Could Christ have sinned.

[reddogs]

Christ was made flesh so mankind through His blood could bridge the gulf that sin had created between man and God. Satan says the lie that Christ could not sin to make his life and sacrifice a charade, as the whole purpose of Christ coming was to show that sin could be defeated and overcome. If Christ could not sin, then Satan would be proven right by default, as there was no temptation, no chance of failure, no solution to Gods holy demands of the wages of sin. But Christ alone met the holy demands of God through His sinless life and substitutionary death. Satan was defeated....

 

[reddogs]

Satan would love people to believe that Christ was "exempt" and that Christ couldn't possibly have sinned.
It would prove that Satan was right-- that God has laws that human beings can't obey. It would make God appear unjust and unreasonable.

 

[k4c]

It would prove that Satan was right-- that God has laws that human beings can't obey. It would make God appear unjust and unreasonable.

Fallen man can't keep the Law of God nor does he want to.

Romans 8:7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so;

Perfect man even sinned against God.

Romans 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience (Adam) many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience (Jesus) many will be made righteous.

Perfect angels even sinned against God.

Ezekiel 28:14-16 "You were the anointed cherub who covers; I established you; you were on the holy mountain of God; you walked back and forth in the midst of fiery stones. You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, till iniquity was found in you. "By the abundance of your trading you became filled with violence within, and you sinned;

Does Ellen White present this theroy that Satan has brought charge against God saying man can't keep God's law so God is unjust and unreasonable?

If this is true can you show me how she came to this conclusion from the Scriptures?

 

[Pythons]

Satan would love people to believe that Christ was "exempt" and that Christ couldn't possibly have sinned.
It would prove that Satan was right-- that God has laws that human beings can't obey. It would make God appear unjust and unreasonable.

I don't remember reading this concept in Scripture. "God" sends Jesus to earth to justify or vindicate His Law?

The Law that was broken was that Man ate from the tree that gave him the power to know the difference between good and evil. Man was not intended to KNOW EVIL and once he experienced it, game over!

Christ came into this world w/out sin and by Nature remained in that state. The same God who expelled our first Parents Himself came to save us. God did not come to earth to prove He could keep His own law perfectly? Does that even sound reasonable?

I'm afraid I agree with K4C here, obviously Ellen said something about it being "that way". How about you post up what she said so we can look at it.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Isn't this the official SDA understanding of the issue? (note the part made bold):

4. Son:
God the eternal Son became incarnate in Jesus Christ. Through Him all things were created, the character of God is revealed, the salvation of humanity is accomplished, and the world is judged. Forever truly God, He became also truly man, Jesus the Christ. He was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. He lived and experienced temptation as a human being, but perfectly exemplified the righteousness and love of God. By His miracles He manifested God's power and was attested as God's promised Messiah. He suffered and died voluntarily on the cross for our sins and in our place, was raised from the dead, and ascended to minister in the heavenly sanctuary in our behalf. He will come again in glory for the final deliverance of His people and the restoration of all things. (John 1:1-3, 14; Col. 1:15-19; John 10:30; 14:9; Rom. 6:23; 2 Cor. 5:17-19; John 5:22; Luke 1:35; Phil. 2:5-11; Heb. 2:9-18; 1 Cor. 15:3, 4; Heb. 8:1, 2; John 14:1-3.)

 

[Pythons]

Where does it imply that Jesus came to "vindicate" God's law?

 

[FreeinChrist]

If people are getting tired of debating they shouldn't come into the 'Discussion and Debate' section of a discussion forum. Just an idea...

In Christ alone...

This is not the "Discussion and Debate" section and hasn't been for a bit. That means you need to respect that this is the SDA forum and it is not okay to debate against the teachings of the SDA church here.

 

[freeindeed2]

This is not the "Discussion and Debate" section and hasn't been for a bit. That means you need to respect that this is the SDA forum and it is not okay to debate against the teachings of the SDA church here.

When I posted that it was still called 'Discussion and Debate'. I realize that nobody is allowed to debate SDA beliefs, theology, doctrines, teachings, the 28 Fundamentalisms, or the extra-biblical and SDA authoritative writings of the SDA prophetess if it disagrees with any/all of them, regardless of whether it's from Scripture or not. While I believe Paul (and others) would do so anyway and end up getting stoned, thrown out, asked to leave, imprisoned, or otherwise persecuted, I also know the nature of the name of this sub-forum just recently changed in an attempt to prevent anyone from posting anything that says anything to the contrary. Believe me, I get it. (4th generational SDA and over a decade of SDA pastoring doesn't happen without knowing how things really work in SDAism. ) This is nothing new and only demonstrates (virtually) the nature of SDAism that has always existed.

