The following, the second in a three-article series, was penned by a friend of the ministry, Dale. W. Decker. You can find him at the Theogineer. Thank you, Dale.
Total Inability: The Island of Dr. Moreau
In H.G. Wells 1896 book, The Island of Dr. Moreau, the doctor, in his secluded laboratory, uses vivisection to create semi-human creatures out of animals. The creatures he produces in attempting to mimic free and rational human beings inevitably succumb to their inherent instincts and revert back to animals. The Calvinist understanding of the workings of the human will attempts to do the opposite, turn free and rational (though fallen) human beings into creatures of mere instinct, capable only of following their strongest desires.
To explain theistic determinism in a way that preserves God from being responsible for the sin of humanity, Reformed theology defines freedom of choice as doing what you want to do without external coercion. According to Calvinism, the human will does not possess a libertarian nature with the power of otherwise choice, at least not since Adam sinned in the garden. Instead, the human will is controlled by its greatest desire. And, though a human being always compulsorily chooses according to his greatest desire, he is free, even though he could not have chosen differently given his theistically determined antecedent state. I am going to call these distinctions of will “libertarian will” versus “compulsory will”. The compulsory will is used to define human freedom as “compatible” with theistic determinism.
According to Calvinism, because human beings possess a compulsory will as well as a sin nature that desires only evil, then human beings are totally unable to come to God without a change in their desires. Constitutionally, one cannot respond to any offer of the Gospel unless one’s desire has been divinely changed first. This state of the fallen will, as it were, comes under the rubric of Total Inability in Reformed theology
However, whether humans currently possess the power of otherwise choice is not the most crucial question to ask, but rather how does the Calvinist understanding of the compulsory will affect the doctrine of the Incarnation? Let’s look again to the Westminster Confession and see its description of Christ The Mediator (Ch 8.2):
The Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father, did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon Him man’s nature, with all the essential properties, and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin…
So, the Son of God took upon himself man’s nature with all its essential properties, yet without sin. What kind of human will did Jesus possess, libertarian or compulsory? I think we can agree that the human will is an essential property of being human. Some Calvinists maintain that humanity’s will was created libertarian and became compulsory and others say it has always been compulsory. However, both cases render human beings as now possessing compulsory wills, and each has a deleterious effect on the understanding of the Incarnation.
Taking the first case, that humanity was created with libertarian will and came to have compulsory will after the fall, is the essential human nature from pre-Fall to post-Fall the same or different? Pastor Ronnie Rogers answers this question this way:
If one proposes a change in this essential component from pre-fall to post-fall, it is to change the very nature of man. This to the point that the man who fell in the garden is not the same (essentially) as mankind after the fall; to wit, the being before the fall may be classified as human, or the being after the fall may be so classified, but they cannot both be so classified since they are essentially dissimilar. We can understand one of them as being human, but not both of them since their natures are mutually exclusive.
Ronnie W. Rogers, Does God Love All Or Some, Eugene, Wipf & Stock, 2019, p. 32
If the essential nature of humanity is different pre-Fall to post-Fall, then which type of will, libertarian or compulsory, did the Son take upon himself? If libertarian, then he is essentially different from the ones he came to save. This would seem to call into question a crucial element of the Incarnation, that Jesus was like us in all ways, except for sin, unless one is willing to state that there is no essential difference between libertarian and compulsory wills.
However, the alternate view doesn’t solve things. If Jesus took upon himself a compulsory will, what does that look like? If all that Jesus did was because he could not do otherwise given his determined antecedent state, how would that change our understanding of just the following small sampling of scriptures?
For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father. ~ John 11:17-18
And he said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible for you. Remove this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.” ~ Mark 14:36
And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. ~ Philippians 2:8
[Jesus] gave himself for us… ~ Titus 2:14
I’m not sure anyone would be comfortable saying that Jesus only had the illusion of choosing obedience to his Father, the illusion of choosing to lovingly give himself as an atoning sacrifice, but all the while was really only acting in a pre-determined way without otherwise choice. As I see it, the Reformed understanding of humanity’s compulsory will creates severe problems for the doctrine of the Incarnation.
Great points. Any claims Calvinism makes about the ‘sin nature’ allegedly imposed upon mankind after ‘the fall’ must affect Jesus as well. Which perhaps explains the emphasis on PSA, rather than Jesus accomplishing victory over sin and death. If Jesus, being like all men, was able to overcome sin and death, we too, in him, have such hope, which I allege is the true message of the gospel. By turning into a mechanistic, legal procedure, Calvinism removes the power of salvation to free men from sin, and turns it into a mere ticket to heaven.
Very nice article Eric!
Personally – I see the Reformed doctrine of a loss of Libertarian Freedom as the consequence of a Libertarian choice – just another example of Calvinism’s DOUBLE-SPEAK.
It simply follows the model of claiming [X] as a square when they need [X] it to be a square
And then later claiming [X] is a circle when they need [X] to be a circle.
The scholarly understanding of the Reformed conception of Theological Determinism it is PRE-CREATION.
Calvin’s god – at the foundation of the world – determines *ALL* things without exception.
And since Theological Determinism and Libertarian Freedom are mutually exclusive – then at no time POST-CREATION – or POST-SALVATION does Libertarian Freedom exist for creatures.
How this is enunciated in the Westminster Confession:
Paul Helm’s notes that since the confession – in regard to human agency – utilizes the terms “free”, “freely”, and “liberty”, that these for some Calvinists are seen as references to Libertarian Freedom.
But he sees this interpretation as IRRATIONAL given the following:
1) Calvinism is 100% predicated on Theological Determinism
2) The only freedom which exists within Theological Determinism is “compatibilist” freedom.
3) Compatibilist Freedom and Libertarian Freedom are mutually exclusive – (i.e, the existence of one excludes the existence of the other – making it a logical impossibility).
Therefore Helm’s concludes that at no time does Libertarian Freedom exist within creation – whether pre-fall , post-fall, pre-salvation or post-salvation.
And Helm’s understanding as to the NON-EXISTENCES of Libertarian Freedom within Theological Determinism is consistent with all academia – because a circle is not a square – and a square is not a circle.
test
1. At Pre-Fall Adam and Eve possess in them the freedom to decide whether to obey or to dis-obey the command of God concerning the forbidden fruit from the tree of Knowledge of good and evil. Although God has the capability to intervene to prevent them and not to give clearance to satan to enter paradise, yet God choose not to intervene and just watched them by allowing them to exercise their freedom.
2. At Post Fall – God did not cancel nor remove that freedom of man. However, that freedom becomes tainted with the virus of sin and becomes compatible with evil. It is for this that even if the fallen man tries to make use of his freedom to access God on his own this become impossible and is not recognized by God. Man is viewed as dead in sin and is morally incapable to come back to God on his own.
