Understanding God’s election
- Thread starter dougcho
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Okay, Ladies and Gents, let's get started. First off, we can talk about anything we want. Right now, I personally have some difficult passages or theological questions I would like to explore.
One of the questions deals with a controversial theological question: The impeccability or peccability of Christ. Was the incarnate Christ capable of sinning or not?
One of the questions deals with a controversial theological question: The impeccability or peccability of Christ. Was the incarnate Christ capable of sinning or not?
Should the question perhaps be worded a little differently?
Such as, did Jesus Christ have a sin nature, or not?
He was tempted in all ways but did not sin.
He was tempted in all ways as we are, but did not sin.
He did have a human will which was not 100% aligned with God's.
Also, peccability does not seem to be a word.
Antonyms & Near Antonyms of impeccable:
bad
imperfect
inadequate
insufficient
defective
flawed
faulty
incomplete
deficient
amiss
wanting
unfinished
unpolished
censurable
reproachable
fallible
broken
atrocious
spoiled
impaired
wrong
damaged
injured
misshapen
incorrect
inaccurate
blighted
wretched
malformed
execrable
imprecise
inexact
blemished
disfigured
vitiated
marred
defaced
Antonyms & Near Antonyms of impeccability
guilt
responsibility
culpability
blameworthiness
fault
evil
guiltiness
corruption
sinfulness
immorality
blame
criminality
wickedness
depravity
harmfulness
offensiveness
reprehensibleness
The term "peccable" is a word if we are to believe Dictionary.com. This adjective means "liable to sin or error".
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/peccable
Secondly, my dear sister, I framed my question carefully and intentionally avoided the sin nature issue. The reason being is that Adam came into this world with no sin nature AND indwelt by the Holy Spirit, yet, he sinned! Therefore, even if we posit that the Last Adam also came into the world without a sin nature, my question is legitimate because of what I just stated above about the first Adam. Since Adam sinned, apart from having a sin nature and being alive unto God by the indwelling Holy Spirit, then why couldn't the Last Adam have sinned also?
Furthermore, while I personally believe that the sin nature is passed on by the male and that this was the likely reason for God bypassing how the ancients normally and commonly understood the term "seed" to refer to the male's seed, and instead promising that the Messiah would come from the Woman's seed, this doesn't mean that my inference from overall revelation is correct. The virgin birth of Christ, while necessary, doesn't necessarily mean that it was for the reason I say (or as you might recall Genez said also).
Finally, what I bolded in red above was probably a typo. You did mean to say that Jesus' "human will" was 100% in alignment with God's, didn't you?
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/peccable
Secondly, my dear sister, I framed my question carefully and intentionally avoided the sin nature issue. The reason being is that Adam came into this world with no sin nature AND indwelt by the Holy Spirit, yet, he sinned! Therefore, even if we posit that the Last Adam also came into the world without a sin nature, my question is legitimate because of what I just stated above about the first Adam. Since Adam sinned, apart from having a sin nature and being alive unto God by the indwelling Holy Spirit, then why couldn't the Last Adam have sinned also?
Furthermore, while I personally believe that the sin nature is passed on by the male and that this was the likely reason for God bypassing how the ancients normally and commonly understood the term "seed" to refer to the male's seed, and instead promising that the Messiah would come from the Woman's seed, this doesn't mean that my inference from overall revelation is correct. The virgin birth of Christ, while necessary, doesn't necessarily mean that it was for the reason I say (or as you might recall Genez said also).
Finally, what I bolded in red above was probably a typo. You did mean to say that Jesus' "human will" was 100% in alignment with God's, didn't you?