In Christ alone...

 

[FreeinChrist]

I am not SDA freeindeed2 so the your criticism is falling short.
The Traditional SDA deserve a forum like the Catholics and Baptists and Anglicans and Lutherans and Salvation Army. It is not okay to go into those forums and criticize their doctrine and it should not be okay here as well.

Amd yes, you did post that comment earlier when it said Discussion and Debate - it just seems to be necessary to remind folks about this.

 

[freeindeed2]

I am not SDA freeindeed2 so the your criticism is falling short.
The Traditional SDA deserve a forum like the Catholics and Baptists and Anglicans and Lutherans and Salvation Army. It is not okay to go into those forums and criticize their doctrine and it should not be okay here as well.

Amd yes, you did post that comment earlier when it said Discussion and Debate - it just seems to be necessary to remind folks about this.

Free, I wasn't criticizing you and I fully realize you aren't SDA.

And I get that CF tries to remain 'neutral' to sects, religious movements, denominations, and even Denomination-specific Theology / General Theology / Unorthodox Theology, etc., but doesn't the true Gospel of Christ trump all of that, regardless of all of the 'man-made' beliefs coming from sources outside the Bible? (Probably not. )

Maybe 'they' should consider renaming this site 'Religious Forums' instead of 'Christian Forums'? That way, regardless of the departure from Scripture to establish 'beliefs' it would be ALL-inclusive and could include all forms of religious teachings. Just a thought. I know full-well how 'beliefs' work and how personally people hold to them. That's why people who speak anything contrary to held beliefs are considered to be 'trouble-makers', attackers, harassers, etc. Again, if I believe the earth is flat...it's just a 'belief'. It's not personal.

At any rate, I am not speaking against the 'official' teachings of SDAism. Paul made a practice of teaching in the Jewish synagogues because he cared about those whom he formerly considered himself a part of (until he got kicked out, or stoned...). Getting kicked out, told to leave, or stoned was never his goal, but the TRUE GOSPEL is bigger than CF (or any other man-made 'thing'). But...you probably already know that.

In Christ alone...

 

[Pythons]

FreeInChrist,

I directly asked Mr. Fawcett this question and he opted out of it. Perhaps you would be willing to answer it.

Is it to be understood that members within the SDA denomination as well as people outside it CAN'T discuss ANYTHING that goes against what the Prophet Ellen White said in her books?

The way I've understood it thus far was that people had to keep their discussion to things outside of the 28 FB's they might not see eye to eye on. Ellen indeed does teach some things that are not mentioned within the FB so does that mean that;

A) She is the ultimate authority and interprets the Scriptures for the SDA's.

or

B) We can discuss subjects that are not in the FB but are taught by the Prophet?

What is it?

 

[FreeinChrist]

Pythons, is it okay to argue against purgatory or the perpetual virginity of of Mary in OBOB? No. It is not okay to argue against SDA doctrine in the Traditional Adventist forum. The Fundamental beliefs include this:

18. The Gift of Prophecy:
One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. White . As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. (Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 2:14-21; Heb. 1:1-3; Rev. 12:17; 19:10.)
Note it does NOT say she is the "ultimate authority" - that is your wording. However, her writings are regarded a "continuing and authoritiative source of truth" - so it is not an option to pick either a or b as you wrote them. Like the other congregational forums, you cannot debate against SDA beliefs.

Any furthur discussion of this will need to go to pm - the thread has gone off topic.

 

[cesty]

Last post you will see me make in the SDA forum Free. Thank you for answering what Fawcett would not.

This comment proves that you were never really here for fellowship (on a friendly basis); rather, you came here simply because you want to argue with us. And now that you see that you can't do what you have been doing all along you are leaving.

 

[freeindeed2]

This comment proves that you were never really here for fellowship (on a friendly basis); rather, you came here simply because you want to argue with us. And now that you see that you can't do what you have been doing all along you are leaving.

What is your point? Are you trying to get him to stay?

 

[freeindeed2]

It would have been easier for the rule to simply state that no one can debate against anything Ellen White said in any of her teachings. That would have saved a lot of trouble. Since all the other 27 FB are contained within her works why bother listing them.