3. For the fallen man to be restored and to come back to fellowship with his Creator, God must do the first initiative to reach out the fallen man at Post-Fall by: (a) Seeking after them in the garden and (b) Provide them a garment made of the skin of the Lamb (Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God who takes away sin…) before they were expelled in Paradise.
4. Adam and Eve’s acceptance of the garment provided to them by God is a proof that they did not resist by accepting the garment offered to them for free. Why they did not resist? Bec. God’s intervention to them has been there already for them to fully understand what they have done.
5. Regarding the doctrine of Incarnation of Christ. Let us remember that Christ’s physical body does not originated on earth nor a product of sexual intercourse. His body was prepared by the God the Father in Heaven before Jesus Christ has been sent to go down to earth to reveal the Father. A mortal body that is subject to death on the cross, tempted in all points but did not sin. Christ’s body cannot be equated with human body that is a product of sexual union of parents that is subjected to return to dust. Jesus’ Body did not return to dust at the grave. There was no traces of dust that was left but the linen clothes used in His burial. In addition, the blood circulating in Christ’s body is different from the blood of mortal human beings that has no power to cleanse Sin.
Jt, why don’t you talk scripture and stop speculating! There is nothing inherently wrong or evil in man’s physical body, or nature. Stop with the nonsense. Let me give you some good advice: Speak where the scriptures speak, and be silent where the scriptures are silent.
Aidan, It’s not speculation as you say… What I say is being backed up in the Genesis account as well as in other passages such as : Hebrews 10:5, Luke 1:35; Matt. 1:20; John 20:4-5
JT,
We’ve already seen 101 scriptures quoted – claiming to say something they don’t actually say.
How many times have I asked you to provide a verse that EXPLICITLY states what you claim?
Calvinists remind me of the man who claims that people who don’t shave their heads are going to hell – because of 1 Corinthians 11:14.
And then on top of that – there is all of Calvinism’s DOUBLE-MINDENESS
And they want scripture to affirm that! :-]
Jt, I know what you are saying about Christ is highly speculative, because its based on the speculation that man is born with a corrupted nature inherent from his birth. But one false premise only breeds another.
Hebrews 2:14-17:
“Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, HE HIMSELF LIKEWISE ALSO PARTOOK OF THE SAME, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives. For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham.Therefore, HE HAD TO BE MADE LIKE HIS BRETHREN IN ALL THINGS, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.”
Notice, since those who are being saved share in flesh and blood, Jesus also partook of THE SAME. Therefore, if we are born with a corrupted nature or flesh, He too was born with a corrupted nature and flesh; For He partook of THE SAME flesh and blood as ours. Otherwise, how else could He have been made like His brethren IN ALL THINGS, for which he explains why? And how else could Jesus be able to come to the aid of those who are tempted, had He not Himself been tempted in that which He suffered? In fact, we are told that He was tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin. Therefore, He is truly able to sympathize with men’s weaknesses (Heb 2:18; 4:15).
This is a far cry from what you have said, namely, that Christ’s body and blood cannot be equated with ours. Other than the fact that He never sinned, His human side was every bit the same as ours.
jtleosala
1. At Pre-Fall Adam and Eve possess in them the freedom to decide whether to obey or to dis-obey the command of God..etc
br.d
Another good example of Calvinism’s DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS.
Calvin’s god – at the foundation of the world – determines *ALL* things that will come to pass PRE-CREATION.
So it LOGICALLY FOLLOWS – Adam and Eve’s every neurological impulse were determined *FOR* them by Calvin’s god – before they existed.
John Calvin
-quote
Men may not even agitate anything in their deliberations but what He inspires.
(A Defense of the secret providence of god – PDF version pg 190)
Calvinist Paul Helm’s
-quote
Not only is every atom and molecule, every thought and desire……every twist and turn of each of these is under the direct control of God (The Providence of God pg 22)
John Calvin
-quote
For it did not take place BY REASON OF NATURE that, by the guilt of one parent, all were cut off from salvation.
(Institutes pdf version pg 765)
jtleosala
2. At Post Fall – God did not cancel nor remove that freedom of man. ….etc
br.d
The freedom in this case is “compatibilist” freedom
The freedom to be/do what one is DETERMINED by Calvin’s god – to be/do.
John Piper
-quote
Compatibilism is a form of determinism and it should be noted that this position is no less deterministic than hard determinism.
John Calvin
-quote
It is a quite frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely permits them [sins and evils], when scripture shows Him not only willing but the *AUTHOR* of them. (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God pg 176)
Author in the Old French of Calvin’s day: Auctor – meaning Originator, Creator, Instigato
Nice article I liked the comparison of Jesus’ obedience to the Father as well as thinking of the Scriptures where He showed compassion and authentic love!!! Most importantly the cross without that love we all remain dead in our sin.
This statement you say here;
“one cannot respond to any offer of the Gospel unless one’s desire has been
divinely changed first.”
If this statement were true then it renders the Gospel foolish and unnecessary and that is why I won’t/can’t be silent, because it has as the Bible says power!!
Romans 1:16 NASB — For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
The impeccability of Christ: “Impeccability is the absence of sin. Christianity teaches this to be an attribute of God (logically God cannot sin, it would mean that he would act against his own will and nature) and therefore it is also attributed to Christ.”
Not a mere unwillingness or reluctance to sin. As the God-Man had no sin nature. And it was said in the Gospels “that the Prince of this world has come and has found nothing within Me (Jesus)
Christ was tempted, but not with an internal evil desire like us. Nor could Christ was God in the flesh be tempted with sin or evil.
More on the temptations of Christ and what it means that he learned obedience later.
It is impossible for God to cease being God.
Time to go get the wife.
I think on this point – you’re going to need to interact more with the “human” side of Christ.
For example – it doesn’t make sense for Jesus to say “not my will but your will be done” if it is the case that there is no such thing as two wills that can be in opposition to each other.
So one question that should be addressed is did Jesus’ humanity entail an AUTONOMOUS will?
Or as the Christ – does his humanity function like the first Adam – .according to Theological Determinism
In which
1) Nothing is UP TO Christ
2) Christ is not given any alternative possibilities
3) Christ is not permitted to be/do otherwise than what the father pre-determines.
If those conditions exist – then Christ functioned as a TRUE representation of the first Adam.
However if those conditions did not exist – then Christ functioned in a level of AUTONOMOUS functionality that was not permitted or made available to the first Adam. And if that is the case – then Christ’s humanity cannot be considered a TRUE representation of the first Adam.
DWD writes, “According to Calvinism, because human beings possess a compulsory will as well as a sin nature that desires only evil, then human beings are totally unable to come to God without a change in their desires.”
