bbyrd009
Groper
- Nov 30, 2016
- 33,943
- 12,081
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States Minor Outlying Islands
hmm. Every knee will bow, every tongue confess, so i'm not sure "God is sorry" is even the best way to say it, even if i get you.
Charles Spurgeon's Sanity Litmus Test (are you insane?)
- Thread starter Phoneman777
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Helen
Well-Known Member
- Oct 22, 2011
- 15,476
- 21,157
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Canada
Okay, never mind...just one more thing that we disagree upon. I see no sense in what you believe.
I will always believe the the Victory over the Devil was because Jesus Chose to limit Himself...He took upon Himself flesh..and if He had an advantage by being incapable of sin ..it nullifies any Victory. If He chose to be as you believe to be " fully God" then there was no contest, no overcoming when He was face to face with Satan in the Wilderness... I admit, I was taught that in the beginning , so I believed it for some years...then by searching the word saw the greater victory.
The man Adam dropped dominion it in The garden...the Last Adam took it back in the wilderness. The first blow at the Devil was in the wilderness, and the victory on the cross finished it...
But, we won't ever agree ....so be blessed.
Why don't you do this ByGrace...
Go ask some theologians who know what they're talking about.
Don't ask me.
Go ask your pastor if Jesus had the sin nature.
ASK ANYBODY.
I don't believe there's ONE church that believes as you do.
If so, could you name it, please?
Thanks.
@ByGrace
I learned what I know from two churches.
I don't use google or the internet to learn Christian doctrine because much of it is not correct.
However, I did look something up for those reading along.
You could look into this too, if you wish to know the truth.
Evangelical
JESUS IS FULLY GOD AND MAN: The Christ of Christmas Part 5 of 8
December 5, 2015 by Mark Driscoll
Every Christmas, we sing songs and open cards about Jesus who is Immanuel, God with us. But, what does this mean? How could this be?
Jesus was/is human and Jesus was/is morally perfect without any sin. This paradox has been exploding minds for thousands of years. In AD 451, the Council of Chalcedon convened in response to many heresies that wrongly defined the humanity and divinity of Jesus. The Chalcedonian Creed drafted at these meetings declared that Jesus Christ is one person with two natures—human and divine—who is both fully God and fully man.
Theologically, the term for the union of both natures in Jesus Christ is hypostatic union, which is taken from the Greek word hypostasisfor “person.” This concept summarizes three principles:
The Chalcedonian summary of the Incarnation is the position held by all of Christianity, including Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant Christians. Despite this helpful contribution of clarity and unity, however, the nature of Jesus has continued to be controversial throughout church history.
HISTORICAL ERRORS
There are two general ways in which various thinking has erred regarding the humanity and divinity of Jesus. The first is to deny the full divinity of Jesus in favor of his humanity; the second is to deny the full humanity of Jesus in favor of his divinity. Christ is fully Godand fully man, and great mistakes ensue when we think he is fully God or fully man.
The full divinity of Jesus has been denied by heretics such as the Ebionites, dynamic monarchianists, Socinians, Servetusites, Nestorians, modalists, monarchianists, Sabellianists, Unitarians, Social Gospel proponents, “death of God” theologians, liberal “Christians,” Arians, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, functionalists, Adoptionists, Kenotics, and Apollinarians. This perspective emerges in popular culture from time to time, such as in the popular book and film The Da Vinci Code.
Read more at JESUS IS FULLY GOD AND MAN: The Christ of Christmas Part 5 of 8
I learned what I know from two churches.
I don't use google or the internet to learn Christian doctrine because much of it is not correct.
However, I did look something up for those reading along.
You could look into this too, if you wish to know the truth.
Evangelical
JESUS IS FULLY GOD AND MAN: The Christ of Christmas Part 5 of 8
December 5, 2015 by Mark Driscoll
Every Christmas, we sing songs and open cards about Jesus who is Immanuel, God with us. But, what does this mean? How could this be?
Jesus was/is human and Jesus was/is morally perfect without any sin. This paradox has been exploding minds for thousands of years. In AD 451, the Council of Chalcedon convened in response to many heresies that wrongly defined the humanity and divinity of Jesus. The Chalcedonian Creed drafted at these meetings declared that Jesus Christ is one person with two natures—human and divine—who is both fully God and fully man.
