The Two Natures of Christ

[JonC]

Do you still have the sin nature then?

Before we change the topic I need to make sure I understand you correctly.

Are you saying that the things associated with the body you do with your "sin nature" and the things associated with your spirit you do with your "spirit nature"? You pray with your "spirit nature" but you walk and eat with your "sin nature"?

 

[JonC]

Perhaps the first thing that needs to be done is agree on the definition of "nature".

Here is one definition:

"an inner force (such as instinct, appetite, desire) or the sum of such forces in an individual."

 

[agedman]

I have read my post #2 through three times, but I cannot find the words "inside Christ." Help me out!

But I am not claiming that Jesus Christ had a mouse nature or an elephant nature. I am claiming on the basis of these Scriptures (to start with) that Christ has a divine nature and a human nature. Now it is not part of the divine nature to grow tired or weary (Isaiah 40:28), nor indeed to sleep (Psalm 121:4). So if Christ does not have a human nature (or mouse, or elephant!), why did He need to sleep? Sleep is natural for humans; I understand that it is necessary for a healthy life, so it must be part of our nature.

What has this to do with weariness? It cannot possibly be considered in the same light as a skill or talent. Clever people need sleep; so do stupid people.

You will be aware that the term 'emptied Himself' is not considered acceptable to many Christians. He became Man, but He did not cease to be God or to empty Himself of His divinity. Hence you have 'made Himself nothing' in the NIV and 'made Himself of no reputation' in the NKJV.

I don't follow your 'therefore.' Weariness and needing sleep is something all men suffer from; it is part of human nature. The fact that animals have the same need does not prevent it from being a human need, unless one wishes to say that Christ's nature was indeed that of a mouse, elephant, ape.........

But temptation is part of human nature: we are all tempted and tested one way or another, whereas animals are not so. Now God 'cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone' (James 1:13). Yet Christ 'was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin' (Hebrews 4:15). Christ was tempted by Satan as the second Adam. I do not believe that He could have succumbed to it, but that does not make the temptation any less real. If you heat pure gold up to 400 degrees or whatever, you will still get no dross or imputity from it, but that does not make the heat any less real.

I refer you to our Lord's favourite term for Himself, "Son of man," and also to 1 Corinthians 15:21, 'For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead.' I also refer you to Acts 17:31 and especially 1 Timothy 2:5 which both refer to the Lord Jesus Christ as a Man. 'For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.'

You are concerned with “in Christ” and I left out the “within” and used “in.” That was certainly an error on my part. .

The nature of the covering is as you indicate certainly has its needs: feeding, needs sleep, needs sunlight, needs cleaning, ... that which keeps the body healthy.

On that we agree.

Perhaps,There is a bit of difference when it comes to the intangibles. Do you view that, because Christ was tempted, He then had the capacity to succumb to that temptation and had to in some manner conquer the impulse to seccumb as is the estate of fallen creation?

Does not the Scriptures of your own post indicate that no such impulse was even A part of the “nature” of the incarnation?

To mark out the parameters of the body of Christ, the “nature” of the body of Christ was pre-fallen estate, not post fallen. Therefore, what is not a part of the pre-fall human nature is the impulse to the enticements of lust of flesh and eyes, and of pride.


I am not into sinless perfection, however to peek a bit at the “nature” of the incarnation, perhaps reflecting upon the statement of Scripture “...tempted as we are, yet without sin” is the condition of being “holy” and “filled with the Spirit” for the Scriptures state that even believers filled with the Spirit will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh.

Christ was certainly filled with the Spirit.

Temptation certainly comes to all creation - not just humans. However it was not originally the “nature” of the pre fall creation

If one accepts the Christ took upon Himself the fallen nature, as some seem to consider a valid view, that is in conflict with the statement made to Marry, “...Holy One...” (Luke 1)

I agree with much of what you posted, and perhaps I am assuming that which I have found typical of many when addressing this topic and was therefore reactionary.

My apology if such assumptions were incorrect.

 

[agedman]

Perhaps the first thing that needs to be done is agree on the definition of "nature".