Calvinism says that people are born without faith (in Christ) and it is the lack of faith that is essential to producing the Total Inability of a person to come to God through Christ. It is only through hearing the gospel that a person can receive faith and in receiving faith, a person naturally comes to God.
Then, “If the essential nature of humanity is different pre-Fall to post-Fall, then which type of will, libertarian or compulsory, did the Son take upon himself?”
Jesus took on a compulsory will as evidenced in John 6, where Jesus said, “For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.” later emphasized when, in the garden, Jesus said, “Father, if it is Your will, take this cup away from Me; nevertheless not My will, but Yours, be done.”
Hebrews 11:1 tells you what faith is. And what Hebrews 11:1 indicates, is that SOMEONE first must PRESENT you with a PLEDGE or a PROMISE, and it is your own free will to believe it, and to paitently wait for it.
Calvinisms definition of “faith” is NOT BIBLICAL.
As far as, “Jesus took on a compulsory will as evidenced in John 6, where Jesus said, “For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.” later emphasized when, in the garden, Jesus said, “Father, if it is Your will, take this cup away from Me; nevertheless not My will, but Yours, be done.”” is concerned,
Matthew 26:41
the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.
But apparently, Calvinism has no idea what a SPIRIT is.
rhutchin
Calvinism says that people are born without faith
br.d
And one can accept that – if one is willing to be duped by beguiling language – designed to hide more than it reveals. :-]
Lets fill in what the Calvinist carefully hides.
“T” Totally Predestined Nature:
In Calvinism – the state of man’s nature at any instance in time is totally predestined prior to creation, and therefore absolutely nothing about any part of man’s nature (or anything else for that matter) is ever UP TO any man.
John Calvin explains:
-quote
Men may not even agitate anything in their deliberations but what he INSPIRES
(A Defense of the secret providence of god – PDF version pg 190)
-quote
Men can deliberately do nothing unless he INSPIRE it. (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God pg 171–172)
-quote
Hence they are merely INSTRUMENTS INTO WHICH god constantly INFUSES what energy he sees meet, and turns and converts to any purpose at his pleasure. (Institutes)
Aidan writes: “This is a far cry from what you have said, namely, that Christ’s body and blood cannot be equated with ours. Other than the fact that He never sinned, His human side was every bit the same as ours.”
My Response: So, Aidan in your statement, it appears that your own blood can also be used to cleanse your own sins and the rest of the sins of mankind. You don’t need anymore the blood of Christ to cleanse you from your sins because according to you your own blood is just the same with the blood of Christ.🤞 You are just speculating. I said that Christ was not a product of human sexual intercourse. His body and blood came from above not on earth. (Hebrews 10:5 Therefore, when He came into the world, He said: “Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, but a body You have prepared for Me”) God the Father prepared a body for Christ before He was sent down to earth by God the Father to be inserted by the Holy Spirit at Mary’s womb. How can it be the same when Aidan was a product of sexual intercourse of his sinful human parents? 🤣
How in the world one concludes all of that out of “His human side was every bit the same as ours” is a complete and total mystery! :-]
brdmod,
Hebrews 4:15
For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
Jesus died, then rose from the dead. IF Jesus was not JUST HAS US, dying would have been taken off the table.
Like the song goes, “What if God was one of us?”
He was. He just didn’t sin…not because he was not capable of sinning, but because he resisted sin.
Hebrews 2:18
For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.
Ed Chapman
Yes – according to what is classified as the orthodox view – Jesus was -quote “Fully God and Fully Man”.
And there were temporary vagrant doctrines which tried to make him too much man
And temporary vagrant doctrine which tried to make him too much God.
And I agree with you about the doctrine of hoc est corpus (i.e. Hocus Pocus )
And Jesus told Mary at the grave-site “do not touch me for I have not yet ascended to my Father”
Obviously she could have touched him before – and she would be touching flesh and blood just as her own.
But he now has a new body that allows him to walk through walls.
So obviously something changed! :-]
Here is the question to ponder, tho. Actually two questions.
1. What makes Jesus fully God?
2. What makes Jesus fully man?
In this case, I believe the orthodox that Jesus I’d equally both. But I know why I come to that conclusion, without the orthodox explaining it to me.
It all boils down to three words.
1. Spirit
2. Soul
3. Body
That’s it.
Spirits are eternal, not mortal or immortal.
Bodies made of dirt are mortal.
Resurrected bodies are immortal.
Jesus died, so what does that tell you?
Ed Chapman
Chap-the-man
Jesus died, so what does that tell you?
br.d
Boy that says it all doesn’t it! :-]
Indeed!
jtleosala,
You know that Catholicism still rieigns in Philippines, and your BLOOD, JT.
You had said:
“So, Aidan in your statement, it appears that your own blood can also be used to cleanse your own sins and the rest of the sins of mankind. You don’t need anymore the blood of Christ to cleanse you from your sins because according to you your own blood is just the same with the blood of Christ.�� You are just speculating. I said that Christ was not a product of human sexual intercourse. His body and blood came from above not on earth. (Hebrews 10:5 Therefore, when He came into the world, He said: “Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, but a body You have prepared for Me”) God the Father prepared a body for Christ before He was sent down to earth by God the Father to be inserted by the Holy Spirit at Mary’s womb. How can it be the same when Aidan was a product of sexual intercourse of his sinful human parents?
Genesis 9:6
Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
Pay very close attention to that verse, JT. That was what God told NOAH.
Now, let’s look at the EXPLANATION, shall we?
Numbers 35:33
So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are: for blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it.
That is the explanation, that the land is CLEANSED by the blood of the one who shed someone elses blood (which is why capitol punishment should never be abolished).
Jesus had a DIRT/MUD/DUST body just like the rest of us do. He is not just the son of God, he is the son of David.
God is a spirit, and spirits come from above. NOT A BODY or blood. Blood does NOT come from heaven. Eternal bodies have no blood.
FLESH AND BLOOD CANNOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD. Therefore, there is no blood in heaven…or, from above.
I’m quite certain that Mary and Jesus were connected by an “unbiblical” cord, right? Or is it umbilical? Either way, that would be the blood of Mary in the veins of Jesus, and that was not from above.
But then again, cults will believe anything, huh, JT, like transubstantiation, that somehow a saltine cracker and grape juice transforms itself into the body and blood of Christ…while the Catholic priests are getting DRUNK from the blood (Oh, the Jewish kids LOVED ceremonies involving wine, by the way…at least that is what my Jewish friend told me!).
Seriously, tho, JT…where do you get your training that tells you that the blood of Christ…and the body thereof, came from “above”?
Ed Chapman
Ed writes: “FLESH AND BLOOD CANNOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD. Therefore, there is no blood in heaven…or, from above.”
My response: The verse you quoted refers to earthly human bodies. This is the reason why the believer’s mortal body has to be transformed into a glorified body like Christ’s upon entrance to heaven, the abode of God. In contrast, The body and blood of Christ comes from above according to Heb. 10:5.