Theologically, the term for the union of both natures in Jesus Christ is hypostatic union, which is taken from the Greek word hypostasisfor “person.” This concept summarizes three principles:
- Christ has two distinct natures: humanity and deity.
- There is no mixture or intermingling of the two natures.
- Although he has two natures, Christ is one person.
The Chalcedonian summary of the Incarnation is the position held by all of Christianity, including Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant Christians. Despite this helpful contribution of clarity and unity, however, the nature of Jesus has continued to be controversial throughout church history.
HISTORICAL ERRORS
There are two general ways in which various thinking has erred regarding the humanity and divinity of Jesus. The first is to deny the full divinity of Jesus in favor of his humanity; the second is to deny the full humanity of Jesus in favor of his divinity. Christ is fully Godand fully man, and great mistakes ensue when we think he is fully God or fully man.
The full divinity of Jesus has been denied by heretics such as the Ebionites, dynamic monarchianists, Socinians, Servetusites, Nestorians, modalists, monarchianists, Sabellianists, Unitarians, Social Gospel proponents, “death of God” theologians, liberal “Christians,” Arians, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, functionalists, Adoptionists, Kenotics, and Apollinarians. This perspective emerges in popular culture from time to time, such as in the popular book and film The Da Vinci Code.
Read more at JESUS IS FULLY GOD AND MAN: The Christ of Christmas Part 5 of 8
The Person of Christ
- Jesus Christ was fully God and fully man in one person and will be so forever.
- Christ’s virgin birth shows salvation comes from the Lord, made possible the uniting of full deity and humanity in one person, and enables Christ’s humanity to be without inherited sin (Galatians 4:4-5).
- The full humanity of Christ is seen in that he experienced all human weaknesses and limitations of having a human body, mind, soul, and emotions; yet he was without sin (Hebrews 4:15-16).
- Jesus’ full humanity enables him to accomplish our representative obedience (Romans 5:18-19) and be a substitute sacrifice for us (1 Timothy 2:5).
- The incarnation was the act of God the Son whereby he took to himself a human nature (John 1:14).
- Jesus is called God (John 1:1, John 20:28), “Lord” in ways that indicate his divine nature (Luke 2:11). Christ also referred to himself with divine names such as “I Am” (John 8:57).
- Jesus possessed attributes of deity such as omnipotence, eternity, omniscience, omnipresence, sovereignty, and being worthy of worship (Revelation 22:13).
- Jesus’ deity was necessary because (1) only someone who has infinite could bear the full penalty of the sins of believers; (2) salvation is from the Lord; (3) only someone who was truly God could be the mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5) and reveal God to us.
- Apollinarianism: Christ had a human body but not a human mind or spirit.
- Nestorianism: There were two separate persons in Christ, divine and human.
- Monophysitism (Eutychianism): Christ had only one nature, which was more than human but less than divine.
-
The Chalcedonian definition of the person of Christ (AD 451) refuted these inadequate views and became the standard orthodox statement on the biblical teaching on who Christ is. It affirmed that the eternal Son of God (1) took to himself a truly human nature; (2) his divine and human natures remain distinct and retain their own properties: (3) yet they are eternally and inseparably united together in one person. This definition means that one nature does some things the other nature does not, and anything either nature does, the person of Christ does.
There church groups who believe it that way. You really do trust too much in theologians. I have no doubt that many of them have a lot of knowledge, but how much truth do most of them have? Don't answer that.
What did the woman who was healed by touching the hem of Jesus's garment have? How about faith? Not faith in doctrines or even in scriptures, but very simply faith in God.
Did Jesus Have a Sin Nature?
By Randy Alcorn, Julia (Stager) Mayo | June 3, 2014
Question from a reader:
Did Jesus have a sin nature?
Answer from Randy Alcorn and Julia Stager:
First, we need to define sin nature. The “nature” of a person or object is commonly thought of as its essential qualities or attributes; that which makes it what it is. Therefore if something has a “sin nature” sin is a defining attribute of that thing.
