The Impeccability of Our Lord Jesus Christ
- Thread starter IsaiahA
- 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.
That does not say "evil desires". It says, epithumias, Genitive singular feminine (strong desire). Jesus had epithumia (John 22:15) Was strongly desiring to eat the passover wih His disciples an evil desire? Paul had epithumia (Ph'p 2:23) Was Paul's strong desire to go and be with the Lord sinful? (And 1 Th. 2:17) Was Paul's strong desire to see he Thessalonians face to face an evil desire?
As I said, satan hijacked valid desires and used them to argue against trusting God and seeking God's will in terms of assessing how and when to fulfil valid desires. The ability to desire things is not sinful. But the ability to desire things can lead us away from faith, if we stop listening for God's wisdom regarding the objects of our desire.
As I said, satan hijacked valid desires and used them to argue against trusting God and seeking God's will in terms of assessing how and when to fulfil valid desires. The ability to desire things is not sinful. But the ability to desire things can lead us away from faith, if we stop listening for God's wisdom regarding the objects of our desire.
-
1
- Show all
Our choices to believe something other than God's truth does indeed come out of a man and defile him. The issue here is, is the first sin committed by a man caused by something corrupt within the man, or by the manipulation of some good God-given appetite and ability in the man to convince the man to trust something other than God. In the case of Eve and Adam, and the devil himself, who were made very good, iniquity was found in them only after they had redirected their good faculties away from trusting God and toward vain imaginations until they acted in rebellion
.BTW I think you are over-extending beyond its context the statement
"not what goes into a man, but what comes out, defiles him."
The context is dealing with the Jews' concern about what goes into the mouth defiling them, not what goes into the ears, eyes, and mind.
.BTW I think you are over-extending beyond its context the statement
"not what goes into a man, but what comes out, defiles him."
The context is dealing with the Jews' concern about what goes into the mouth defiling them, not what goes into the ears, eyes, and mind.
that what defiles person is what comes from within them isn't inimical to your point of view on original sin - deception comes from. without and free will decisions come from within.
but the more difficult questions for your position include why there is death in all mankind from the day they are born if they are born without sin, why the law requires a mother unclean after childbirth, and why Christ had to be born of a virgin
but the more difficult questions for your position include why there is death in all mankind from the day they are born if they are born without sin, why the law requires a mother unclean after childbirth, and why Christ had to be born of a virgin
-
1
- Show all
1. "Why is there death in all mankind from the day they are born if they are born without sin"?
The result of Adam's sin was that all humans' lifespans would be limited, since they no longer had access to the tree of life, the continued eating of which could keep on prolonging their lives.
Romans 5:12 says that through one man sin entered the world, and death entered the world by that sin, and so death passed to all men, on the basis of which (eph' hOi, upon which) all sinned. That is we inherited death or a limited lifespan from the fall, not sin; and that limitation of our lifespan caused us to choose sin at some time after our birth.
Rom. 5:13 - 14 says that before the Law sin was not imputed to those who had no law and yet they still died. Why? because they inherited death, not a sin nature.
Rom. 5:15 says that through Adam's sin many died, not that through Adam's sin many were conceived as sinners.
Rom. 5:16 Says the judgment on all through the one transgression was a death sentence (katakrima), not a sin nature.
Rom. 5:17 says that by one mans's offence death reigned, not that through the one offence sin was inherited and reigned.
Rom. 5:18 says that by the offence of one a death sentence (katakrima) came upon all, not that a sin nature came upon all.
Rom. 5:19 says that by one mans disobedience many were made (katestathEsan: aorist passive indicative) sinners, not were conceived or born sinners, but were made sinners, as v. 12 said, by realising they like all men had a limited lifespan in which to accumulate pleasure.
Rom. 5:20 says that when the Law came, sin exploded exponentially, because as v. 13-14 implies, where there is Law sin is imputed; but grace in Christ is sufficient to forgive all those sins.
