The Sinless Human

[Netchaplain]

The pernicious lie is to say Jesus was fully human but then list the ways he was inhuman. Either he is a man, with ALL that comes with it, or he is merely in the form of a man. The Bible says we was a man (and not merely in the form of a man)

Good points again! The article is to demonstrate that Jesus Christ didn't have to be fully human--with the nature.

 

[Netchaplain]

I heard a sermon once that said Jesus was not perfect. He did not cut every board perfectly square in his work as a carpenter. He has weakness. Got tired. Had to eat, drink water and rest.

Perfection is not the standard. The standard is being obedient to God, doing the Will of God. Sinless but not perfect. Is that acceptable?

Good points, but the perfection of Christ incarnated was not in relation to His spirit, soul and walk, only to HIs body. He didn't need to assume human nature (not suspecting anyone of saying so) beyond that which is the body because He used it to take the guilt and dominion of our sin nature into death with His body. His sinless human nature came by being the only incarnation "conceived of the Holy Spirit," - "the only begotten Son of God." This is what separates Him from being fully human, if "human" means also the nature of man's spirit and soul.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Always appreciate your replies! It's my understanding that the more important issue for those reborn is the guiltlessness, because as long as we're here, the "old man" (sin nature) will indwell and affect our lives, but no longer in a dominative manner (Ro 6:12, 14), i.e. it can no longer cause us to desire sin. Thus when a believer sins it is not intentional nor desired, and nor our will as the "new man." It's the old man (sin nature) doing it and no longer the believer (Ro 7:17, 20); for our desire in the new nature is no longer after the old nature, because it's after the Spirit (Ro 8:9); who alone repeatedly confirms to us to be "children of God" (Ro 8:16).

Guiltlessness? Yes, I can see how if your conscience does not condemn you, you know that you are, by our new nature, keeping His commandments and are pleasing to God. 1 John 3:21-24.

What I find disturbing is your use of Romans 7:17, 20 that Romans 8:2 says the Spirit frees us from. So are we free or not? Jesus said the truth shall set us free, and He frees us completely (indeed) John 8:32-36. Isn't it the whole purpose of being born again? Jesus was manifest to take away our sin, and in Him there is no sin 1 John 3:5-9. Therefore to take away our sin, He must take away our old man and replace it completely with the new man that is in Christ. Then it is not by our own willpower, but relaxing or resting in the power of God.

It seems you believe that in reality Jesus doesn't take away our old man, but that we must choose daily or even moment to moment Who to serve and obey, and I can see your point in Romans 6. That to me is not complete freedom, but seems like the powerlessness of what it was like under the Law, your Romans 7:17, 20. And I'm wondering if that has more to do with what in our mind is the definition of grace, whether in our mind it is "unmerited favor" or the "divine power of God." Here I think lies the importance of "the truth shall set you free." Which definition is truth? How powerful was the cleansing of ALL unrighteousness? Was that for good, or just until you sin again? It is a perplexing, mind boggling situation between the apostles that I'm wrestling with. How to match John's scripture with Paul's. And, of course, Peter in 2 Peter 1:2-11 shows a progressive growing in the fruit of the Spirit (5-7) in which if we do, we shall never stumble (10-11). But that still puts the ball, our choice, in our courtyard. Obey the Spirit, or quench Him.

 

[Netchaplain]

What I find disturbing is your use of Romans 7:17, 20 that Romans 8:2 says the Spirit frees us from. So are we free or not?

It's my understanding that Paul in Ro 7 manifests that he still had the sin nature because he saw that he still sinned, but the victory is that he no longer desired to sin ("no longer I," in his new nature, as you've mentioned - vs 17, 20), because he was no longer "after the flesh," or no more desirous after the old man (Ro 8:9). The freedom of those reborn isn't in the sinning or not sinning, but in the fact they no longer can desire after it. In man possessing and manifesting the sin nature, God's holiness is seen, and is how we continue to learn, by Him using the old man for an example, instead of condemnation.

