Christ's Nature

[Brother Bob]

I haven't had a chance to go and look up a source, but I do believe that the ECF's also stated that the divine nature of Christ communicated attributes to the human nature which means that the human nature was purified by the divine nature, thus establishing Jesus as the second Adam born without sin or sinful nature. They also believed that the sinful nature is not an intrisic part of human nature thus it is possible to be fully human yet lack the sinful nature.

You got it!

 

[Brother Bob]

I understand your point in all of this. You are taking a strong stand for the deity of Christ. But my point is, that the Son of Man there too, and MUST be 100% If not the death on the cross means nothing to us. Do you agree?

I agree but He was not born with a sinful nature where we are or we are born after the similitude of Adam.

100% man and 100% God but not equal in power.

 

[Jarthur001]

100% man and 100% God but not equal in power.

Not sure what you mean here Bob. Help me out

 

[webdog]

I agree but He was not born with a sinful nature where we are or we are born after the similitude of Adam.

BB, remember though, that Adam was not born with a sin nature either, and the ability to sin was still there (obviously). The same is true with Christ, although He never sinned, the ability to sin still existed. You cannot be tempted to sin if the ability is not present.

 

[Brother Bob]

Not sure what you mean here Bob. Help me out

it was the God power that was able to lay down His life and take it up again. He had to call on God to glorify Him as He was to raise Lazarus.

 

[Brother Bob]

I still say, how could God sin against God? It just don't make sense. Because it couldn't sin doesn't take away from suffering for the sins of the world in no way. Being able to sin does not make it a better sacrifice.

 

[LeBuick]

I still say, how could God sin against God? It just don't make sense. Because it couldn't sin doesn't take away from suffering for the sins of the world in no way. Being able to sin does not make it a better sacrifice.

I believe I see your point Bro Bob, you're saying how can God transgress against himself.

Christ the spirit could not sin because that spirit is God. To this I agree. I still believe the flesh could have sinned, yet it did not sin because the spirit is God who won every battle against every temptation. We know he had these battles because he was tempted. So if I read you right, you're saying yes he was tempted but there is no way he could loose the battle.

I like manner, what if I made the law? Can I be guilty of breaking the law of I make the law? Why wouldn't I just rewrite the law to comform to my bahavier?

 

[Brother Bob]

I believe I see your point Bro Bob, you're saying how can God transgress against himself.

Christ the spirit could not sin because that spirit is God. To this I agree. I still believe the flesh could have sinned, yet it did not sin because the spirit is God who won every battle against every temptation. We know he had these battles because he was tempted. So if I read you right, you're saying yes he was tempted but there is no way he could loose the battle.

Yes, LeBuick that is what I am saying.

 

[LeBuick]

LeBuick can maybe help us out on this....for it has been a while for me.

But..there were 3 major views. the error came as you have stated..how can one be 100% of both? If you are 100%..this leaves no room for anything else. So..it was said by some that Christ was man in the flesh..and God in the Spirit. This is rather long...but it short this does not work. The Assyrian Church held this view.

another view was...the two natures were like water and oil...in one glass...together as one...but natures are 2...never mixxing. again..wrong.

Cyril wrote the hypostatic union view...100% of both natures.

This debate lasted close to 100 years

I know what you're talking about but it has been a while for me also. I like to say that 100% being total is a human standard or limitation that we are trying to impose on God. That's why Jesus said to man, this just might be impossible...

Remember God adds by subtracting and multiplies by dividing. He is omnipresent yet won't dwell in an unclean place. He is all knowing yet allows us to decide. :BangHead: :BangHead:

 

[LeBuick]

Yes, LeBuick that is what I am saying.

Explain this, why would we say he was obedient if he could do nothing but the will of he who sent him?

Doesn't that imply he was more of a machine?

This also adds to willingness of man to concede we can't be good because we were not intended to be good? We're not made of good stuff like Jesus was. This says to man don't bother to fight the fight of Christianity because you're expected to loose. I disagree with this train of thought because Paul said let this mind be in you that was also in Christ Jesus. This mind was the divine spirit was it not?

 

[Brother Bob]

Explain this, why would we say he was obedient if he could do nothing but the will of he who sent him?

I think he was like a good man that has a job to do. He gets on with the business of fininshing that job and by doing that God the Son was being obeident to God the Father.

This also adds to willingness of man to concede we can't be good because we were not intended to be good? We're not made of good stuff like Jesus was. This says to man don't bother to fight the fight of Christianity because you're expected to loose. I disagree with this train of thought because Paul said let this mind be in you that was also in Christ Jesus. This mind was the divine spirit was it not?

He that walketh after the flesh shall die.
He that walketh after the Spirit shall live.

Its is that crossroads I spoke of before and I believe God made us so we could choose to walk on the right or walk on the left. It would be so much like a machine or robot if God had not fixed it this way wouldn't it? What a useless life for man if he had no choice.

 

[BobRyan]

Explain this, why would we say he was obedient if he could do nothing but the will of he who sent him?