This morning I wound up my devotional meditations in 1Chronicles -- a book that has more genealogies in it than Carter has little liver pills <g>. Anyhoo...the last chapter in the book (29) speaks a good deal about the future temple and how David procured many if not most of the materials that Solomon would need to build the Lord's temple. And the writer observed how the people rejoiced at the leaders' willing response to David's requests for workers, materials, donations, etc. Of course, most freewillers would point to these kinds of passages as "proof" that the sons of men have "freewill". Yet, when we get down to v.10 in the chapter in which David begins his prayer of praise, thanksgiving and supplication to the Lord, we read these amazing words toward the end of the prayer:
1 Chron 29:14-19
14 "But who am I, and who are my people, that we should be able to give as generously as this? Everything comes from you, and we have given you only what comes from your hand. 15 We are aliens and strangers in your sight, as were all our forefathers. Our days on earth are like a shadow, without hope. 16 O LORD our God, as for all this abundance that we have provided for building you a temple for your Holy Name, it comes from your hand, and all of it belongs to you. 17 I know, my God, that you test the heart and are pleased with integrity. All these things have I given willingly and with honest intent. And now I have seen with joy how willingly your people who are here have given to you. 18 O LORD, God of our fathers Abraham, Isaac and Israel, keep this desire in the hearts of your people forever, and keep their hearts loyal to you. 19 And give my son Solomon the wholehearted devotion to keep your commands, requirements and decrees and to do everything to build the palatial structure for which I have provided."
NIV
Since David is praying to God to [effectually] keep (or maintain or preserve) the willing desire in the hearts of the people, and even for Solomon's "wholehearted devotion to keep your commands", then why would anyone think that God didn't put those desires in the people's hearts to begin with?
1 Chron 29:14-19
14 "But who am I, and who are my people, that we should be able to give as generously as this? Everything comes from you, and we have given you only what comes from your hand. 15 We are aliens and strangers in your sight, as were all our forefathers. Our days on earth are like a shadow, without hope. 16 O LORD our God, as for all this abundance that we have provided for building you a temple for your Holy Name, it comes from your hand, and all of it belongs to you. 17 I know, my God, that you test the heart and are pleased with integrity. All these things have I given willingly and with honest intent. And now I have seen with joy how willingly your people who are here have given to you. 18 O LORD, God of our fathers Abraham, Isaac and Israel, keep this desire in the hearts of your people forever, and keep their hearts loyal to you. 19 And give my son Solomon the wholehearted devotion to keep your commands, requirements and decrees and to do everything to build the palatial structure for which I have provided."
NIV
Since David is praying to God to [effectually] keep (or maintain or preserve) the willing desire in the hearts of the people, and even for Solomon's "wholehearted devotion to keep your commands", then why would anyone think that God didn't put those desires in the people's hearts to begin with?
Something that so many miss is that the sin nature is passed from one to another through the man's DNA. Some may find it hard to believe that such a nature can and does pass from father to children through his seed, but that is what it is. If that were not the case, then the body of Jesus having been born of a virgin, with His body's DNA not being polluted with the seed of man, the lack of a sin nature in Christ becomes more apparent, and why.
Romans 7:14-17
14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that [it is] good.
17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
The new creation is the means by which we, born of the seed of man, are justified and delivered from our sin, as Paul illustrates here.
So Jesus being tempted as any man, that doesn't denote a sin nature.
1 Corinthians 10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.
We hear much about being "Christ-like." Yes, and we are made that way by the filling of Holy Spirit unto the new birth, a new creation, so that it is sin within us that does the sin. Christ, who was tempted, did not sin since there was no sin in Him by nature. He was tempted, yes, but His nature was not that of sin. We do sin, but with us in Him, being made into Hs body, it is not we who sin, but sin within us by the flesh, with which is our war. In other words, because of Christ, sin has become the exception rather than the rule for all who are in Him. The sin we may do, it is already forgiven.
MM
Romans 7:14-17
14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that [it is] good.
17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
The new creation is the means by which we, born of the seed of man, are justified and delivered from our sin, as Paul illustrates here.
So Jesus being tempted as any man, that doesn't denote a sin nature.
1 Corinthians 10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.
We hear much about being "Christ-like." Yes, and we are made that way by the filling of Holy Spirit unto the new birth, a new creation, so that it is sin within us that does the sin. Christ, who was tempted, did not sin since there was no sin in Him by nature. He was tempted, yes, but His nature was not that of sin. We do sin, but with us in Him, being made into Hs body, it is not we who sin, but sin within us by the flesh, with which is our war. In other words, because of Christ, sin has become the exception rather than the rule for all who are in Him. The sin we may do, it is already forgiven.