Rom. 5:21 says that since the Law came sin has reigned unto death (meaning the second death) since the law, since the Law says that the soul that sins shall die (obviously referring to the second death, since everyone was already bound to die the first death), but the reign of grace through righteousness through faith produces aeonous life, a relationship with God and Jesus Christ and escape from the second death.
The result of Adam's sin was that all humans' lifespans would be limited, since they no longer had access to the tree of life, the continued eating of which could keep on prolonging their lives.
Romans 5:12 says that through one man sin entered the world, and death entered the world by that sin, and so death passed to all men, on the basis of which (eph' hOi, upon which) all sinned. That is we inherited death or a limited lifespan from the fall, not sin; and that limitation of our lifespan caused us to choose sin at some time after our birth.
Rom. 5:13 - 14 says that before the Law sin was not imputed to those who had no law and yet they still died. Why? because they inherited death, not a sin nature.
Rom. 5:15 says that through Adam's sin many died, not that through Adam's sin many were conceived as sinners.
Rom. 5:16 Says the judgment on all through the one transgression was a death sentence (katakrima), not a sin nature.
Rom. 5:17 says that by one mans's offence death reigned, not that through the one offence sin was inherited and reigned.
Rom. 5:18 says that by the offence of one a death sentence (katakrima) came upon all, not that a sin nature came upon all.
Rom. 5:19 says that by one mans disobedience many were made (katestathEsan: aorist passive indicative) sinners, not were conceived or born sinners, but were made sinners, as v. 12 said, by realising they like all men had a limited lifespan in which to accumulate pleasure.
Rom. 5:20 says that when the Law came, sin exploded exponentially, because as v. 13-14 implies, where there is Law sin is imputed; but grace in Christ is sufficient to forgive all those sins.
Rom. 5:21 says that since the Law came sin has reigned unto death (meaning the second death) since the law, since the Law says that the soul that sins shall die (obviously referring to the second death, since everyone was already bound to die the first death), but the reign of grace through righteousness through faith produces aeonous life, a relationship with God and Jesus Christ and escape from the second death.
2. "Why does the law require a mother unclean after childbirth,"
The bible declares that any issue of any sort of fluid from males or females renders them and the items touched by the issue as unclean. Try a bible search on the word “Issue”. It seems reasonable to assume that the majority of diseases are passed on in the transfer of bacteria and viruses via various body fluids. So the multiple injunctions requiring washing with water and then separation from others until evening after an issue of body fluids were probably to minimise the spread of diseases. If the issue was still happening after evening the person was unclean for another washing and another day, until the issue stopped.
Child-birth involved a lot of body fluids, so made the mother and child unclean. But there was ritually assigned a period of eight days for the child and forty days for the mother. This may be prophetic symbolism relating to the birth of the church.
The church was born when the head of the church was anointed after His resurrection. WE read in John 20:17 that Jesus told Mary Magdalene to stop touching Him because He had not yet ascended to His Father, but in Matt. 28:9, when He later appeared to the women on their way to the apostles, they were permitted to grab hold of His feet and worship Him. Between these two events, Jesus had presented Himself in heaven to the Father and had being declared clean and received back the glory He had had with the Father before the world began. Zechariah sees this event in a vision and records it in Zec. 3. The head of the church was washed with the water of God’s word (Eph. 5:25-27). ”And [the angel of the LORD] … spake… saying, “Take away the filthy garment from Him” And to Him He said, “Behold I have cause your iniquity to pass from you, and I will clothe you with a change of raiment.”
Jesus then returned to earth and appeared to the women, and to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, and to Peter, and then to ten of the eleven surviving apostles in the evening - i.e. minus Thomas, who was absent (John 20:24) and Judas Iscariot who was dead (Matt. 27:5). The ten confessed with their mouths Jesus to be Lord, and believed in their hearts that He had risen from the dead (John 20:25a), and so were also cleansed by the washing with the water of the word (Eph. 5:25-27), and were given the Holy Spirit.(John 20:22). But one member of the newborn church was not yet washed by believing the word, Thomas saying, “Unless I put my finger into the print of the nails and thrust my hand into His side, I will not believe” (John 25b). But after eight days John 20:26), which in Hebrew means after part of a day plus six days plus part of a day, Thomas believed (John 20:28) and on the eighth day from the resurrection the entire baby church if Christ’s inner circle was clean.
