Dylan569
Active
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2024
- Messages
- 438
Think of it this way, you are building a 3-story house. You have the architect’s blueprints. In the foundation or on the 1st level, you ignore a minor detail and change it to meet your amateur ideas. That minor detail when you get to the 3rd level may have serious consequences, or even catastrophic. Can Bible doctrine be different? Doesn’t Hebrews 6:1-3 tell us to go further than the basics?
But speak thou the things which befit the sound(Grk: healthy) doctrine(Or, teaching) (Titus 2:1, ASV) How are we to know sound doctrine about Christ without Christology?
For example, Christology is important on a complex question about whether Jesus could have sinned, or He could not have sinned? The verse that brings up the question: “For we have not a high priest that cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but one that hath been in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. (Heb 4:15)
The first option is to say since Jesus was God as well as man, he could not sin, James 1:13. The rebuttal comes: “But since Jesus was God as well as man, the man side or part of man could have sinned, so Jesus could have sinned.” The impeccability of Christ means he could not have sinned.
The following is a section on Christology from the Athanasian Creed
Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.
One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
My first answer was from orthodoxy, Jesus cannot be divided in that manner, for he is “one Christ” and by “unity of person”. My answer runs into a problem for me, how do I then answer the following: “But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only.” (Matt 24:36, ASV)
If I’ve previously argued the point from Jesus being “one Christ”, with “unity of person”, how do I handle Matt. 24:36? Can I now separate Son of Man from Son of God to say the Man of God did not know, but the Son of God did? I could not allow that on Heb. 4:15, so I have a problem here. I realize I have to go to another biblical view or alternative on impeccability. Jesus, being conceived of the Holy Spirit, did not inherit or have sin attributed to him, Original Sin; the Sin Nature. Without Original Sin, a test or temptation has nowhere to attach in Christ. I now have no conflict with my understanding of Heb. 4:15. I did not twist scripture around, I gave an alternate, plausible answer to reconcile the two ideas.
I have a sound reason to believe Jesus could not have sinned. Why is such a fine point of importance? Every small detail we learn about Jesus the Christ, in our mind builds an image or concept of the Person of Jesus the Christ. Deep in our minds, we are forming an understanding of Jesus Christ as presented in the Holy Bible. The whole of a topic is made up of many smaller details. It is surely true that there are certain difficult verses or doctrines, but we still need to work at a Systematic Theology, a true Christology. It is true, we struggle with the difficult passages.
*If someone wishes to read the scriptures supporting the points from the Athanasian Creed that are quoted above, there is web page for this. If you hover the cursor over each reference, that verse comes up to be easily read.
Athanasian Creed According to Scripture
For a theologian's arguments on this, impeccability, from Robert L. Dabney on page 887 as showing on the pdf reader.
**I hold to a very high view of Scripture, and I also hold to a very high view of the person of Jesus Christ, so admittedly I’ll go into this point with an inclination from the start. But, is my inclination supported by Scripture?
But speak thou the things which befit the sound(Grk: healthy) doctrine(Or, teaching) (Titus 2:1, ASV) How are we to know sound doctrine about Christ without Christology?
For example, Christology is important on a complex question about whether Jesus could have sinned, or He could not have sinned? The verse that brings up the question: “For we have not a high priest that cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but one that hath been in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. (Heb 4:15)
The first option is to say since Jesus was God as well as man, he could not sin, James 1:13. The rebuttal comes: “But since Jesus was God as well as man, the man side or part of man could have sinned, so Jesus could have sinned.” The impeccability of Christ means he could not have sinned.
The following is a section on Christology from the Athanasian Creed
Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.
One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
My first answer was from orthodoxy, Jesus cannot be divided in that manner, for he is “one Christ” and by “unity of person”. My answer runs into a problem for me, how do I then answer the following: “But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only.” (Matt 24:36, ASV)
If I’ve previously argued the point from Jesus being “one Christ”, with “unity of person”, how do I handle Matt. 24:36? Can I now separate Son of Man from Son of God to say the Man of God did not know, but the Son of God did? I could not allow that on Heb. 4:15, so I have a problem here. I realize I have to go to another biblical view or alternative on impeccability. Jesus, being conceived of the Holy Spirit, did not inherit or have sin attributed to him, Original Sin; the Sin Nature. Without Original Sin, a test or temptation has nowhere to attach in Christ. I now have no conflict with my understanding of Heb. 4:15. I did not twist scripture around, I gave an alternate, plausible answer to reconcile the two ideas.
I have a sound reason to believe Jesus could not have sinned. Why is such a fine point of importance? Every small detail we learn about Jesus the Christ, in our mind builds an image or concept of the Person of Jesus the Christ. Deep in our minds, we are forming an understanding of Jesus Christ as presented in the Holy Bible. The whole of a topic is made up of many smaller details. It is surely true that there are certain difficult verses or doctrines, but we still need to work at a Systematic Theology, a true Christology. It is true, we struggle with the difficult passages.
*If someone wishes to read the scriptures supporting the points from the Athanasian Creed that are quoted above, there is web page for this. If you hover the cursor over each reference, that verse comes up to be easily read.
Athanasian Creed According to Scripture
For a theologian's arguments on this, impeccability, from Robert L. Dabney on page 887 as showing on the pdf reader.
**I hold to a very high view of Scripture, and I also hold to a very high view of the person of Jesus Christ, so admittedly I’ll go into this point with an inclination from the start. But, is my inclination supported by Scripture?