God’s created human beings-their mortal bodies – has been corrupted with sin so, it is not fitted to reside in heaven. Christ’s blood did not originate from the earth, rather it comes from above together with Christ’s immortal body that was prepared by God the Father . Ed may ask you, Does Christ resurrected body bloodless when He ascended to heaven?
jtleosala,
You had said:
“The verse you quoted refers to earthly human bodies.”
YES, JT, that’s exactly what I meant to say, too. Jesus had an earthly human body. He is FULLY MAN, and FULLY GOD. The body is the man part, the spirit is the God part.
DIRT BODIES DIE. Jesus was fully man, in dying flesh from BELOW. Jesus is God based on his spirit and THAT is what is from “above”.
My goodness. Do you actually think that YOU are your body? The bible I study indicates that YOU “reside” “IN” a body, not that you are your body.
Do you know the difference between spirit and body?
Do you know what LIFE requires? It requires YOU (spirit) in a body. YOU (spirit) give life to your body. The BLOOD keeps the mortal flesh of the body alive.
You have too much Catholicism still in your blood. You almost sound Jehovah’s Witness—ish.
SIN has nothing to do with our mortal bodies.
1 Cor 15 tells us that Adam was formed from the dirt, and anything made of dirt dies.
The only reason that Adam did not have eternal life was due to one reason, and one reason only. He didn’t eat of the tree of life. That was the reason.
And because he sinned, AFTER HE SINNED, that is, he was forbidden to approach the tree of life. And that is why it is said that due to Adams sin, we all die (Romans 5).
Where do you get your bible training from?
Ed Chapman
jtleosala,
You had quoted Hebrews 10:5…
From the KJV
…Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
Jesus had a DYING body, not an immortal body. 1 Corinthians 15 discusses the resurrection, indicating that NATURAL BODIES come first, THEN after you die, a spiritual body comes last. Spiritual bodies are immortal. Jesus had a mortal body, therefore, the body that Jesus was “CLOTHED” in, aka “LIVED” in before he died, was from the earth (dirt), aka NATURAL. Otherwise, he would not have been capable of dying on a cross.
And to agree with Aidan, just as I noted with BRDMOD,
Hebrews 4:15
For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
Hebrews 2:18
For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.
Those two verses indicate that Jesus was capable of sin, but didn’t, and why? Because he resisted. It wasn’t due to some special heavenly blood which differs in DNA than our blood.
You can remove Catholics from the “church” (Pope’s reign), but you can’t remove Catholicism from reformers who left the “church” (Pope’s reign).
Ed Chapman
Aidan writes: “Therefore, HE HAD TO BE MADE LIKE HIS BRETHREN IN ALL THINGS, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.”
My Response: Aidan writes the phrase above in all caps to argue with me. My question to Aidan? Where did Christ got His body and blood when He came down to earth? particularly when He got inside Mary’s womb? – I maintain to argue that Christ body came from heaven not on earth- this to raise my point that Christ was sinless. A sinful being cannot afford to save His fellow human sinner. Christ was sinless even if He was inserted (“quarantined”) by the Holy Spirit inside Mary’s womb. In contrast, Aidan was already a sinner since he was inside his mother’s womb because Aidan was a product of sinful parents.
For me: the line capitalized by Aidan above means that Christ chose to identify with the Jew race His brethren (lineage of David, the King) and this tenable in scriptures. He did not choose any race other than the Jews to identify Himself when He physically appeared to earth to be seen by the naked eyes of men living during that time.
I don’t see much here – that is coherent enough to respond to.
So I don’t see how it would be productive to even try.
What jtle struggles with is the faulty Calvinistic doctrine that paints him into an unbiblical and untenable corner, which is the doctrine of Original Sin. In its Calvinist form, OS asserts that man is born a sinner, already guilty (of Adam’s sin) and condemned. One can see how, were this true, one cannot allow for Jesus to be truly human, as he would have to be born guilty of (Adam’s) sin. Which proves it is not true!
However, as the Calvinist will never question his authoritative doctrine, he must instead trample upon the Word of God, and even the very hope of mankind – a Savior who, although made of the exact same human flesh as are we, resisted all temptation to sin, making him the perfect lamb of God, able to provide propitiation for all of the sin of mankind.
Instead of revisiting his errant theology, the Calvinist will manufacture, out of thin air, theories that have no substance in scripture or logic. Jesus’ flesh and blood came from heaven? Does anyone (other than jtle) genuinely believe that the BODY of Jesus was implanted fully formed, with heavenly flesh and heavenly blood, into Mary, making him truly something other than our fleshly human brother?
I would guess that most theologians would reject such an illogical and unsupportable claim as, again, it would render Jesus less than fully human and destroy Christianity’s basis (Jesus is fully God and fully Man) for mankind’s hope of salvation.
This is the first time I have ever come across such a concept in one who considers himself an orthodox (Calvinist) Christian.
TS00 writes, “One can see how, were this true, one cannot allow for Jesus to be truly human, as he would have to be born guilty of (Adam’s) sin.”
Yet, Christ, being conceived by the Holy Spirit, and not conceived by Joseph’s seed, might be considered truly human given His birth from Mary, but clearly distinct from all other people who were conceived by means of a man’s seed. As the guilt of Adam was passed from Adam to his descendants through his seed, Jesus would have avoided that outcome being conceived by the Holy Spirit.
Well – I have often said – if we didn’t have Calvinists – we wouldn’t have access to a constant stream of divine secrets! ;-D
jtleosala,
You had said:
“No argument Ed with your point. A body that was prepared by God the Father for Jesus was subject to death (mortal body) when He came down to earth. The same body resurrected and it was transformed into an immortal One, a glorified Body- the resurrected body of Christ which he said the same will be ours also at His second coming.”
The body prepared was the LAMB OF GOD, which is indicutive of the Passover Lamb. It wasn’t discussing a human body here. It was metaphorically speaking of the Passover Lamb sacrificed, as Jesus is the Lamb of God.
Mortal bodies do NOT come from “above”. They are DIRT, just like the rest of us.
The only bodies subject to death are made of DIRT. Jesus died, because he was made of dirt, just like we all are.
Bodies are FORMED in the womb, not “inserted”. Spirits are “inserted” in a body, tho. You are a spirit dressed in a body.
Jesus is God. You were taught that, weren’t you? So my question for you, what makes Jesus God? His body? Or his spirit?
What makes Jesus man? His spirit, or his body?
Answer both questions, and you will win a prize to the Philippines!