Jesus appeared to His disciples for 40 days after his resurrection, “being seen by them and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God (Acts 1:3) after which He returned to heaven? The newborn church had been given enough understanding of the word and believed enough of the word to fend off lies that could infect the body of Christ. The body of Christ, the new-born church was clean and infection free after 40 days.
That’s what I believe the Lord told me when I consulted with Him about this question.
The bible declares that any issue of any sort of fluid from males or females renders them and the items touched by the issue as unclean. Try a bible search on the word “Issue”. It seems reasonable to assume that the majority of diseases are passed on in the transfer of bacteria and viruses via various body fluids. So the multiple injunctions requiring washing with water and then separation from others until evening after an issue of body fluids were probably to minimise the spread of diseases. If the issue was still happening after evening the person was unclean for another washing and another day, until the issue stopped.
Child-birth involved a lot of body fluids, so made the mother and child unclean. But there was ritually assigned a period of eight days for the child and forty days for the mother. This may be prophetic symbolism relating to the birth of the church.
The church was born when the head of the church was anointed after His resurrection. WE read in John 20:17 that Jesus told Mary Magdalene to stop touching Him because He had not yet ascended to His Father, but in Matt. 28:9, when He later appeared to the women on their way to the apostles, they were permitted to grab hold of His feet and worship Him. Between these two events, Jesus had presented Himself in heaven to the Father and had being declared clean and received back the glory He had had with the Father before the world began. Zechariah sees this event in a vision and records it in Zec. 3. The head of the church was washed with the water of God’s word (Eph. 5:25-27). ”And [the angel of the LORD] … spake… saying, “Take away the filthy garment from Him” And to Him He said, “Behold I have cause your iniquity to pass from you, and I will clothe you with a change of raiment.”
Jesus then returned to earth and appeared to the women, and to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, and to Peter, and then to ten of the eleven surviving apostles in the evening - i.e. minus Thomas, who was absent (John 20:24) and Judas Iscariot who was dead (Matt. 27:5). The ten confessed with their mouths Jesus to be Lord, and believed in their hearts that He had risen from the dead (John 20:25a), and so were also cleansed by the washing with the water of the word (Eph. 5:25-27), and were given the Holy Spirit.(John 20:22). But one member of the newborn church was not yet washed by believing the word, Thomas saying, “Unless I put my finger into the print of the nails and thrust my hand into His side, I will not believe” (John 25b). But after eight days John 20:26), which in Hebrew means after part of a day plus six days plus part of a day, Thomas believed (John 20:28) and on the eighth day from the resurrection the entire baby church if Christ’s inner circle was clean.
Jesus appeared to His disciples for 40 days after his resurrection, “being seen by them and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God (Acts 1:3) after which He returned to heaven? The newborn church had been given enough understanding of the word and believed enough of the word to fend off lies that could infect the body of Christ. The body of Christ, the new-born church was clean and infection free after 40 days.
That’s what I believe the Lord told me when I consulted with Him about this question.
3. "Why did Christ have to be born of a virgin?”
Because God wanted to demonstrate His love for us by suffering and dying in our place. Therefore, the suffering servant of Is. 53 had to be God, or from a trinitarian perspective, one of the three Persons who has without beginning co-existed with Father and Holy Spirit as the one God. If God had merely inhabited a child conceived from Joseph and Marya human Christ taken over by the Son. We would have an Apollinarian Christ, and the death of His body would be no more God dying than the death of a demon possessed person would be the death of the demon.
Scriptures say that the Saviour needed to be God, and not just a God-possessed man.
Is. 9:6 He shall be called…everlasting Father, Mighty God…
2 Cor. 5:19 God was by means of Christ/in Christ reconciling us to God.
Luke 1:31-35 “You shall conceive in your womb, and bring forth a son, and He shall be called Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give to Him the throne of his father David: and He shall reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom shall have no end….The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you you, therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.