MM
-
1
-
1
- Show all
First off – Let me say that we have one God in three. To say that our Christ could sin is to say that the Father and HS could as well.
It is true that the first Adam was not created with a sin nature, however, he certainly had the ability to choose to Obey God and remain that way or to listen to Eve and die.
Next we look at fallen man. Because of Adam's failure, man has lost the ability to do good. His thoughts and actions are only evil continually.
I therefore believe that Christ is above both Adam and fallen man in that He is not capable of sin. He even proclaims in John 6:38, “I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me".
Secondly, Christ was not born of man. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit. This alone breaks the sin chain and renders Him incapable of sin.
There are some things that are not clearly stated in the Bible. We are created to work them out on our own by faith in a perfect God.
It is true that the first Adam was not created with a sin nature, however, he certainly had the ability to choose to Obey God and remain that way or to listen to Eve and die.
Next we look at fallen man. Because of Adam's failure, man has lost the ability to do good. His thoughts and actions are only evil continually.
I therefore believe that Christ is above both Adam and fallen man in that He is not capable of sin. He even proclaims in John 6:38, “I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me".
Secondly, Christ was not born of man. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit. This alone breaks the sin chain and renders Him incapable of sin.
There are some things that are not clearly stated in the Bible. We are created to work them out on our own by faith in a perfect God.
-
1
- Show all
There are many who have heard the gospel.
There would be many who have thought about what they heard.
There are also many that attend church then drift away after some time.
I have witnessed these people drifting away from Jesus even after years of being a Christian.
Yet, twenty years down the track there is a smaller group who press on in their faith.
If we are Totally Depraved how can people believe in Jesus in the first place?
There would be many who have thought about what they heard.
There are also many that attend church then drift away after some time.
I have witnessed these people drifting away from Jesus even after years of being a Christian.
Yet, twenty years down the track there is a smaller group who press on in their faith.
If we are Totally Depraved how can people believe in Jesus in the first place?
Revelation 14:6-8
And I saw another angel flying in midheaven, having an eternal gospel to preach to those who live on the earth,
and to every nation and tribe and tongue and people.
So we have Natural Revelation, Angelic Revelation, and General Revelation.
I have heard of people meeting God in a near death experience.
The extended forms of revelation then becomes, Natural Revelation, Angelic Revelation, NDE Revelation, and General Revelation.
And I saw another angel flying in midheaven, having an eternal gospel to preach to those who live on the earth,
and to every nation and tribe and tongue and people.
So we have Natural Revelation, Angelic Revelation, and General Revelation.
I have heard of people meeting God in a near death experience.
The extended forms of revelation then becomes, Natural Revelation, Angelic Revelation, NDE Revelation, and General Revelation.
I want to thank you and Magnetta for your thoughtful and I'm sure heart-felt replies. And I will confess that up until a couple of days ago, I was staunchly in the Impeccability of Christ camp, as probably most Reformed folks are and likely a lot of Arminians as well. But right at this moment of time, I'm no longer dogmatic on this question due to a conversation I had with a pastor of a Presbyterian church that I'm checking out and have been attending for the last several weeks. So...let me just briefly start at the beginning.
My wife and I moved a little over two months ago out of the area we were in, so we need to find a new church. Two days ago, I had about a two-hour conversation with this new pastor in which we discussed numerous topics briefly, and one of the things that briefly came up in the conversation was this question of the Impeccability of Christ. He made one short, succinct theological observation about this doctrine that truly caught my attention and has had me rethinking my own long-held position. So now I'll share what he said that just caught me and totally threw me off balance. His take on this question is that Jesus Christ, being totally different from the Father and the Holy Spirit, since neither of these persons possess a human nature (which is why I bolded your first sentence above), still had a couple of things in common with the first Adam. Like Adam, Christ was not born like any other man; and like Adam he was filled with the Holy Spirit, which is why I highlighted the other sentence in your post (I'll elaborate on this last point in a moment.) So, this pastor's take on this question was this: Christ being fully divine could not have sinned; yet, Christ also being fully human could have sinned! This comment fully resonated with me immediately because I'm keenly aware that scripture is literally loaded with Paradoxes! He could not have, yet at the same time He could have!