Ed Chapman
ChapmanEd Writes: “Jesus had a DYING body, not an immortal body. 1 Corinthians 15 discusses the resurrection, indicating that NATURAL BODIES come first, THEN after you die, a spiritual body comes last. Spiritual bodies are immortal. Jesus had a mortal body, therefore, the body that Jesus was “CLOTHED” in, aka “LIVED” in before he died, was from the earth (dirt), aka NATURAL. Otherwise, he would not have been capable of dying on a cross.”
My Response: No argument Ed with your point. A body that was prepared by God the Father for Jesus was subject to death (mortal body) when He came down to earth. The same body resurrected and it was transformed into an immortal One, a glorified Body- the resurrected body of Christ which he said the same will be ours also at His second coming.
jtleosala,
This is a duplicate response, due to me answering the wrong comment. Sorry in advance…
You had said:
“No argument Ed with your point. A body that was prepared by God the Father for Jesus was subject to death (mortal body) when He came down to earth. The same body resurrected and it was transformed into an immortal One, a glorified Body- the resurrected body of Christ which he said the same will be ours also at His second coming.”
The body prepared was the LAMB OF GOD, which is indicutive of the Passover Lamb. It wasn’t discussing a human body here. It was metaphorically speaking of the Passover Lamb sacrificed, as Jesus is the Lamb of God.
Mortal bodies do NOT come from “above”. They are DIRT, just like the rest of us.
The only bodies subject to death are made of DIRT. Jesus died, because he was made of dirt, just like we all are.
Bodies are FORMED in the womb, not “inserted”. Spirits are “inserted” in a body, tho. You are a spirit dressed in a body.
Jesus is God. You were taught that, weren’t you? So my question for you, what makes Jesus God? His body? Or his spirit?
What makes Jesus man? His spirit, or his body?
Answer both questions, and you will win a prize to the Philippines!
Ed Chapman
Ed is asking me: “Jesus is God. You were taught that, weren’t you? So my question for you, what makes Jesus God? His body? Or his spirit?
“What makes Jesus man? His spirit, or his body?”
My Response: Yes Ed. Jesus Christ has been already 100% God from eternity past existing with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. (I know you don’t believe in the doctrine of Trinity and this will not make sense to you)
Jesus’ original body was the glorified body-the one that resurrected and ascended to heaven. Up to now this is the status of Jesus having glorified body not just spirit. He became man (mortal being) through the mortal body that was prepared for Him when He came down to earth as a human being like us.
JTLEOSALA,
Oh it makes perfect sense to me. I just don’t believe it, since I beleive that Jesus is the ONLY GOD.
But you didn’t answer the question…
ON This earth, what makes both fully God, and what makes Jesus fully man?
Jesus was a man
Acts 2:22
Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
Romans 5:15
But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
You did not answer the question, therefore, I posed the question again.
Bottom line, BODIES THAT DIE DO NOT COME FROM HEAVEN.
Jesus is the seed of Abraham by the FLESH (body), WHICHS MEANS THAT JESUS DIES BASED ON THAT ALONE.
Bodies that die do not come from heaven, including the body of Christ in the womb of Mary.
Ed Chapman
Ed writes: “Bodies are FORMED in the womb, not “inserted”. Spirits are “inserted” in a body, tho. You are a spirit dressed in a body.”
My Response The statement above is true and applicable to humans that are involved in pro-creation on earth, This cannot be applied to God or to the Holy Spirits overshadowing Mary that caused her to become preggy. It was described as virgin birth for no one has engaged with any sexual act with Mary. God can never cohabit or be engaged in a sexual intercourse with humans that are sinners.
jtleosala,
yOu had said:
“This cannot be applied to God or to the Holy Spirits overshadowing Mary that caused her to become preggy. It was described as virgin birth for no one has engaged with any sexual act with Mary. God can never cohabit or be engaged in a sexual intercourse with humans that are sinners.”
Your conclusions are incorrect. I believe in the Virgin Birth. But if you also look at this more closely, The Father of Jesus is the Holy Spirit since it was the Holy Spirit that did the “overshadowing”. God the Father was SOMEWHERE ELSE, many thousands of light years away…right?
WHO SUPPLIED THE EGG? Mary, right? Other than for breakfast, what is an egg? Scientifically speaking, do bodies come from an egg? We understand that there was no male human to FERTILIZE the egg, but it was still Mary’s egg, nonetheless.
That egg is an important part of the equation that you are leaving out.
Ed Chapman
Ed writes: “WHO SUPPLIED THE EGG? Mary, right? Other than for breakfast, what is an egg? Scientifically speaking, do bodies come from an egg? We understand that there was no male human to FERTILIZE the egg, but it was still Mary’s egg, nonetheless”.
“That egg is an important part of the equation that you are leaving out.”
My Response: You made me laugh, but nothing intension to insult. I just enjoyed our conversation here. The virgin birth is somewhat difficult to explain. What I hold into this is that there was no egg nor sperm used for Mary to become preggy. I just hold on to the revelation in Hebrews 10:5 that there was a body that was prepared for Jesus when He came down from heaven in human form. I believe that God can create a mortal body without any egg nor sperm – material used. This is how God already proven in the creation i account in Genesis that He can produce something out of utterances. Please don’t misunderstand me, Jesus was not a creation. He already existed from eternity past with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit.
jtleosala,
You being a preacher, are one confused puppy! Where did you get your seminary degree again?
You had said:
“What I hold into this is that there was no egg nor sperm used”
Hmmm. No egg, huh? HOW do you come to this conclusion?
As I said before, the BODY PREPARED was The Lamb of God for the Passover, because Hebrews 10 is discussing Sacrifices, in that Jesus is the PASSOVER Sacrifice, in which the Lamb of God shed his blood, just as in the FIRST PASSOVER, in which blood was used on the door posts so that the Angel of Death can PASSOVER.
The body prepared is spiritually speaking of the LAMB OF GOD, therefore, it is not discussing a human body of the life and times of Jesus.
Ed Chapman
jtleosala,
You had said:
“Please don’t misunderstand me, Jesus was not a creation. He already existed from eternity past with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit.”
Oh, I’m not misunderstanding. I know your position.
But that still doesn’t answer my question in how Jesus, being God, can be man at the same time, coming from “above”, as you say, with a body that came from “above”, with blood that came from “above”, with no eartly egg, and with just a generalizatoin that “God can do anything he wants to do”, calling it an unexplained mystery, such as the trinity…3 people playing the role of ONE GOD?
What is a spirit, as it relates to LIFE of a human? Are we created in the image of God? WHICH GOD? ONE GOD, or THREE GODS? Which one of the three?
Does life require a body?
Are we living if we don’t have a body?
Do we have a living God? Have we always had a living God? Was God dead for 3 days and 3 nights?
What does dead mean? non-existent? Or does it mean a spirit without a body?
I’m not asking for myself. I’m hoping that you will seek the answers for yourself.
Ed Chapman
Perhaps its just magical thinking!