Hebrews 4:15 tells us Jesus is “without sin.” Since He is without sin, sin cannot be one of His essential qualities or attributes. You cannot have a sin nature, and be without sin. Christ’s nature is not sinful. Hebrews also tells us about Jesus’ pure nature. He is “holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens” (Hebrews 7:26).
Part of the misunderstanding is that a human nature is synonymous with a sin nature, or that one must have a sin nature to be genuinely tempted. Both points are wrong. The proof is Adam was fully human, and though he had no sin nature he was genuinely tempted. So the Last Adam, Jesus, had no sin nature and was genuinely tempted, the difference being that Adam sinned and Jesus didn’t.
There have always been cults, such as the Christadelphians, that teach Jesus had a sin nature. However, some mainstream Christians see the sin nature of Jesus as necessary because He was “like us in every respect,” a “real man” and “tempted in all ways like us,” as Hebrews says (Heb. 2:17-18; 4:15). So how could these verses be true if He didn’t have a sin nature?
Some argue that the sin nature is passed on to a child through the father, not the mother. They point out that we are all said to have sinned in Adam, not in Eve (Romans 5:12), even though Eve sinned first. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes: one member of each pair inherited from the mother and the other from the father. This suggests that when the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary (Luke 1:35), and Jesus was conceived in His mother, God miraculously supplied the other 23 chromosomes to make the matched pair with Mary’s. These would normally have come from a human father.
If it is true that the sin nature is passed on by the father (there is no biblical proof of this, it is only a supposition based on the human race sinning in Adam), in the case of Jesus there was no human father to pass it on. This might be (we can’t be sure, but it’s possible) what allowed him to be the only human being conceived since Adam and Eve’s fall not to have a sin nature.
Theologian Bruce Ware argues for this position:
Notice, it is the sins of the fathers visited upon the third and fourth generation. Notice, when Adam and Eve sinned in the garden, Eve sinned first and Adam is held accountable for it. And notice the virgin birth of Christ. This accomplishes, in my judgment, at least two things. One, he was fully God and fully man. So the Holy Spirit took the place of a human father and brought about this conception so that the one born would be called the Son of God (Luke 1:35). The second thing was, it prevented the sinful line of Adam from being passed on from the father. Every other human being born, you and me included, had a dad; at least at the point of conception there was a human father involved and sin is passed on. Not with Christ; there was no human father. Human Nature and the Soul | Free online Bible classes | BiblicalTraining.org
Karl Barth taught that Jesus had a FALLEN nature, as all people do, but not a SIN nature. But that’s a distinction hard to make. Obviously he lived under many of the effects of the Fall, including stress and suffering and mortality, but that’s not the same as having a fallen nature.
By Randy Alcorn, Julia (Stager) Mayo | June 3, 2014
Question from a reader:
Did Jesus have a sin nature?
Answer from Randy Alcorn and Julia Stager:
First, we need to define sin nature. The “nature” of a person or object is commonly thought of as its essential qualities or attributes; that which makes it what it is. Therefore if something has a “sin nature” sin is a defining attribute of that thing.
Hebrews 4:15 tells us Jesus is “without sin.” Since He is without sin, sin cannot be one of His essential qualities or attributes. You cannot have a sin nature, and be without sin. Christ’s nature is not sinful. Hebrews also tells us about Jesus’ pure nature. He is “holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens” (Hebrews 7:26).
Part of the misunderstanding is that a human nature is synonymous with a sin nature, or that one must have a sin nature to be genuinely tempted. Both points are wrong. The proof is Adam was fully human, and though he had no sin nature he was genuinely tempted. So the Last Adam, Jesus, had no sin nature and was genuinely tempted, the difference being that Adam sinned and Jesus didn’t.
There have always been cults, such as the Christadelphians, that teach Jesus had a sin nature. However, some mainstream Christians see the sin nature of Jesus as necessary because He was “like us in every respect,” a “real man” and “tempted in all ways like us,” as Hebrews says (Heb. 2:17-18; 4:15). So how could these verses be true if He didn’t have a sin nature?