Heb. 1:6 When He brings the first-begotten into the world he says, “Let all the angels of God worship Him.”
Heb. 1:8 But of the Son He says, Your throne, O God, is forever and ever…” 10. And, “You, Lord, laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of our hands.
Rom. 5:8 God commends His love for us in that while were were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Good questions.
Because God wanted to demonstrate His love for us by suffering and dying in our place. Therefore, the suffering servant of Is. 53 had to be God, or from a trinitarian perspective, one of the three Persons who has without beginning co-existed with Father and Holy Spirit as the one God. If God had merely inhabited a child conceived from Joseph and Marya human Christ taken over by the Son. We would have an Apollinarian Christ, and the death of His body would be no more God dying than the death of a demon possessed person would be the death of the demon.
Scriptures say that the Saviour needed to be God, and not just a God-possessed man.
Is. 9:6 He shall be called…everlasting Father, Mighty God…
2 Cor. 5:19 God was by means of Christ/in Christ reconciling us to God.
Luke 1:31-35 “You shall conceive in your womb, and bring forth a son, and He shall be called Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give to Him the throne of his father David: and He shall reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom shall have no end….The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you you, therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.
Heb. 1:6 When He brings the first-begotten into the world he says, “Let all the angels of God worship Him.”
Heb. 1:8 But of the Son He says, Your throne, O God, is forever and ever…” 10. And, “You, Lord, laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of our hands.
Rom. 5:8 God commends His love for us in that while were were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Good questions.
-
1
- Show all
One could argue from scripture that according to the apostle John, all children of God are impeccable.
1 John 2:9 Whoever has been born of God does not commit sin; for His seed remains in him and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
And yet we are tempted and we can yield to that temptation.
But 1 Cor. 10:13 says there is always a way of escape. Can we not just conclude that Jesus was tempted but always took the way of escape God provided.
1 John 2:9 Whoever has been born of God does not commit sin; for His seed remains in him and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
And yet we are tempted and we can yield to that temptation.
But 1 Cor. 10:13 says there is always a way of escape. Can we not just conclude that Jesus was tempted but always took the way of escape God provided.
poor translation. the Greek verb tense of the word represented in English here by 'commit' indicates a continual or often repeated action, not a one time occurrence. English doesn't have the precision Greek does.
Whoever is born of God doesn't continue in sin - because The Impeccable Seed is in them, and that Seed doesn't return to God empty.
Whoever is born of God doesn't continue in sin - because The Impeccable Seed is in them, and that Seed doesn't return to God empty.
-
1
- Show all
Context always clarifies. The first verse of that chapter states...
1 John 2:1
“My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:”
John is telling us that we must try to not sin. It is to be our goal. It is like a father telling his son to be a good boy. The father knows that this "impeccable perfection" is not a possibility. We must maintain the "want to".
1 John 2:1
“My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:”
John is telling us that we must try to not sin. It is to be our goal. It is like a father telling his son to be a good boy. The father knows that this "impeccable perfection" is not a possibility. We must maintain the "want to".
I don't think this is how we should argue this point.
Why?
1.) Adam had no sin nature to which temptation could attach itself... but Adam DID sin.
2.) Therefore this cannot be the correct explanation for impeccability, and that seems to compel us to posit a different argument.
(Also, I don't think this is the traditional method for arguing impeccability.)
This is a great topic.
But this whole matter of thinking through how the two natures of Christ interacted...
it's not easy stuff.
God Bless.
.
Why?
1.) Adam had no sin nature to which temptation could attach itself... but Adam DID sin.
2.) Therefore this cannot be the correct explanation for impeccability, and that seems to compel us to posit a different argument.
(Also, I don't think this is the traditional method for arguing impeccability.)
This is a great topic.
But this whole matter of thinking through how the two natures of Christ interacted...
it's not easy stuff.
God Bless.
.
-
1
- Show all