I do find it as a consistent phenomenon within many Calvinist statements.
I recently read an article by a Calvinist who wanted his version of the infallible decrees to be TRANSCENDENT
I knew just exactly where he was going with that!
He wants a god who can decree square-circles, married-bachelors, false-truths and create infallible-non-infallible decrees
That way he can have his cake and eat it
He can speak out of both sides
He can have an unlimited number of things both TRUE and FALSE at the same time.
Magical thinking goes with the territory!
Well, ya know, this really began with the Catholics, with issues that they can’t explain either. Many outside of Catholicism consider those Catholics still as “church fathers” who had authority to interpret scripture, telling us that Peter told us that only they have authority to do so. So… John Calvin comes along, and… invented squared circles, which goes against the Catholics circled squares. Lol.
Ed
Ed writes: “The only reason that Adam did not have eternal life was due to one reason, and one reason only. He didn’t eat of the tree of life. That was the reason.”
My response: Ed can you please reveal some more information as to WHAT or WHOM this Tree of Life” – represents as mentioned in Genesis? I agree with your ideas before about this tree of life and it again surfaced here. Why did God not allow Adam to eat of that Tree of life? Is there any other reasons aside from what was already written in Genesis?
jtleosala,
You had said:
“Ed can you please reveal some more information as to WHAT or WHOM this Tree of Life” – represents as mentioned in Genesis? ”
and
“Why did God not allow Adam to eat of that Tree of life?”
My response:
Yes, I can. Can you?
IT was an actual tree, just like the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Genesis 2:9
9 And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
My response to your second question is that God DID INDEED ALLOW Adam to eat of the Tree of Life…UNTIL…
Genesis 3:22, 24
22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
Conclusion: That was a real tree, and God blocked access to it AFTER Adam/Eve ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and WHY did God block it? Because it still had POWER to give eternal life, and since Adam ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and evil, he FORFEITED his right to eat of the Tree of Life.
IF that were not a real tree, but a metaphore instead, God would not have to block access to an imaginary tree with Cherubims and a flaming sword.
Ed Chapman
Thank you Ed for your response. I appreciate it.
Ed writes: “Conclusion: That was a real tree, and God blocked access to it AFTER Adam/Eve ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and WHY did God block it? Because it still had POWER to give eternal life, and since Adam ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and evil, he FORFEITED his right to eat of the Tree of Life.”
“IF that were not a real tree, but a metaphore instead, God would not have to block access to an imaginary tree with Cherubims and a flaming sword.”
My Response: Please don’t get angry with me Ed. In my opinion as I analyze your statement above, it seems that the TREE of LIFE is a source of eternal life and I agree with this because it is written in the Genesis account. If the tree of life does not represent Christ, then there will be 2 sources of eternal life in the ideas that you presented. i.e. 1. The Tree of Life and the other one 2. Jesus Christ which I presume that you do also believe Christ as the One who can give eternal life.
jtleosala,
Oh, I’m not angry at you at all. We’ve been on here long enough for you to know that my sarcasm is harmless, that it’s part of my charm. It’s all in jest. It’s the fun we all used to have before political correctness came about. Comedians are not allowed to be comedians anymore, cuz they might offend someone’s fat mother now (Your mother is so fat, that when she sits around the house, she sits AROUND the house).
Regarding the Tree of Life, with your explanation, I AGREE…in part.
In Genesis, it was a REAL TREE….
BUT…
It was ALSO a “TYPE AND SHADOW” of Jesus. Still, that does not take away the fact that the REAL TREE in Genesis had power to give eternal life.
TYPES and SHADOWS is the key here. It’s prophesy. Just like the following:
The “ROCK” that Moses struck in the desert was a REAL ROCK. Moses did not strike Jesus himself.
1 Corinthians 10:4
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
WHAT IS THE SPIRITUAL STORY HERE? The spiritual story here is that Jesus WILL BE STRUCK, at a future date.
Isaac is the PROMISED SEED to Abraham…the REAL THING
Jesus is the SPIRITUAL promised seed (Galatians).
The PROMISED LAND is a small piece of real estate in the middle east.
Spiritually, it’s HEAVEN.
And due to things being a TYPE AND SHADOW, this is the MAIN reason that I am NOT A FAN of EXPOSITORY preaching. You fail to learn the spiritual stuff doing expository.
You are a preacher…The lesson plan objective in expository is GENERALLY “How to be obedient to God”, “How to not disobey God”, as if the bible is written in that kind of fashion only as a history book of lessons learned. Yes, we can learn of the coming of the Messiah by expository. Expository tells us that the name of the Messiah is Emanuel, not Jesus. Right?
One thing to add, tho, the REASON that God blocked access to that tree with cheribums and a flaming sword was that Adam, by virtue of eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, did indeed die THAT DAY…a spiritual death (by virtue of KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil, which is what the tree gave him)…Romans 7:7-9…
In other words, the natural dying process of the body was NOT THE SUBJECT of “ye shall surely die”, the subject was a spiritual death, meaning, separation from God.
So, God blocked Adam’s access to the Tree of Life, BECAUSE if he had not, Adam would have Eternal Life, yes, BUT IN A FALLEN STATE, which means eternally separated from God…which is where Jesus, the SPIRITUAL tree of life, comes into play.
Types and Shadows. The real thing represents the spiritual thing.
Moses…the real thing…redeemer who set the people free from Bondage. (Carnal Story…Expository…but TYPE AND SHADOW)
Jesus…the spiritual thing…that redeemed sinners from the bondage of sin. (Spiritual Story)
And THIS is what the following is discussing, which Calvinists have a completely different spin on it…
Romans 8:6
For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1 Corinthians 3:1
And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
TYPE and SHADOW is PROPHESY STUFF represented by CARNAL STUFF, which tells the story of the spiritual stuff.
Tree of life in the garden was a real carnal tree with special power, which is a type/shadow of Jesus.
But from your understanding…it was an imaginary tree?
Ed Chapman
Ed, I agree with you about the types and shadows presented in the OT. I also believe that the tree of Life in the garden was a real tree. Thanks for responding.
jtleosala,
One more thing for me to EMPHASIZE from my last comment regarding the tree of life in the garden, I think it’s going over youre head the following:
Genesis 3:22, 24
22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
So what does that tell you?
It tells me that it was a real tree that had power to give eternal life, even in a fallen state…doesn’t it you?
It also tells me that God blocked access to it with a Cheribums and a flaming sword, SO THAT Adam could NOT “obtain” eternal life in a fallen state…doesn’t it you?
But to you, it’s only an imaginary tree, with no power? Verse 22 disagrees.
Ed Chapman
Ed writes: “What is a spirit, as it relates to LIFE of a human? Are we created in the image of God? WHICH GOD? ONE GOD, or THREE GODS? Which one of the three?”