Some argue that the sin nature is passed on to a child through the father, not the mother. They point out that we are all said to have sinned in Adam, not in Eve (Romans 5:12), even though Eve sinned first. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes: one member of each pair inherited from the mother and the other from the father. This suggests that when the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary (Luke 1:35), and Jesus was conceived in His mother, God miraculously supplied the other 23 chromosomes to make the matched pair with Mary’s. These would normally have come from a human father.
If it is true that the sin nature is passed on by the father (there is no biblical proof of this, it is only a supposition based on the human race sinning in Adam), in the case of Jesus there was no human father to pass it on. This might be (we can’t be sure, but it’s possible) what allowed him to be the only human being conceived since Adam and Eve’s fall not to have a sin nature.
Theologian Bruce Ware argues for this position:
Notice, it is the sins of the fathers visited upon the third and fourth generation. Notice, when Adam and Eve sinned in the garden, Eve sinned first and Adam is held accountable for it. And notice the virgin birth of Christ. This accomplishes, in my judgment, at least two things. One, he was fully God and fully man. So the Holy Spirit took the place of a human father and brought about this conception so that the one born would be called the Son of God (Luke 1:35). The second thing was, it prevented the sinful line of Adam from being passed on from the father. Every other human being born, you and me included, had a dad; at least at the point of conception there was a human father involved and sin is passed on. Not with Christ; there was no human father. Human Nature and the Soul | Free online Bible classes | BiblicalTraining.org
Karl Barth taught that Jesus had a FALLEN nature, as all people do, but not a SIN nature. But that’s a distinction hard to make. Obviously he lived under many of the effects of the Fall, including stress and suffering and mortality, but that’s not the same as having a fallen nature.
Did Jesus have a sin nature as the Christadelphians teach?
by Matt Slick
Jan, 2002
Return to Christadelphian Page
No, Jesus did not have a sin nature. However, that has not stopped the Christadelphians from teaching He did. This is not surprising considering they deny the doctrine of the Trinity and the deity of Jesus. As with all non-Christian cults that deny the true doctrine of God, other doctrines necessarily become incorrect as well. In this case, their error is that Jesus has a sin nature.
Another verse they use is Heb. 2:14 which says, "Since then the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil." This verse can easily be explained in the same manner as Rom. 8:3-4 above. Jesus partook of flesh and blood. But it does not here say that He had a sin nature.
To have a sin nature means that Jesus had a fallen, defiled, and unholy nature. I fail to see how an unholy person can offer a holy sacrifice sufficient to please an infinitely holy God. Of course, the Christadelphians say this is possible because, even though Jesus had a sin nature, He never committed a sin and He kept the Law, therefore satisfying God. But that still doesn't answer the objection: If Jesus had a sinful and unholy nature, how is it possible for Him to provide a sinless and holy sacrifice especially since Eph. 2:3 states that we are by nature children of wrath? This means that the natural state of the fallen is judgment.
The problem with the Christadelphian position is that the Bible teaches us the sacrifice to God must be without blemish. Deut. 17:1 says, "You shall not sacrifice to the Lord your God an ox or a sheep which has a blemish or any defect, for that is a detestable thing to the Lord your God" (See also Ezekiel 43:22-23, 25; 45:18, 23 for the same theme.). Of course, Jesus is not an animal, but it is clear that the pattern for the sacrifice was that it must have no defect at all. Why? Because God is holy and God doesn't accept imperfect sacrifices! To have a sinful nature is definitely to have a defect. Contrary to Christadelphian teaching, we can see from the Bible that Jesus has no defect, no blemish: "How much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" (Heb. 9:14). This verse states that Jesus is without blemish. How can He be without blemish if He has a fallen and sinful nature?
For the Christadelphians to maintain that Jesus had a sinful nature is the same as saying that the offering He made had a defect. We can see that this is a problem because the High Priests of the Old Testament were fallen and had, themselves to be cleansed in order to offer the sacrifice to God. It wasn't simply that they were sinners. They were fallen by nature and were unholy.
Because the Christadelphians teach that Jesus had a fallen and sinful nature, their faith is in a defiled and imperfect sacrifice. It is, therefore, insufficient. They are lost.
What does it mean to have a sin nature?