We are freed from the guilt and "dominion" of sin, but not from its presence and effects (to continue to learn), which is demonstrated by Paul in Ro 7 14-25 (Ro 612, 14).

 

[Wrangler]

So are we free or not? Jesus said the truth shall set us free, and He frees us completely (indeed) John 8:32-36. Isn't it the whole purpose of being born again? Jesus was manifest to take away our sin, and in Him there is no sin 1 John 3:5-9.

I think there is confusion between being free to sin with having freedom from sinning.

Without Christ, we have only compulsion to sin, are a slave to sin. This weekend, my friend angered me and I don’t think I was the best representative of Christ I could be. I actually prayed about it quite a bit. The temptation to sin remains within me but I have a divine Allie to save me.

 

[CharismaticLady]

It's my understanding that Paul in Ro 7 manifests that he still had the sin nature because he saw that he still sinned, but the victory is that he no longer desired to sin ("no longer I," in his new nature, as you've mentioned - vs 17, 20), because he was no longer "after the flesh," or no more desirous after the old man (Ro 8:9). The freedom of those reborn isn't in the sinning or not sinning, but in the fact they no longer can desire after it. In man possessing and manifesting the sin nature, God's holiness is seen, and is how we continue to learn, by Him using the old man for an example, instead of condemnation.

We are freed from the guilt and "dominion" of sin, but not from its presence and effects (to continue to learn), which is demonstrated by Paul in Ro 7 14-25 (Ro 612, 14).

Chaplain, you really need to read the whole context. Start Romans 6 through 8. Romans 7:14-25 is only about the Old Testament Law and about those who were under it who had to keep the Ten Commandments with a sinful nature that was opposed to the law causing a struggle to keep it.

Have you ever heard of the term, "born again"? Romans 6:1-2 and 7 show that the repentant that were crucified with Christ are FREED from sin and the Old Law. God has literally made His laws part of their new nature which you know makes them not desire sin, and thus they keep the righteous requirements of the law naturally as they walk in the Spirit.

I think the western mind sees the word "I" in Romans 7:14-25 and believes this is about Paul currently, but it is an eastern way of teaching. He shows in Romans 8:2 that Romans 7:14-25 is no longer him currently as the Spirit has FREED ME from the law of sin and death. That is not just about the Law, but the sin nature. Romans 7:13 is their reason for the struggle (the sin nature); therefore, Romans 7:14-25 is about the struggle that sin in our nature havocs. We have not only been freed from the Ten Commandments engraved on stone, but from the sin nature, itself, Romans 7:2, 1 John 3:5.

What we have left when born again is now the same nature as Jesus had on earth who experienced anger, but did not actually sin when he turned over the tables of the money changers. Jesus was the first of many brethren Romans 8:29-30. We see from God's perspective what is right and what is wrong. Righteous indignation we see is not a sin, even though self control is a fruit of the Spirit and does not mean no action ever.

My conclusion is that Romans 7:14-25 is no longer Paul currently, but as he remembers as a Pharisee and knows firsthand.

 

[CharismaticLady]

I think there is confusion between being free to sin with having freedom from sinning.

Without Christ, we have only compulsion to sin, are a slave to sin. This weekend, my friend angered me and I don’t think I was the best representative of Christ I could be. I actually prayed about it quite a bit. The temptation to sin remains within me but I have a divine Allie to save me.

Many believe anger is a sin, but it is not. Paul said, be angry, but sin not. In other words we can be angry through "righteous indignation" and not sin. Did Jesus sin when he turned over the tables of the money changers? Judge yourself rightly and go on.

I know I could get very angry at the Democrat's treatment of Donald Trump, but I did not sin. I didn't go around shooting Democrats. You didn't kill your friend did you?

 

[Wrangler]

You didn't kill your friend did you?

No but I let his worldly thinking disturb my inner peace.

 

[Riverwalker]

The nature of a human soul is sinful, but the nature of Christ’s soul was sinless!