Last post you will see me make in the SDA forum Free. Thank you for answering what Fawcett would not.

Pythons, as FreeinChrist has already stated by posting the FB #4, the official statement says nothing about Jesus having a propensity or ability to sin or sinful flesh. Even though this the teaching that Jesus could have sinned is behind the statement, it is not found in the statement itself and is a topic that we are 'allowed' to discuss. I suppose that if EGW statements were posted stating that he could have sinned then we would not be able to state anything to the contrary. You know the drill. It's much like Sabbath School classes where a discussion over a topic is taking place and once EGW is quoted, end of discussion.

In Christ alone...

 

[FreeinChrist]

Pythons, as FreeinChrist has already stated by posting the FB #4, the official statement says nothing about Jesus having a propensity or ability to sin or sinful flesh. Even though this the teaching that Jesus could have sinned is behind .

I simply posted the Fundamental belief - made no coment as to whether it says he had a propensity to sin or the ability to sin.

 

[freeindeed2]

I simply posted the Fundamental belief - made no coment as to whether it says he had a propensity to sin or the ability to sin.

I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, only that you had posted the official wording of FB #4 which does not state that Christ had the propensity to sin. My apologies for the implication.

In Christ alone...

 

[TrustAndObey]

This is one of those never-ending debates that gets discussed into a big circle.

I guess asking/answering a different question along the same lines aids in the discussion.

Did Jesus really DIE for our sins?

He's God, and God can't die.

Or did Jesus the man, born of a woman, give up His divinity to truly die?

If He could give up His divinity to die, He gave up His divinity before death, and relied on the Father just like we have to do.

If He didn't give up His divinity and didn't really die, why did He need to make a trip here to earth in the first place? He could've saved us all from heaven.

And again, God can't die. He alone has immortality.

 

[k4c]

This is one of those never-ending debates that gets discussed into a big circle.

I guess asking/answering a different question along the same lines aids in the discussion.

Did Jesus really DIE for our sins?

He's God, and God can't die.

Or did Jesus the man, born of a woman, give up His divinity to truly die?

If He could give up His divinity to die, He gave up His divinity before death, and relied on the Father just like we have to do.

If He didn't give up His divinity and didn't really die, why did He need to make a trip here to earth in the first place? He could've saved us all from heaven.

And again, God can't die. He alone has immortality.

Can God make a rock so big that He can't lift it?

I think the problem comes when we as finite people try to completely understand the infinite.

To me the immortal God manifested His character through mortal flesh. The manifestation of God in the flesh is only part of God for God is everywhere at the same time. Just because the flesh died does not mean God as a whole died. My hand can die yet I myself am still alive. My whole arm can die and yet I myself am still alive. The charatcer of God took on mortal flesh yet God Himself as a whole is immortal.

As far as Jesus being able to sin I believe He could have but that does not mean God as a whole sinned.

Paul says it like this.

Romans 7:17-18 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find.

Paul understood his sinful flesh in that if he sinned it was not him who sinned, but rather, his sinful flesh.

Jesus took on sinful flesh. If He gave in to the sinful flesh it would have been the sinful flesh that sinned not God.

These are just some of my thoughts.

 

[TrustAndObey]

Can God make a rock so big that He can't lift it?

I think the problem comes when we as finite people try to completely understand the infinite.

To me the immortal God manifested His character through mortal flesh. The manifestation of God in the flesh is only part of God for God is everywhere at the same time. Just because the flesh died does not mean God as a whole died. My hand can die yet I myself am still alive. My whole arm can die and yet I myself am still alive. The charatcer of God took on mortal flesh yet God Himself as a whole is immortal.

As far as Jesus being able to sin I believe He could have but that does not mean God as a whole sinned.

Paul says it like this.

Romans 7:17-18 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find.

Paul understood his sinful flesh in that if he sinned it was not him who sinned, but rather, his sinful flesh.

Jesus took on sinful flesh. If He gave in to the sinful flesh it would have been the sinful flesh that sinned not God.

These are just some of my thoughts.

I agree.

I believe wholeheartedly that Christ did indeed die for my sins and the sins of the world. I don't believe He made a "show" that looked like He died, nor do I believe the stripes and humiliation didn't hurt Him. I believe He felt it just as much as any other human being would've....but He relied on God and the will of the Father to get through it.

The same is true for sin. Of course He could've sinned, but He didn't, and that's what makes him our blessed Savior. He took on flesh, and conquered it.