When we speak of the nature of something, we speak of its essence, character, and quality. The essence of God, for example, is holiness, purity, sinlessness, etc. The essence of people, on the other hand, is sinful. In Mark 7:21-23, Jesus discloses to us the very nature of our hearts when He said, "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, 22deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. 23All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man." This is why it says in Eph. 2:3 that we are by nature children of the wrath; our hearts are sinful by nature which is the source of the sins listed by Jesus. This is also why Paul said in Rom. 7:18 that nothing good dwelt in him, that is, in his flesh. Paul knew his nature was sinful and thus it was he who was lost and without hope (except for his faith in Jesus and His unblemished sacrifice).
Are we to conclude from Christadelphian thinking that Jesus' fallen, unholy, and sinful nature produced a pure and perfect sacrifice without defect? How is that possible? How is it possible for someone unholy to offer a holy sacrifice? How is it possible for someone that is sinful by nature, to offer a sinless sacrifice? Just because Jesus never sinned doesn't mean that He was perfect. If He had a sin nature, He was not perfect. He was flawed. His sacrifice would be useless.
However, to the Christadelphians, the issue is not so much Jesus' sinful and fallen nature, as it is His ability to keep the Law. Therefore, in Christadelphianism we have a man, Jesus, with a sinful nature being able to perfectly keep all of God's law. Contrast this with Adam who was made sinless and yet to was not able to keep the law of God. How can Jesus have a sinful and unholy nature and yet be sinless and holy as a perfect, unblemished sacrifice? He cannot. The Christadelphians are wrong.
Jesus was tempted
One of the reasons the Christadelphians believe Jesus had a sinful nature is their claim that in order for Jesus to be tempted, He had to have a sin nature. But, this does not logically follow. Adam did not have a sinful nature, and he was tempted successfully. He fell. Jesus did not have a sinful nature. He was tempted unsuccessfully. He did not fall. So, Jesus not having a sin nature does not mean He cannot be tempted.
Of course, the Christadelphians deny that Jesus is both God and man, even though this is what Col. 2:9 says: "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form."3 In their quest to support their view, they sometimes quote James 1:13 which states that God cannot be tempted by evil. They ask, if Jesus is God, then how could He be tempted with evil? This is a fair question and, to be honest, a bit difficult to answer because the Scriptures do not explicitly explain it. Therefore, we have to work from what we do know using reason.
If Jesus' human nature existed by itself, apart from the divine nature, it would have been a normal human nature and capable of sin. But, Jesus' human nature is not separate from His divine nature which is morally pure and incapable of sin. It would then seem that Jesus was able to be tempted in His human nature but not in His divine. In the one person of Christ, there dwells two natures: God and man (Col. 2:9). As God, Jesus could stand without the danger of sinning. As man, He could be tempted. Exactly how these two natures relate to each other in one person is not clarified in scripture. But, as you can see, it is possible that Jesus be divine and be tempted at the same time because He was both God and man. To say that Jesus had to have a sin nature in order to be tempted is incorrect. Rather, in order to be tempted, Jesus had to be human.
by Matt Slick
Jan, 2002
Return to Christadelphian Page
No, Jesus did not have a sin nature. However, that has not stopped the Christadelphians from teaching He did. This is not surprising considering they deny the doctrine of the Trinity and the deity of Jesus. As with all non-Christian cults that deny the true doctrine of God, other doctrines necessarily become incorrect as well. In this case, their error is that Jesus has a sin nature.
- "Therefore, we conclude that it is not only that Jesus was called a sinner at his trial by his enemies or that he was 'numbered with the transgressors' when he was crucified between two thieves, but more particularly that he shared the very nature which had made a sinner out of ever other man who had borne it. It is for this reason that the nature we bear is called "sinful flesh" or more briefly, 'sin' (Rom. 7:20 and 8:4)."1
Another verse they use is Heb. 2:14 which says, "Since then the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil." This verse can easily be explained in the same manner as Rom. 8:3-4 above. Jesus partook of flesh and blood. But it does not here say that He had a sin nature.