I would replace the word soul here with the word Flesh. Jesus was specifically born of God, because He could not be born of man, because the sin nature is passed from Father to Son. Our Souls, are redeemable and renewable. But not our flesh... it will die and on resurrection day we will get a new body

 

[Netchaplain]

Start Romans 6 through 8. Romans 7:14-25 is only about the Old Testament Law and about those who were under it who had to keep the Ten Commandments with a sinful nature that was opposed to the law causing a struggle to keep it.

It's ok, but here is where we differ in understanding. Paul describes himself and a regenerate man in Ro 7. Nearly all Bible commentators, esp. two of the most popular from a few centuries ago, believe Paul was being descriptive as a Christian. The entirety of his discourse demonstrates continuous language of one who has transitioned from a prior lifestyle to a new one, e.g. "it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me." No more I as a new man (regenerated). He could say no longer I, because he knew now he never wills after the old man, for he was now "not in the flesh" (old man, sin nature) - Ro 8:9, though it was still in him.

 

[Netchaplain]

I would replace the word soul here with the word Flesh. Jesus was specifically born of God, because He could not be born of man, because the sin nature is passed from Father to Son. Our Souls, are redeemable and renewable. But not our flesh... it will die and on resurrection day we will get a new body

I think I understand your point, but the body is also going to be "redeemed" (Rom 8:23). He will take our old body and change it into a new one (Rom 8:11), unless you are referring to a different issue. We would be in agreement if by "flesh" you mean the sin nature, and not the physical body.

 

[CharismaticLady]

No but I let his worldly thinking disturb my inner peace.

That is not a sin. Don't let Satan get away with accusing you. But what you may gain out of this is the knowledge that you and your friend may not be equally yoked. That isn't just about marriage, but about who you are like minded with.

 

[CharismaticLady]

It's ok, but here is where we differ in understanding. Paul describes himself and a regenerate man in Ro 7. Nearly all Bible commentators, esp. two of the most popular from a few centuries ago, believe Paul was being descriptive as a Christian. The entirety of his discourse demonstrates continuous language of one who has transitioned from a prior lifestyle to a new one, e.g. "it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me." No more I as a new man (regenerated). He could say no longer I, because he knew now he never wills after the old man, for he was now "not in the flesh" (old man, sin nature) - Ro 8:9, though it was still in him.

Yes, we don't. I don't believe you are actually seeing the truth of being free from lawless sin. Did you read Romans 7 and 8:1-9? Its about the Law and why we are not under the law. The law showed us our sin, but Jesus took away our sin. What does 1 John 3:5 and Romans 8:2 mean to you?

I'm concerned for you seeing as you are a teacher and need to get this right. Commentators can be wrong if they don't have the Spirit.

What does 1 John 1:8 mean to you. I'm just taking your pulse to see if we agree on anything.

 

[CharismaticLady]

We are freed from the guilt and "dominion" of sin, but not from its presence and effects (to continue to learn), which is demonstrated by Paul in Ro 7 14-25 (Ro 612, 14).

We are free from lawless sin. But not from sins we can still commit WHILE walking in the Spirit. Phil. 3:16. There is a difference between these two sins. Unto death, and NOT UNTO death. 1 John 5:16-17

 

[marks]

But not from sins we can still commit WHILE walking in the Spirit.

Sins while walking in the Spirit, that doesn't seem to me.

Galatians 5:16 KJV
This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

I think the message here is that there are no works of the flesh if you are walking in the Spirit.

Freedom from sin is freedom from ALL sin, not just some sins. The one who had died is free from sin. Just plain, sin.

Much love!

 

[Netchaplain]

We are free from lawless sin. But not from sins we can still commit WHILE walking in the Spirit. Phil. 3:16. There is a difference between these two sins. Unto death, and NOT UNTO death. 1 John 5:16-17

I appreciate your ingenuous desire for the Word of Truth, but I think we are too far apart in our understandings to continue with this subject. Maybe another subject another time? God's blessings to your Family!