We know that from Jesus' conception he was filled with the Holy Spirit. And we know Jesus always walked in the Spirit. And the Holy Spirit was Jesus' enabling power to perform signs, wonders and miracles. And He always did the things He saw the Father doing. Without doubt, this accounts for his title Faithful and True (Rev 19:11). Great was Jesus' faithfulness to his Father!
In a very similar fashion, the first Adam had to have been filled with the Holy Spirit because the only way he could have died on the day he disobeyed is for him to have been separated from the Spirit of Life.
These facts raise the very question that theologians in the Peccability Camp raise: Could Jesus been truly fully human and at the same time not have the capability of sinning? Since the first Adam obviously had this capability, even with the tremendous spiritual advantages that he had over all his progeny, then could Jesus in his humanity not also have this capability? While it's true that Christ never sinned -- that He was/is indeed the Spotless Lamb of God -- this must be owing to his divinity which the first Adam did not have.
This is why I'm rethinking this issue. Whether or not Jesus came into this world with a fallen nature is virtually a moot question since the first Adam sinned while not being encumbered by such a nature.
This is just food for thought that I'm throwing out there for reflection and consideration.
My wife and I moved a little over two months ago out of the area we were in, so we need to find a new church. Two days ago, I had about a two-hour conversation with this new pastor in which we discussed numerous topics briefly, and one of the things that briefly came up in the conversation was this question of the Impeccability of Christ. He made one short, succinct theological observation about this doctrine that truly caught my attention and has had me rethinking my own long-held position. So now I'll share what he said that just caught me and totally threw me off balance. His take on this question is that Jesus Christ, being totally different from the Father and the Holy Spirit, since neither of these persons possess a human nature (which is why I bolded your first sentence above), still had a couple of things in common with the first Adam. Like Adam, Christ was not born like any other man; and like Adam he was filled with the Holy Spirit, which is why I highlighted the other sentence in your post (I'll elaborate on this last point in a moment.) So, this pastor's take on this question was this: Christ being fully divine could not have sinned; yet, Christ also being fully human could have sinned! This comment fully resonated with me immediately because I'm keenly aware that scripture is literally loaded with Paradoxes! He could not have, yet at the same time He could have!
We know that from Jesus' conception he was filled with the Holy Spirit. And we know Jesus always walked in the Spirit. And the Holy Spirit was Jesus' enabling power to perform signs, wonders and miracles. And He always did the things He saw the Father doing. Without doubt, this accounts for his title Faithful and True (Rev 19:11). Great was Jesus' faithfulness to his Father!
In a very similar fashion, the first Adam had to have been filled with the Holy Spirit because the only way he could have died on the day he disobeyed is for him to have been separated from the Spirit of Life.
These facts raise the very question that theologians in the Peccability Camp raise: Could Jesus been truly fully human and at the same time not have the capability of sinning? Since the first Adam obviously had this capability, even with the tremendous spiritual advantages that he had over all his progeny, then could Jesus in his humanity not also have this capability? While it's true that Christ never sinned -- that He was/is indeed the Spotless Lamb of God -- this must be owing to his divinity which the first Adam did not have.
This is why I'm rethinking this issue. Whether or not Jesus came into this world with a fallen nature is virtually a moot question since the first Adam sinned while not being encumbered by such a nature.
This is just food for thought that I'm throwing out there for reflection and consideration.
Mankind is totally depraved because every single human being is caught up in this endless DEATH spiral due to sin. The only way to escape this death spiral is to have life imparted to the soul. See my post 8749 re 2Cor 4:1-6 and then answer my question that I presented a couple of days ago re this passage: Did God cure your satanic blindness before or after you came to faith?
That is indeed a good question.
Have you ever known anyone of that experience in this life?
How would you determine whether they had ever truly believed in the death, burial and resurrection on the third day of Christ or not? Would you ask them? What if they said yes, they once believed? What then? What if they said no?
I hope you don't mind that I'm just trying to figure out where you're going with this.
MM
Have you ever known anyone of that experience in this life?
How would you determine whether they had ever truly believed in the death, burial and resurrection on the third day of Christ or not? Would you ask them? What if they said yes, they once believed? What then? What if they said no?