My Response: Jesus Christ possess also body, soul and spirit. This is just like the creation of human beings that comprises: body, Soul and spirit according to 1 Thess. 5: 23 saying that the whole of man, i.e: body, soul and spirit is being made holy by God. I am not saying here that Jesus Christ was also a creation. Leave that to the cultic Jehovah’s witnesses. To give you a clear answer, We are created after the image of Christ. At present we are to be transformed into the image of Christ. This is loudly supported by the following verses: i,e,:
1. Heb. 8:29 – “conformed to the image of His Son” – This relates to the doctrine of Sanctification where God is at work in cleansing us by the time we come to him in repentance asking for forgiveness. It is a process a continuous act of God in the believer’s life.
2. I Cor. 15:48-49 ; “born of the image of man of dust we shall also bear the image of the heavenly man”
3. I John 3:2-3 = “we shall be like Him [Christ] – This is future in that our earthly immortal bodies shall be transformed into heavenly immortal body
jtleosala,
You are on the right track with using 1 Thes 5:23, but I’m not in agreement with the use of your further references.
This is what I would use:
1 Corinthians 12:13
For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body,
Ephesians 4:4
There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
John 4:24
God is a spirit
Jesus is the “BODY OF CHRIST”.
WE, being many, are ONE BODY of Christ.
God was “in” Jesus.
2 Corinthians 13:5
Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?
NOTE: JESUS CHRIST IS “IN” YOU.
How can that be if Jesus ascended into heaven? I thought you teach that we have the OTHER GOD, which you call the HOLY SPIRIT “IN” us?
Bottom line, if there is ONE SPIRIT AND ONE BODY, and GOD IS A SPIRIT, and life REQUIRES a body, then we can conclude that Jesus is God alone, just as he told Phillip, that if you see Jesus, you see the father…it was not metaphorical.
Imagine that you die, and you get to heaven, and you meet Jesus, and you ask Jesus the following:
John 14:8
Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
“Do I need to make an appointment? Is he busy in the garden?”
What will Jesus reply to you? He replied the following to Phillip:
John 14:9
Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?
In plain English terms, not Tagalog…Jesus just said, “I AM THE FATHER, Phillip, so how can you say “show us the father?”
Ed Chapman
Correction made: 3. I John 3:2-3 = “we shall be like Him [Christ] – This is future in that our earthly mortal bodies shall be transformed into heavenly immortal body (“earthly mortal bodies not earthly immortal bodies”)
Ed, we cannot discuss anymore with the doctrine of the Trinity. I believe in this doctrine and you don’t. Let us just respect each other for I’m sure no one from among us will give up what we believe about the matter. I suggest, we can discuss further about the OP here.
jleosala,
You had said:
“Ed, we cannot discuss anymore with the doctrine of the Trinity. I believe in this doctrine and you don’t. Let us just respect each other for I’m sure no one from among us will give up what we believe about the matter. I suggest, we can discuss further about the OP here.”
My response:
OK, but just one final parting question, in which I am not looking for an answer at all. Just something to for you to ponder. Do you believe in the Trinity because you were TOLD TO, or because you independently studied it to find out if it was true or not? And to clarify, I do believe that God the Father is God. I do believe that Jesus is God. I do believe that the Holy Spirit is God. Does that differ from what you believe? I would say, NO, it doesn’t. But you believe that all three of those are three different PEOPLE, and that is where we depart, because I believe that it is only ONE PERSON, not three people. And ONE VERSE can settle that, in John 4:24, in that God is a spirit, couple with the verses that indicate that there is ONE SPIRIT and ONE BODY.
If Jesus is indicating that God is a spirit, notice that he didn’t break it down in three’s, yet you claim that Jesus is God, which I do agree, but HOW do you come to that conclusion? Is it because the Catholics told you to believe it, and told you that you would lose your salvation if you challenged their Orthodox? Church Fathers, aka Catholics told you that priests can forgive sins. Do you believe everthing Church Fathers told you?
Just because something is Orthodox, with a capitol “O”, doesn’t mean it’s true.
OK, I’m done on the Trinity thing.
Ed Chapman
Ed writes: “The body prepared is spiritually speaking of the LAMB OF GOD, therefore, it is not discussing a human body of the life and times of Jesus.”
“The Father of Jesus is the Holy Spirit since it was the Holy Spirit that did the “overshadowing”. God the Father was SOMEWHERE ELSE, many thousands of light years away…right?”
My response: The “Lamb of God” that you had mentioned is referring to Jesus Christ and you are correct. Yet you said that it’s not a human body? what do you mean by that? Does Christ appeared literally like a literal lamb? According to the eye witnesses during those times, the baby that came out of Mary’s womb at the manger was a baby boy (not a literal lamb) possessing human body, not of a literal lamb’s flesh. God as Spirit being does not possess physical body, but when Jesus appeared or came out of Mary’s womb, He look like a mortal human being possessing human body. Your conclusion is incorrect, you said : “Lamb of God” is not discussing a human body”.
I maintain my position based on Hebrews 10:5 that the body and blood of Jesus came from above not on earth. If God was not satisfied or pleased with the blood of bulls and goats how much more with the blood of human beings produced through sexual intercourse. Christ is not a Lamb of earth, but rather “A Lamb of God” that came down from heaven. The Holy Spirit is not the Father of Jesus as what you believe is just a product of your fictitious and fertile imagination. It is grounded on speculations. It does not go with the cadence of scriptures.
jtleosala,
You had said:
“My response: The “Lamb of God” that you had mentioned is referring to Jesus Christ and you are correct. Yet you said that it’s not a human body? what do you mean by that? Does Christ appeared literally like a literal lamb? According to the eye witnesses during those times, the baby that came out of Mary’s womb at the manger was a baby boy (not a literal lamb) possessing human body, not of a literal lamb’s flesh. God as Spirit being does not possess physical body, but when Jesus appeared or came out of Mary’s womb, He look like a mortal human being possessing human body. Your conclusion is incorrect, you said : “Lamb of God” is not discussing a human body”.”
What I mean by that is exactly what I said. Hebrews Chapter 10 was discussing ANIMAL SACRIFICES, which is what the Jews do, regarding SACRIFICING for sins. HUMAN Sacrifices was NOT known to these people…animals were unsed to sacrifice.
The book of Hebrews was written TO JEWS, indicutive of what the Jews would do, based on the Law.
Hebrews 10 was not discussing Jesus, as a HUMAN being, but Jesus as a SACRIFICE who not only takes away sin, but the guilt associated with it, which animals cannot do, and that Jesus would be the LAST SACRIFICE EVER NEEDED.
And when would this sacrifice take place and why? PASSOVER…what sacrifice is used on the Passover? A Lamb. Why was the lamb important? The blood. Why was the blood important?