Here is one definition:

"an inner force (such as instinct, appetite, desire) or the sum of such forces in an individual."

You are stating a definition of the modern thinking, however historical perspectives were different as I posted above.

 

[JonC]

You are stating a definition of the modern thinking, however historical perspectives were different as I posted above.

Yes. (Or somewhat).

I believe the definition I stated is closer to a biblical definition (which centers in desire or will) than the idea presented by some (that it is, essentially, "person").

 

[37818]

". . . the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; . . . "

There is absolutely no valid Scriptural justification for this. Both the Son of God and the Father are uncaused being the uncaused God. What is caused is not God. And the Son, the Logos is the sole cause of all things (John 1:3).

 

[SovereignGrace]

It is my understanding that in the Trinity, there is no subordination, as all are co-equal, co-eternal. Three persons, yet one God. Not three Gods but three persons who are one God.

We can see Jesus' submission to His Father in the incarnation, but that does not make Him less God than pre-incarnation.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

There is absolutely no valid Scriptural justification for this. Both the Son of God and the Father are uncaused being the uncaused God. What is caused is not God. And the Son, the Logos is the sole cause of all things (John 1:3).

Psalm 2:7. 'I will declare the decree: the LORD has said to Me, "You are My Son, today I have begotten You."'
The decree(s) of God were issued in eternity; the Lord Jesus Christ is eternally begotten of the Father. Even if one (foolishly IMO) rejects monogenes as meaning 'only begotten' in John 1 and elsewhere, Hebrews 1 quotes Psalm 2 and establishes the Lord Jesus as the eternal Son.

 

[JonC]

It is my understanding that in the Trinity, there is no subordination, as all are co-equal, co-eternal. Three persons, yet one God. Not three Gods but three persons who are one God.

We can see Jesus' submission to His Father in the incarnation, but that does not make Him less God than pre-incarnation.

I agree. In Scripture we see Jesus humbling Himself in becoming flesh, but then we see God glorifying Christ (to the glory "he once had").

 

[37818]

Psalm 2:7. 'I will declare the decree: the LORD has said to Me, "You are My Son, today I have begotten You."'
The decree(s) of God were issued in eternity; the Lord Jesus Christ is eternally begotten of the Father. Even if one (foolishly IMO) rejects monogenes as meaning 'only begotten' in John 1 and elsewhere, Hebrews 1 quotes Psalm 2 and establishes the Lord Jesus as the eternal Son.

Not the correct interpretation of that prophecy. 1) God calls Him His Son before He begot Him. "Thou art my Son." 2) A given day is in time and not eternity. 3) It is a prophecy of the incarnate Christ's bodily resurrection, Acts 13:33; Hebrews 1:5-6; Romans 1:4; Romans 8:29; Colossians 1:18 & Revelation 1:5.

 

[37818]

It is my understanding that in the Trinity, there is no subordination, as all are co-equal, co-eternal. Three persons, yet one God. Not three Gods but three persons who are one God.

We can see Jesus' submission to His Father in the incarnation, but that does not make Him less God than pre-incarnation.

You are correct in that they as the One LORD God there is no subordination. The eternal Son is a subordinate position to the eternal Father as His sole actor on His behalf. John 1:2. John 1:3; John 1:9-10; Hebrews 1:2-3; John 1:14; John 1:18. John 14:6.

 

[loDebar]

Not the correct interpretation of that prophecy. 1) God calls Him His Son before He begot Him. "Thou art my Son." 2) A given day is in time and not eternity. 3) It is a prophecy of the incarnate Christ's bodily resurrection, Acts 13:33; Hebrews 1:5-6; Romans 1:4; Romans 8:29; Colossians 1:18 & Revelation 1:5.

How is He a son , Martin, How is God a father to a co equal God?

Th Father and Son of on "THIS DAY", in Heb,, Psalms was referring to the same time designation as when the GOD would be a human son

 

[37818]

How is He a son , Martin, How is God a father to a co equal God?

Th Father and Son of on "THIS DAY", in Heb,, Psalms was referring to the same time designation as when the GOD would be a human son

Psalms 2:7 God calls Him His Son prior to "this day have I begotten thee." It is post incarnation, Acts 13:33.