To have a sin nature means that Jesus had a fallen, defiled, and unholy nature. I fail to see how an unholy person can offer a holy sacrifice sufficient to please an infinitely holy God. Of course, the Christadelphians say this is possible because, even though Jesus had a sin nature, He never committed a sin and He kept the Law, therefore satisfying God. But that still doesn't answer the objection: If Jesus had a sinful and unholy nature, how is it possible for Him to provide a sinless and holy sacrifice especially since Eph. 2:3 states that we are by nature children of wrath? This means that the natural state of the fallen is judgment.
The problem with the Christadelphian position is that the Bible teaches us the sacrifice to God must be without blemish. Deut. 17:1 says, "You shall not sacrifice to the Lord your God an ox or a sheep which has a blemish or any defect, for that is a detestable thing to the Lord your God" (See also Ezekiel 43:22-23, 25; 45:18, 23 for the same theme.). Of course, Jesus is not an animal, but it is clear that the pattern for the sacrifice was that it must have no defect at all. Why? Because God is holy and God doesn't accept imperfect sacrifices! To have a sinful nature is definitely to have a defect. Contrary to Christadelphian teaching, we can see from the Bible that Jesus has no defect, no blemish: "How much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" (Heb. 9:14). This verse states that Jesus is without blemish. How can He be without blemish if He has a fallen and sinful nature?
For the Christadelphians to maintain that Jesus had a sinful nature is the same as saying that the offering He made had a defect. We can see that this is a problem because the High Priests of the Old Testament were fallen and had, themselves to be cleansed in order to offer the sacrifice to God. It wasn't simply that they were sinners. They were fallen by nature and were unholy.
Because the Christadelphians teach that Jesus had a fallen and sinful nature, their faith is in a defiled and imperfect sacrifice. It is, therefore, insufficient. They are lost.
What does it mean to have a sin nature?
When we speak of the nature of something, we speak of its essence, character, and quality. The essence of God, for example, is holiness, purity, sinlessness, etc. The essence of people, on the other hand, is sinful. In Mark 7:21-23, Jesus discloses to us the very nature of our hearts when He said, "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, 22deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. 23All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man." This is why it says in Eph. 2:3 that we are by nature children of the wrath; our hearts are sinful by nature which is the source of the sins listed by Jesus. This is also why Paul said in Rom. 7:18 that nothing good dwelt in him, that is, in his flesh. Paul knew his nature was sinful and thus it was he who was lost and without hope (except for his faith in Jesus and His unblemished sacrifice).
Are we to conclude from Christadelphian thinking that Jesus' fallen, unholy, and sinful nature produced a pure and perfect sacrifice without defect? How is that possible? How is it possible for someone unholy to offer a holy sacrifice? How is it possible for someone that is sinful by nature, to offer a sinless sacrifice? Just because Jesus never sinned doesn't mean that He was perfect. If He had a sin nature, He was not perfect. He was flawed. His sacrifice would be useless.
However, to the Christadelphians, the issue is not so much Jesus' sinful and fallen nature, as it is His ability to keep the Law. Therefore, in Christadelphianism we have a man, Jesus, with a sinful nature being able to perfectly keep all of God's law. Contrast this with Adam who was made sinless and yet to was not able to keep the law of God. How can Jesus have a sinful and unholy nature and yet be sinless and holy as a perfect, unblemished sacrifice? He cannot. The Christadelphians are wrong.
Jesus was tempted
One of the reasons the Christadelphians believe Jesus had a sinful nature is their claim that in order for Jesus to be tempted, He had to have a sin nature. But, this does not logically follow. Adam did not have a sinful nature, and he was tempted successfully. He fell. Jesus did not have a sinful nature. He was tempted unsuccessfully. He did not fall. So, Jesus not having a sin nature does not mean He cannot be tempted.
Of course, the Christadelphians deny that Jesus is both God and man, even though this is what Col. 2:9 says: "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form."3 In their quest to support their view, they sometimes quote James 1:13 which states that God cannot be tempted by evil. They ask, if Jesus is God, then how could He be tempted with evil? This is a fair question and, to be honest, a bit difficult to answer because the Scriptures do not explicitly explain it. Therefore, we have to work from what we do know using reason.