The topic of your Hebrews 10 refrence is about THE LAMB OF GOD, a METAPHORE of the SACRIFICE.
YOU, however, wish to make it as a doctrine of the birth of Jesus in a human body that came down from above. Sorry, JT, but Hebrews 10 isn’t discussing anything but SACRIFICES, not the birth of Christ.
Ed Chapman
jtleosala,
You had said:
“The Holy Spirit is not the Father of Jesus as what you believe is just a product of your fictitious and fertile imagination. It is grounded on speculations. It does not go with the cadence of scriptures.”
My response:
Hmmmm. Interesting statement, JT. Where was God the Father at the time that the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary? Seems that I have touched a nerve, huh? I’m just wanting you to provide some proof that God the Father is the Father of Jesus, since I can’t find any references indicating that God the Father overshadowed Mary.
Ed Chapman
Ed writes: “Seems that I have touched a nerve, huh? I’m just wanting you to provide some proof that God the Father is the Father of Jesus, since I can’t find any references indicating that God the Father overshadowed Mary.”
My Response: In Hebrews 1:8 “But unto the Son He saith, Thy throne O God is forever and ever; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Thy kingdom”, then in Luke 23:46 “… Father into Thy hands I commend My spirit” , then in Matt. 27:46 “… My God, My God why hast thou forsaken Me?” = These 3 verses reveals to you Ed, how the two persons in the Godhead addresses each other. In Hebrews 1:8 God the Father addresses the Son as God, while In Matt. 27:46, God the Son addresses the Father as God. Each of them call each other as God, then in Luke 23:46, Christ is also addressing God the Father as His Father., then in Matt. 3:17 “And lo a voice from heaven saying, this is My beloved Son, in whom I’m well pleased”- This verse reveals that the Father in heaven, His voice has been heard addressing Jesus Christ as His beloved Son. The Father recognizes Jesus Christ being baptized by John at Jordan river as His beloved Son… each of them , i.e: Christ is addressing God the Father as His Father while the Father addresses Jesus Christ as His Son. These verses I presented to you ED, are non-negotiable, the very persons involved is revealing to you ED, the absolute truth concerning them and no one can ever refute this for they don’t lie and can never be mistaken of their utterances.
jtleosala,
You had said:
“God as Spirit being does not possess physical body,”
My response:
Then we do NOT have a “LIVING” God. Why do I say that? Because LIFE “REQUIRES” a spirit residing in a BODY.
Existence is not dependent on a body, but LIFE is. The Bible, however indicates that we have a LIVING God, which MEANS that God lives in a BODY.
Deuteronomy 5:26
For who is there of all flesh, that hath heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as we have, and lived?
Joshua 3:10
And Joshua said, Hereby ye shall know that the living God is among you,
1 Samuel 17:26
And David spake to the men that stood by him, saying, What shall be done to the man that killeth this Philistine, and taketh away the reproach from Israel? for who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should defy the armies of the living God?
1 Samuel 17:36
Thy servant slew both the lion and the bear: and this uncircumcised Philistine shall be as one of them, seeing he hath defied the armies of the living God.
There are more…but you must acknowledge that LIFE requires a SPIRIT RESIDING IN A BODY, and that we have a LIVING GOD, concluding that God lives IN A BODY. Once you understand that, you MIGHT see the REASON that Jesus told Phillip what he told him.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “Then we do NOT have a “LIVING” God. Why do I say that? Because LIFE “REQUIRES” a spirit residing in a BODY. ”
“For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men,…” 1 Timothy 4
“Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God;” Hebrews 3
“It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” Hebrews 10
…and many more references to a living God.
rhutchin
“It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” Hebrews 10
br.d
And in Calvinism – it is logically impossible to not be.
Not one single impulse – including the impulse of “fearful” – can appear in the Calvinist’s neo-cranium – unless an external mind put it there.
The poor Calvinist doesn’t have even one impulse or perception, he can call his own. :-]
rhutchin
“For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men,…” 1 Timothy 4
br.d
But of course – the Calvinist has no way of knowing who the “we” are – in that statement.
And Secondly, for the Calvinist, the promises within scripture, represent the ENUNCIATED will of Calvin’s god.
Which in the majority of the time – is the direct OPPOSITE of his SECRET will.
Which means Calvin’s god’s will – is in all probability – the exact opposite.
Which of course – the Calvinist has no way of knowing.
And even if that were not the case – Calvin’s god does not permit the Calvinist brain any epistemic ability to know TRUE from FALSE on any matter anyway.
Calvinists are so blessed to have all that! :-]
rhutchin,
Yes, I know those verses, which are also in addition to what I already provided, which all prove that yes, we have a living God.
But that’s not my point.
My point is in what the word, “LIVING” entails.
What does life entail?
Answer: Spirit in a body.
Conclusion: God (John 4:24) is in a body…of Christ (Jesus), hence a “LIVING GOD”.
A spirit can and does exist without a body… but when you incorporate the word “living”, then that indicates that a spirit is in a body.
I really wish Christians would do some DEEP study of the words in the bible, and you guys, calvinist or not, would discover things that you never realized before. Do you really think that so-called church fathers had the whole thing figured out? If you do, then you’d stick to the orthodox belief that priests can forgive sins. But I know you don’t buy it. Neither do I. So can you really trust church fathers to tell you the truth? Including John Calvin?
By the way, I’m at work, so I’ll get to your other comment tonight.
Ed
chapmaned24 writes, “yes, we have a living God….A spirit can and does exist without a body… but when you incorporate the word “living”, then that indicates that a spirit is in a body. ”
So, you think that the phrase, “living God,” is always a reference to Christ?
jtleosala,
Just some LAMB references for you, in case the preacher forgot that Jesus is an animal (lamb).
John 1:29
The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
Prophesy of it:
Genesis 22:8
And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.
John 1:36
And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!
Ed writes: “…since I can’t find any references indicating that God the Father overshadowed Mary.”
My Response: Ed you are right. You cant really find any verse telling you that God the Father overshadowed Mary and caused her to become preggy. Your doctrine which you claim that the Spirit that overshadowed Mary is the Father of Jesus is grounded on speculation. It is unbiblical. The Mormons might be the ones who inspired for you to embrace that thing.
Ed writes: “What does life entail?”
“Answer: Spirit in a body.”
”
“Conclusion: God (John 4:24) is in a body…of Christ (Jesus), hence a “LIVING GOD”.
“A spirit can and does exist without a body… but when you incorporate the word “living”, then that indicates that a spirit is in a body.”
My Response: Ed, you had said that Spirit can exist without a body. Are you saying that the Spirit is a dead existing personality? … that the Spirit can only act while incorporated inside a body? that… in the absence of a body The Spirit becomes impotent and inactive? Can you show those verses to counter argue the questions I have for you?