Featured The Two "Natures" of Christ Jesus

Precisely.

God cannot be successfully tempted. It wasn't that Jesus could not sin, in that He didn't have the ability or the option but that He would not sin, in that He had the will and the self-control to do rightly by the power of the Holy Spirit.

But the fruit of the Spirit is..... self-control. (Galatians 5:22-23)

 

Not in Himself being God?

Luke 18:19, And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.


Yet why was He actually tempted in His incarnation before the cross?

Hebrews 4:15, . . . was in all points tempted like as we are, . . .

James 1:13, . . . for God cannot be tempted with evil, . . .

 

So by your logic women do not have a sin nature. What scripture do you base this on?

 

I do recall the words "self control" being used. Besides, there is only One God. The power of the Holy Spirit is Jesus being Himself.

 

What?

Woman absolutely do have the sin nature. What did I say that caused you to think that I was saying otherwise?

 

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Jesus did not have what Paul refers to as "the flesh" in Romans 7, which was passed from one generation to the next through the father.

He did not and does not have two natures. He became a man and remains one to this day and forever more.

We do not have two natures. Our nature has more than one part but that isn't the same thing. Just because an engine has fuel injectors and pistons, doesn't mean that there's more than one engine. It's one engine with multiple parts.

Because He had no Earthly father and thus was not "in Adam".

LOL!

That pretty much has to be the clearest example of question begging I've seen in literally years!

Why is the sky blue?
Because "blue" is what we call the color that sky happens to be!

LOL!!!

 

John 4:24, God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Romans 8:9, But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

1 John 5:12, He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

Romans 8:16, The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

1 Timothy 2:5, For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

John 14:6, Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

John 16:13, Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

The book of Revelation.

 

FYI. Our brother @CJP69, it would seem, refuses to really discuss anything except on his terms.

 

My terms being that whomever I'm discussing something with must be substantively on topic and clearly responsive, using as little "cut and paste" from other sources as is reasonable. I do not read minds and will not make any attempt to decipher what someone is getting at. Meaning that comments that are made that do not seem to me to be directly responsive and are offered without context or explanation will be ignored at my sole discretion.

 

"The sin nature is passed through the father. This is how Jesus could be born of a woman and not have a fallen nature."

Logically by your view the woman could not have a sin nature to pass on. Or are you saying that the sin nature of the woman could not be passed on. Those are your only two options if we stick to what you said.

 

@Van your response should have been made to @CJP69 as that is who holds the logical position that women do not have a sin nature thus my question. But you do seem to not look at what is being responded to thus you do make your comments to the wrong person.

 

This thread from it's very start actually had zero common ground for it's discussion.

 

The mechanism by which the sin nature is passed is not explained. Someone has insisted that it is not passed on biologically and I tend to agree with him but that is far away from being established as fact. All the biblical material supports is that we inherit our nature, whether fallen or otherwise, from our father. Whether that is a biological process or a spiritual one or perhaps a bit of both, I don't know but women have fathers and so they do inherit the sin nature, they just do not pass it on. This it is why, biblically speaking, it is the father who is the head of the household and names his children as well as why it is "in Adam" that we all died in spite of it being Eve who sinned first, and how it is that Jesus was born without a fallen nature.

Incidentally, since we are talking about logical possibilities. It is also logically possible that it would require both parents to have a fallen nature for it to be passed on to their offspring. This possibility, however, has the disadvantage of having no biblical support.

 

On the contrary.
Everyone involved believes that Jesus did not have a fallen nature.

 

Well, do you know what Genesis 3:22 had to do with the issue?

 

Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and [a virgin] shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Matt 1:23
V 25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Would the, "sin nature," have been passed, to the one conceived out of Spirit, which was holy, had Joseph have known the virgin Mary before she brought forth her first born?

1:20 ταῦτα δὲ αὐτοῦ ἐνθυμηθέντος ἰδού, ἄγγελος κυρίου κατ᾽ ὄναρ ἐφάνη αὐτῷ λέγων, Ἰωσὴφ υἱὸς Δαβίδ, μὴ φοβηθῇς παραλαβεῖν Μαριὰμ τὴν γυναῖκά σου· τὸ γὰρ ἐν αὐτῇ γεννηθὲν ἐκ πνεύματός ἐστιν ἁγίου

The for in her being conceived out of Spirit is Holy.

Would the baby just brought forth still be Holy?

 

Logically if Joseph had known her prior to the birth of Christ she would not have been a virgin would she.

Having a sin nature, ability to sin, did not require that Christ sin or as the calvinists insist be held accountable for the sin of Adam. Augustines "original sin". We are held accountable for the sin we commit not for those our parents have committed.

 

It seems a bit of definining of terms is needed here.

The "sin nature" to my mind, is not merely the ability to sin. Adam had the ability to sin before he ate of the Tree, right?

The sin nature is what Paul called "the flesh". It is that part of us that seems to have a mind of its own. There's what we want to do and then there's what we actually do which is not what we want in our mind.

Romans 7:15 For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. 16 If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. 17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. 19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. 20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.

21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.
​

It is this "flesh" that is passed through the father and that Jesus did not have.