Doesn't that imply he was more of a machine?

This also adds to willingness of man to concede we can't be good because we were not intended to be good? We're not made of good stuff like Jesus was. This says to man don't bother to fight the fight of Christianity because you're expected to loose. I disagree with this train of thought because Paul said let this mind be in you that was also in Christ Jesus. This mind was the divine spirit was it not?

True and this is why John makes this case in 1John 2 saying that WE should walk as Christ walked.

In Heb 5 we see how Christ "learned obedience"


7 In the days of His flesh, He offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to the One able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His piety.
8 Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered.
9 And having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation,


Heb 12 calls us to take courage from this path that He blazed for us - not to lose heart -- but to endure as He endured.


Hebrews 12
1 Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us[/b], let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles[/b] us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us,
2 fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith[/b], who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame[/b], and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
3 For consider Him who has endured such hostility by sinners against Himself, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.
4 You have not yet resisted to the point of shedding blood in your striving against sin;[/b]

 

[LeBuick]

7 In the days of His flesh, He offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to the One able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His piety.
8 Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered.
9 And having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation,

Do I understand this verse to say he bacame or learned obedience? If so, this implies he was not always obedient which again would point to the flesh since we know his spirit was always obedient, even unto death.

 

[BobRyan]

I don't think infants start out with fully formed characters. Christ had to start "from zero". Learning to eat solid food, learning to walk, learning to talk etc. But I don't think this means he went "From disobedient to obedient". I think that each decision -- each unpleasant choice is a fork in the road where you have an opportunity to choose disobedience or obedience. When you are napping or simply taking a walk you may not be choosing either one.

But you are right - the text shows growth - it shows progress, maturing, learning etc.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[LeBuick]

I don't think infants start out with fully formed characters. Christ had to start "from zero". Learning to eat solid food, learning to walk, learning to talk etc. But I don't think this means he went "From disobedient to obedient". I think that each decision -- each unpleasant choice is a fork in the road where you have an opportunity to choose disobedience or obedience. When you are napping or simply taking a walk you may not be choosing either one.

But you are right - the text shows growth - it shows progress, maturing, learning etc.

In Christ,

Bob

No, I didn't want to go as far as to say he was disobedient or that would mean he sinned and we know that is not true. There are some who believe the spirit of Christ actual took on residence in the flesh at the baptism of Christ. This was when the dove landed on his shoulder and the voice came from heaven. We also know Christ did not die, his spirit was commended to the hands of the father immediately before death on the cross.

I guess I need to do more time and study on Jesus the flesh. This is good...

 

[BobRyan]

Both Christ and Stephen said at their death "into Thy hands I commit my spirit".

In Eccl 12 we are told that the spirit of all mankind goes back to God at death.

Having said that - I would agree with you that God the Son "eternal God" may have willingly confined Himself to the Tomb - but very likely was not dead (as the flesh is dead) since He said "I have power to lay it down and I have power to take it up". He was alive and active "enough" to raise Himself from the dead IF He chose to do so.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: but very likely was not dead (as the flesh is dead)

HP: What ever happened to that literal payment you say He paid? If the penalty for sin is eventual annihilation, how could Christ have paid that literally without being totally annihilated?

 

[BobRyan]

I believe that the literal payment mentioned in Luke 12:49-52 and Matt 18 is the suffering and torment in the lake of fire as seen in Rev 14:10-12 and in Rev 20. He was the "Atoning Sacrifice for OUR sins and not for OUR sins only but for the SINS of the WHOLE world" 1John 2:2

In Heb 2 we are told that "Christ tasted the sufferings of death for every man" -- our suffering "the stroke that was due to us" Is 53 is what He took upon Him -- as a "substitutionary atoning sacrifice". He took upon him the stripes - the blows - the torment due to us. When you see him sweat great drops of blood in the Garden of Gethsemane He is "suffering" for our sins. When you see Him on the cross suffering to the point that His physical heart is physically broken - it is a sign of that supernatural suffering.

That suffering ended When Christ said "IT IS FINISHED". At that point He had sufferred all the torment due to all mankind for all of time.

After that - death was in fact relief from suffering. Rest until resurrection Sunday.

As "mortal man" we can not SURVIVE that torment and suffering (else we could simply pay our own debt of sin and then go to heaven). We are "destroyed" BOTH body and soul in suffering that hell fire. (Matt 10). Christ on the other hand was sinless - and is God. He can both SURVIVE the torment AND go on to heaven as a holy sinless perfect pure being.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

HP: BR: Your 'literal' is literal only in the sense that it was real. Your 'literal' is not literal in the sense that it was an exacting the punishment required by the law.

 

[BobRyan]

God's Law points to Suffering as the debt that is owed in Rev 14:10 and in Luke 12:48-52. It ALSO points out that there are degrees of suffering and some owe more than others depending what they knew in Luke 12.

"To Him that knows to do righ and does it not to him it is sin" - James 4.

And we know that Christ paid for all of it - debt owed BECAUSE of each transgression.