If Jesus' human nature existed by itself, apart from the divine nature, it would have been a normal human nature and capable of sin. But, Jesus' human nature is not separate from His divine nature which is morally pure and incapable of sin. It would then seem that Jesus was able to be tempted in His human nature but not in His divine. In the one person of Christ, there dwells two natures: God and man (Col. 2:9). As God, Jesus could stand without the danger of sinning. As man, He could be tempted. Exactly how these two natures relate to each other in one person is not clarified in scripture. But, as you can see, it is possible that Jesus be divine and be tempted at the same time because He was both God and man. To say that Jesus had to have a sin nature in order to be tempted is incorrect. Rather, in order to be tempted, Jesus had to be human.
Who do YOU trust Amadeus?
The Holy Spirit?
How come He tells everyone something different?
JESUS DID NOT HAVE THE SIN NATURE.
Do YOU believe He did?
People don't study for YEARS to understand the bible.
Spiritually it could be understood, but that's about it.
It's rather horrifying, to tell you the truth, that a Christian person could tell me they believe Jesus was born with the sin nature as we were.
If this is true, the His atoning sacrifice was marred and defective.
I'm not here to explain that milk comes out white.
You could take what I say or leave it.
But what I say is traditional Christianity, which I see is being lost rather rapidly these days.
You don't disagree with me sugar,
you disagree with Christianity.
And I'd appreciate it if you never asked me another question.
I put time and effort into answers and the only reason you ask them is to say we don't agree.
Why, instead, don't you use scripture and SHOW ME and others here, where it says that Jesus had the Sin Nature,,,which, BTW, MEANS THAT HE SINNED.
Can you do this?
Helen
Well-Known Member
- Oct 22, 2011
- 15,476
- 21,157
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Canada
...Where on earth have you been.....( or not been)
Having a sin nature ....NOWHERE does it say that it means 'we have sinned!!'
Baby's are born with a sin nature...yet they have not sinned...too young, no opportunity!!
Having a sin nature ....NOWHERE does it say that it means 'we have sinned!!'
Baby's are born with a sin nature...yet they have not sinned...too young, no opportunity!!
PLEASE read what I posted.
WHERE have you learned your theology?
PLEASE don't say the Holy Spirit or I'll never listen to Him again.
IF YOU HAVE A SIN NATURE...
YOU SIN.
It can be no other way.
Please check with your pastor.
You're totally confused. Why are you mentioning babies?
Are they at the age of reason and responsibility?
Also known in theological circles as the Age of Accountability.
Check it out.
PLEASE.
Did you read my post no. 151?
How about showing us from scripture where is says that Jesus had a sin nature and/or sinned?
Do you realize that GOD is the father of Jesus?
Does God have a sin nature?
NO!
Then how was it passed on to Jesus???
Oh my.
And how about dropping the personal insults...
That would be nice of a Christian woman.
Amen to that!As I say..believe what you like...you obviously get your belief system via men.
When the roll call is made up yonder...then we will each see.
No sweat.
Oh. And who do YOU get your teaching from?
You don't go to a church?
How do you learn anything?
Oh my.
Well sweetie,
Here's how it is.
Sin is not passed on by the mother but by the father.
Who sinned, Adam or Eve?
Joseph was not the father of Jesus.
God was.
You have a problem here...
Plus, I've posted so much...
verses,
links.
How come YOU don't???
but it was no contest, He's the Word of God that can't go against Himself or He's not the Word of God. its not the contest, its the advantage. he who has the overwhelming advantage wins, it wasn't suppose to be fair its no more fair than darkness trying to contest the presence of light in the room.
any limits are as men have, as men go and where men live and die. He did everything in His power in the Presence of the Father who He said was with Him that a man can do if God the Father is with a man as a son of God. His walk in the flesh is the fulfillment of God's image and likeness in the flesh according to Father's satisfaction. that was the only limitation. He came into the world as the sons of men do, and He left the world as the least of men do, and went to where men go after they die. and returned note via the body He was in and then back to the Father as He made a point to mention when Mary thought to touch Him that Sunday morning.
and none of that was a limitation of Him, it was a path necessary to fulfill God's will on the matter.
so it wasn't a contest, not at all. darkness has no power in the presence of the source of Light.
Last edited:
Similar threads
