people of Judah and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, ‘Thus says Yahweh, “Look, I am preparing evil against you, and I am planning a plan against you. Please turn back, each one from his evil way, and walk rightly in your ways and your deeds.” ’ 12 But they will say, ‘It is hopeless, for we will go after our own plans, and each one of us will act according to the stubbornness of his evil heart.’
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Death wasn't a normal expected happenstance. God was providing for Adam. There was no expectation of death for Adam. Your characterization doesn't match the facts of the circumstance.
My argument is that Adam, without God, would have died. Thusly, Adam wasn't immortal from the very beginning of his life on this earth. Adam had no innate quality of Immortality.
Thusly, you have a work in progress that would ultimately establish the right for Adam to obtain Eternal life.
When Adam eat, it required the fruit give its life to sustain Adam. There is nothing evil about this. In fact, it is good. Very good.
You have to lose the sense of how you've been taught things your entire life to really grasp what I'm saying.
Unless a blade of wheat fall to the ground, it abides alone.....
Have you ever thought about the fact that God put the means of Adam to sin right in front of him and told him not to touch it?
Last edited:
That appears unrelated to the questions asked
So if Christ committed adultery he would not have been guilty of sin?
If he took the name of the father in vain he would not have committed sin?
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
What good is a theory that could never take place?
Relative to power, much of these types of arguments are "moot". Even Satan has power. Power to even defy God and work against Him. Arminians have issues with deal with these facts. The only thing that fits all these pieces together is to understand the requirements of the "willing servant" that God desires to be just like Him. The full "image of God" in those in Christ Jesus.
Correct. I agree with you. However, you're not establishing these facts taking the "journey" your theology presents to get to that conclusion given relative to the Revelation of God.
In other words, these "puzzle pieces" you have created and arrange do not fit together properly. We agree on many things but the methodology/theology you're using will not put the pieces together properly.
TomL said:
We are talking hypothetically.
Had he done so would he not have sinned
Praise Yeshua stated
I have to assume you cannot disagree
Galatians 4:4 (LEB) — 4 But when the fullness of time came, God sent out his Son, born of a woman, born under the law,
I. UNDER THE LAW A. Christ is Like Man in All Things, Sin Excepted Christ became like man in all things, except sin. He was “made under the law” (Gal. 4:4). For our sakes He became subject to the demands of the law and kept the law so we could receive His righteousness. Christ placed Himself under the law at the very early beginning of His…
Teacher’s Bible Commentary: Old & New Testament Lessons, Vol. 1–2, Lk 2:22–38; V 2, p 17
We are talking hypothetically.
Had he done so would he not have sinned
Praise Yeshua stated
I have to assume you cannot disagree
Galatians 4:4 (LEB) — 4 But when the fullness of time came, God sent out his Son, born of a woman, born under the law,
I. UNDER THE LAW A. Christ is Like Man in All Things, Sin Excepted Christ became like man in all things, except sin. He was “made under the law” (Gal. 4:4). For our sakes He became subject to the demands of the law and kept the law so we could receive His righteousness. Christ placed Himself under the law at the very early beginning of His…
Teacher’s Bible Commentary: Old & New Testament Lessons, Vol. 1–2, Lk 2:22–38; V 2, p 17
You have not shown that
Utter nonsence
You have provided nothing at all to rebut this below
Adam was faced with the prospect of dying had he eaten from the tree. This must be an event he was not exposed to had he not eaten. And thus a change, not a normally expected happenstance.
And your words appear to agree with my comments
That does nothing to change the fact that, that event was not a normally expected happenstance which Adam was exposed to because of sin.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
I figured you'd react this way at some point. I don't mind. You have shown a openness to learning.
So lets work our way out from the events as dipicted in the Scriptures.... while forgetting what you claim is true. Facts are facts. Conclusions from those fact vary from individual to individual. Trust me, I've been having these types of conversations for a long time. I hope surprise me. I welcome it.
Please listen. I said death wasn't an expect happenstance.
Would Adam have died if he stopped eating from the trees in the garden? I know you want me to focus on Christ possibly sinning but give me the courtesy of asking similar questions to the "First Adam".
God wasn't the one that changed. Adam did. Adam made a choice for Eve. Yes. Adam would have never died if he had stayed in the garden. However, that doesn't change the fact that Adam did not have innate Eternal Life. He had no right to Eternal life. Not before he "sinned" nor "after".
God was keeping Adam alive. God continued to keep Adam alive. God was sustaining Adam throughout his life. Life that existed even after you say he "died".
Adam was driven away from the "tree of life". He hadn't ate of the "tree of life" or he would have lived forever.
These are metaphorical representations that have some semblance of a literal application in the fabric of our natural lives. How we discern them flavors our theology.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Yeah. Like that this is the first time I heard this......
Being made UNDER.... and paying attention to that word "UNDER" the law is to suffer the judgement of the law.
You know, Christ DIED.... Might that be "under the law". The judgement of death fulfilled in the sentence of the law? Not keeping the law. Not confined by the law....
SUFFERING THE JUDGEMENT OF THE LAW.
Please understand you're missing so much here because of what you've been taught. Don't quote the "Teacher's Bible Commentary" to me. Whomever wrote that should be here defending it. You shouldn't even be trying to defend it. Defend the Scriptures don't defend them.
Maybe not to you. Lets keep going. Maybe we will get there.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Join the conversation.
Did Adam have to eat to remain alive? If that is true, then he wasn't innately immortal.
Beside. The Gospel is clear.
1Ti 6:15 which he will display at the proper time—he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords,
1Ti 6:16 who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen.
You're preaching that Adam had Immortality. Which is a false Gospel.
Dizerner
Well-known member
Some make that mistaken assumption—it is error.
God did not say, "In the day you stop eating the Tree of Life, you will die."
That was not "the thing."
Adam was granted a share in immortality, he did not "possess" it.
You are just conflating properties.