 

[The Archangel]

It is my understanding that in the Trinity, there is no subordination, as all are co-equal, co-eternal. Three persons, yet one God. Not three Gods but three persons who are one God.

We can see Jesus' submission to His Father in the incarnation, but that does not make Him less God than pre-incarnation.

Yes. There are two ways to describe the trinity, however. One is ontological the other is economical. The ontological idea is that all members of the Trinity are all co-equal. The economic, discussion, discusses role. In role, the members of the Trinity are not equal--the Father does not die, the son does, etc. So, there are two aspects in which we discuss the Trinity and, sometimes, great confusion comes when we apply the ontological lens to the economic discussion and the economic lens to the ontological discussion.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[loDebar]

Psalms 2:7 God calls Him His Son prior to "this day have I begotten thee." It is post incarnation, Acts 13:33.

He was referring to that day. Read the previous verses

 

[Martin Marprelate]

How is He a son , Martin, How is God a father to a co equal God?

Th Father and Son of on "THIS DAY", in Heb,, Psalms was referring to the same time designation as when the GOD would be a human son

May I refer you to John 5:18?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Do you view that, because Christ was tempted, He then had the capacity to succumb to that temptation and had to in some manner conquer the impulse to seccumb as is the estate of fallen creation?

Does not the Scriptures of your own post indicate that no such impulse was even A part of the “nature” of the incarnation?

To mark out the parameters of the body of Christ, the “nature” of the body of Christ was pre-fallen estate, not post fallen. Therefore, what is not a part of the pre-fall human nature is the impulse to the enticements of lust of flesh and eyes, and of pride.

I have written that Christ could not have succumbed to temptation. However, I believe that as a man He could be tempted. Otherwise His temptation was a sham. His struggles in Gethsemane show that He was under immense strain in the hours before His crucifixion. The Scriptures tell us that He was 'tempted in every way just as we are-- yet without sin.'

 

[37818]

He was referring to that day. Read the previous verses

The day of His resurrection. ". . . But God raised him from the dead: And he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people. And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, . . ." -- Acts 13:30-34.

 

[agedman]

I have written that Christ could not have succumbed to temptation. However, I believe that as a man He could be tempted. Otherwise His temptation was a sham. His struggles in Gethsemane show that He was under immense strain in the hours before His crucifixion. The Scriptures tell us that He was 'tempted in every way just as we are-- yet without sin.'

Certainly we believers are tested, enticed, tempted as was the Christ.

The account of tempting of Christ given in the Scriptures was as an enticement, a testing, a tempting (all definitions of the Greek word) as one who would have to make a trade, an exchange.

It was not an appeal based upon fallen nature that is “prone to wander” nor was there evidence of trickery such aswas done to Eve, but that same trade goods offer that the first Adam faced.

He was hungry, body needs could be met with an exchange.

Given the kingdoms of the world for an exchange.

We, also, as new creations, face such an offer of exchange in testing. Such comes in ways which derail effective witness, trade upon desire for station and status... it isn’t breaking of commandments, for there is “no condemnation...” so the enticement is a matter of exchange.

In the verse you quoted, He was tempted (tested, enticed) in every way we are - that believers are. Therefore, what exchange can the father of lies offer but what he offered our Christ? Not the loss of salvation, but the loss of service and status as a good and faithful servant. Even the fear of loss in which service and servitude are withheld, hidden as that unfaithful servant in the parable of talents.

In no manner am I diminishing the power of the temptation, but who is tested, entice, tempted and to what gain for our adversary.

Certainly, we (believers) are tempted in the same manner as our Lord.

The readers need to keep in mind that our Redeemer was not born in a fallen body, but was from conception the “Holy One.” Totally unspotted by sin, not prone to sin,... just as the first Adam prior to the fall where Adam chose to disregard God and exchange all he had. The same exchange offered to believers and to the Redeemer.

 

[agedman]

The day of His resurrection. ". . . But God raised him from the dead: And he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people. And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, . . ." -- Acts 13:30-34.

How do you handle Rev. 13:8?