Huckleberry
New member
And that we can only "win" by being right. :chuckle:
Christ is incapable of covetousness.
- Thread starter elohiym
- Start date
lukecash12
New member
In all four of those cases they were pleading with God. When people argue they are presenting an opposed position. God doesn't brook opposition.
Huckleberry
New member
...you're serious?
lukecash12
New member
Dead serious. In none of those cases do God's people say "well you're wrong, and this is why". Moses pleads with God to remember His promise. Abraham pleads with God to at least withhold His wrath from righteous people.
God never accommodates anything remotely like the idea "what right do you have to judge sin". Reasoning otherwise would honestly be irreverent. Jesus even stated plainly during His Sermon on the Mount that He was done making concessions like He had in the Law; the true Law, God's holy nature, had to be satisfied and He was the only one who could do it.
It appears we may be at an impasse so far at to what the actual definition of an argument is. The idea itself that God would have to establish for us why He is able to judge sin, is an irreverent idea.
Huckleberry
New member
If you missed my point, it was that this point is being addressed for all eternity. God establishes all sorts of things in scripture just so that they're established, on the record, forever. Consider the contents of the ark of the covenant for an obvious example. Three pieces of evidence against the people, satisfying the "two or three" witnesses principle. The Great Flood, for another. The bible is filled with such.
Yes, of course the argument that God can't properly judge our sin is irreverent. That hardly means people in rebellion aren't going to make that argument. Most certainly you can expect to see it on judgement day, even with the argument having been put to rest by Christ long ago. Christ suffering and overcoming temptation just makes the argument all the more stupid and groundless.
glorydaz
Well-known member
I know this is hard for you to fathom, but you explaining something has nothing to do with truth or fact.
glorydaz
Well-known member
I think his response was more to this point....
Eph. 2:7
That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
yeah, the workers don't like that in all points part.
elohiym
Well-known member
I agree, but some people participating on this thread believe Jesus was tempted to steal. One cannot be tempted to steal without first coveting something, so they must be wrong.
elohiym
Well-known member
elohiym said:
The meaning you are reading into that idea is he was tempted to steal, murder, commit adultery, commit idolatry, etc.
Jesus would not have to be internally tempted to commit murder in order to judge murders. You have no evidence that Jesus was internally tempted to sin, just tempted in all points like we are in some way. You should not read into that your idea that he was internally tempted to commit all the immoral acts that men commit. The example we have of Him being tempted was about external temptation by the devil not internal temptation to commit an immoral act.
Can he help the child molester? :AMR:
elohiym
Well-known member
Did Christ not know that everything in the world belonged to Him?
Colossians 1:16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created through Him and for Him.
Christ has nothing to covet, so nothing to desire to steal. It's simply impossible to covet what belongs to you, what has been created for you and given to you.
Here's a challenge for you: name some immoral acts you can be tempted to do without sinning while you are tempted to commit those immoral acts.
elohiym
Well-known member
I know this is hard for you to fathom, but you explaining something has nothing to do with truth or fact.
The Bible has passages depicting the temptation of Christ. I explained that is an example of Christ being tempted. He is not being tempted to commit an immoral act, but tempted to prove His identity by works.
Interestingly, those of you believing Jesus was tempted to commit immoral acts but resisted are essentially arguing that Jesus maintained his righteousness by works. :chuckle:
God's Truth
New member
They are wrong. You are right.
Sin does not come from the flesh.
James 1:14 But when a man is tempted, it is his own passions that carry him away and serve as a bait.
James 1:15 Then the passion conceives, and becomes the parent of sin; and sin, when fully matured, gives birth to death.
Jesus explains too that sin comes from thoughts that are put into your heart, where a person fosters it.
Matthew 15:9 For out of the heart come evil thoughts--murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.
Proverbs 4:23
Above all else, guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it.
God's Truth
New member
Jesus was tempted but he had no passions for that which he was being tempted.
Therefore, the passions did not conceive and become sin.
Jesus never had in his heart the passions of evil in which sins come.
Jesus was tempted by the devil in a controlled atmosphere in the desert.
Therefore, the passions did not conceive and become sin.
Jesus never had in his heart the passions of evil in which sins come.
Jesus was tempted by the devil in a controlled atmosphere in the desert.
lukecash12
New member
If you truly meant all of this in the sense that God does what He does also for the benefit of our understanding, that He is both compassionate and concerned with our posterity, and just in the sense that He upholds an incontrovertible record, then we are in agreement. In that light, I believe both of our perspectives are worthy devotional tangents when considering the temptation.
The Lord is both concerned with the perfect sacrifice and compassionate towards us. Believers and rebels alike have no excuse for not understanding.