DonCameron wrote:
John,
I"m still trying to understand...
Are you saying that the reason why Jesus had to be more than just a perfect man is because Adam proved that a perfect man can sin? Therefore, a perfect man is not able to save anyone. Again, is that why Jesus had to be more than a perfect man?
I'm saying Jesus
is more than just a perfect man because perfection is God's attribute and no one else's. We
all fell short of the glory of God, Don.
DonCameron wrote:If this is what you are saying, then here are my thoughts...
You seem to be skipping over the fact that a perfect man can choose not to sin. Adam could have chosen to obey God. He had that ability. Your position seems to be that it is impossible for a perfect man obey God and not sin.
So let me ask you this question then, when did God put together the plan of salvation? Was it before he created Adam? Or did he wait to see if Adam would sin or not then decide on the plan of salvation accordingly? That, again, is a rhetorical question Don. God's Living Word (Jesus) was the plan of salvation ever before the universe.
DonCameron wrote:Are you saying that if Jesus had only been a perfect man that it would have also been impossible even for him to obey his Father and not sin?
That's
exactly what I'm saying and what orthodox christianity has been saying for a couple of millennia.
DonCameron wrote:It seems to me that if anyone (perfect or not) cannot use his free will to obey God and not sin, then there really isn't free will. If it was not possible for Adam to obey God then he must not have had free will.
You know something Don? I used to be a huge advocate of free will. Make your own destiny type of thinking. But lately, thanks to some very good friends and a lot of scripture reading, I have come to the realization that human free will is extremely limited. I won't go as far as the calvinist viewpoint and totally discount it as I do still believe we need to exercise it to make the conscious decision of accepting God's free offer of grace. But I must admit, the gap between my thinking and that of a 5-point calvinist has been considerably narrowed (thank you August and PL). God did not wait for Adam to form his plan of salvation Don. So you tell me, did Adam really have the free will not to sin?
DonCameron wrote:You mentioned Moses as one who would not qualify as our Saviour. I agree. But not because he was perfect and could sin. But rather because he was born in sin and therefore was imperfect no matter how hard he tried not to sin.
As I said before, Adam did not have the natural propensity to sin yet he still found a way to go against his nature and sin because, according to you, he used his free will. What could have stopped Moses (or any one of us, for that matter) from using our free will to go against our sinful nature and not sin? The answer is nothing. It is the only logical conclusion. But if that's the case, I ask you again, why did we need Jesus? Since we have it within us not to sin, there's no need for a savior. I know you strongly believe what you believe Don, but these are the kinds of absurdities the early church was guarding against when the doctrine of the trinity was formalized.
DonCameron wrote:You gave Jesus as the example of the one that does qualify. I again agree. But not because he is God and cannot sin, but because he was a perfect man who didn't sin. He was born without sin and he used his free will to remain sinless. Although Adam was also 'born' without sin, he used his free will not to remain sinless.
I think I've already established free will had absolutely nothing to do with the plan of salvation as it was put together before free will ever existed.
Jesus did not come to show us how to reconcile to God (or how to use our free will).
Jesus came to reconcile us to God, period.
DonCameron wrote:WHAT IS THE LESSON LEARNED?
You and I have not learned the same lesson.
No, we did not.
DonCameron wrote:You said: Adam was a perfect man and he sinned, lesson learned.
If I understand you John, the lesson you have learned is that since Adam was perfect and yet he sinned, therefore for mankind to be redeemed from the negative effects of Adam's sin, it will take the sacrifice of someone more then just another perfect man (who can also sin). And so, if Jesus was just a perfect man, his sacrifice would not be able to redeem any of Adam's descendants. Therefore Jesus had to be God in order to be able to able to accomplish this.
Is that close?
Yep, that's the gist of it.
DonCameron wrote:The lesson I learn comes from what Paul explained to the Corinthians above...
"Since death is through a man(Adam), resurrection of the dead (salvation) is also through a man (Christ). For just as in Adam (a man) all are dying, so also in the Christ (a man) all will be made alive." - 1 Corinthians 15:21,22
The lesson you learned Don is incomplete because you missed the other side of the coin. We fully acknowledge that Jesus was fully man. But that man was also fully God yet still the same man, otherwise we'd be worshiping another god.
DonCameron wrote:Although you said, "God will not leave the plan of salvation to man," Paul said that our salvation from death is "through a man," Jesus Christ.
See above.
DonCameron wrote:To me, you don't seem to be taking into account that although Adam had the ability to sin, he also had the equal ability not to sin. And because he was created with free will, he could choose which way he wanted to go. When he chose the wrong way he lost his perfection and therefore could not pass perfection to any of his offspring.
I believe I've answered this already but just to recap, God's plan of salvation did not hinge on man's ability to sin or not to sin. If this were the case we'd all be gods. Once again, these are the inescapable heretical conclusions one arrives at when Jesus' deity is denied. These are the very ideas the early church was trying to guard against when the trinity doctrine was formalized.
DonCameron wrote:Jesus also had free will. He too could choose whether he wanted to obey his Father or not - just like Adam. Fortunately the man Jesus chose to be obedient even to his death. That's the way it looks to me.
Of course Jesus has free will, he invented it.
DonCameron wrote:Please let me know if I have understood you properly, If not, where did I miss.
You have understood it perfectly but I'm sorry to say I don't believe you've comprehended it.
Going back to an earlier post regarding Acts 2:14-42
You wrote:I was not able to see anything they said that even comes close to suggesting that Jesus was God or that God was Triune. Instead, Peter concluded: "Let all the house of Israel know for a certainty that God made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified." - verse 36
Did 3,000 people get baptized without realizing that Jesus is God? Or did they get baptized because they then realized that that Jesus was both Lord and Christ?
Those 3,000 people knew only one God, the God of the bible, the one and only God, the one they must worship and no other. Yet here they are being told to worship this new Lord Jesus Christ. Either they became idolators or they believed Jesus was God. My money's on the latter.
As for your latest post in response to ttowes', I will only comment on the below quote as 1) it illsutrates what I've been saying all along and 2) all the rest is simply extreme sripture twisting as FFC already commented.
You wrote:In fact, it would be entirely appropriate to say and think of Jesus as “God,” because he, for all intents and purposes, functions as God. God has given him all authority; so Jesus is God, functionally.
I really can't tell if you really believe the emphasized portion above or you're trying to appease us somehow. Regardless, the above quote pretty much says it all.
Either Jesus is God or you're worshiping 2 gods.
John.