I hope you don't mind that I'm just trying to figure out where you're going with this.
MM
How do you understand total depravity?
People can attend church, learn the hymns, and through the power of the will stifle sinful urges, and still never be born from above.
Those who fall away were never saved. It is impossible to be unborn from above. It is a supernatural act of God. It is impossible to be separated from the love of God in Christ Jesus. It is impossible to be taken out of the hands of God the Father or God the Son.
People can attend church, learn the hymns, and through the power of the will stifle sinful urges, and still never be born from above.
Those who fall away were never saved. It is impossible to be unborn from above. It is a supernatural act of God. It is impossible to be separated from the love of God in Christ Jesus. It is impossible to be taken out of the hands of God the Father or God the Son.
This is a good example of the difficulty encoutntered when casting hypotheticals into a question those things that never did happen.
That's like the question, "What if Adam had not eaten the forbidden fruit?" It's a dead end rationalizing, which leads to no real destination because it rests solely upon the speculations made by mortals who are not omniscient.
The Lord did not, does not and cannot do that which is against His own nature. So, given this, could the Lord have sinned? I would say no, because sin was not a part of His nature given that He was not of the seed of Adam.
Given that He was tempted; all that shows is that His humanity that He took upon Himself connected Him to the means by which He could experience what mankind experiences with temptation, but He was still governed by His Deity, His higher nature, and thus the question of commission of sin becomes moot and powerless in acquiring any measure of traction upon the surface of reason.
MM
That's like the question, "What if Adam had not eaten the forbidden fruit?" It's a dead end rationalizing, which leads to no real destination because it rests solely upon the speculations made by mortals who are not omniscient.
The Lord did not, does not and cannot do that which is against His own nature. So, given this, could the Lord have sinned? I would say no, because sin was not a part of His nature given that He was not of the seed of Adam.
Given that He was tempted; all that shows is that His humanity that He took upon Himself connected Him to the means by which He could experience what mankind experiences with temptation, but He was still governed by His Deity, His higher nature, and thus the question of commission of sin becomes moot and powerless in acquiring any measure of traction upon the surface of reason.
MM
To answer your hypothetical question: No, it wouldn't be. Not doing the Father's will actually defines sin in that all sin is rebellion against God. And sin is never the will of God. Could Jesus as the Son of Man defy his Father's will? If this pastor I spoke with is right, then yes he could have. But as the preexisting, eternal Son of God he most definitely could not.
The more I contemplate this theological question, the more I'm believing that the true answer may be as incomprehensible as eternity itself, or the Trinity or the Incarnation. I think those in the Impeccability camp, in wanting to safeguard and emphasize the divinity of Christ, did so at the expense of his humanity. This is probably a natural tendency because so many don't believe in the divinity of Christ. As a matter of fact, I have a book in my library (that is still boxed up somewhere <g>) wherein the author, wanting to comfort his readers that while Jesus was fully God, he was also fully human -- just as human as he was and his readers are. So, his book focused mainly on the Gospels and the Book of Hebrews in which he drew upon passages that emphasized Jesus' humanity. The author wanted his readers to understand that Jesus could indeed empathize with all our frailties, weaknesses, faults, false starts, backslidings, etc. Anyhow...forgive me, please, because I have digressed.
The more I contemplate this theological question, the more I'm believing that the true answer may be as incomprehensible as eternity itself, or the Trinity or the Incarnation. I think those in the Impeccability camp, in wanting to safeguard and emphasize the divinity of Christ, did so at the expense of his humanity. This is probably a natural tendency because so many don't believe in the divinity of Christ. As a matter of fact, I have a book in my library (that is still boxed up somewhere <g>) wherein the author, wanting to comfort his readers that while Jesus was fully God, he was also fully human -- just as human as he was and his readers are. So, his book focused mainly on the Gospels and the Book of Hebrews in which he drew upon passages that emphasized Jesus' humanity. The author wanted his readers to understand that Jesus could indeed empathize with all our frailties, weaknesses, faults, false starts, backslidings, etc. Anyhow...forgive me, please, because I have digressed.