Quote:
Originally Posted by greenbear
Back to the question of whether Christ was born with a sin nature.
After thinking about this tonight I'm afraid I have to change my mind. Christ could not have been born with a sin nature. And there are plenty of scriptures that show there is a sin nature. Spiritual death and sin nature are taught in scripture, I don't think they are products of Calvinist teaching.
Christ is both a man and God at the same time. God CANNOT sin.
I don't accept Tony's "father's blood" theory but he is correct in saying that Christ was not born with a sin nature.
There is a sin nature. Temptation comes from outside the man but it finds a "hook", his own lust, and he is enticed. Christ was tempted like we are, yet without sin. Unlike the rest of mankind, there was no lust inside Him to draw Him away from the Law and entice Him.
John 14:30
God sent His own Son in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh. This verse I believe puts to rest the idea that Christ had a sin nature. God doesn't say He sent His Son of sinful flesh. Christ could not have a sin nature because God cannot be tempted with evil.
Romans 8:3
|
Sister, the father's blood thing is not a "theory", it's
medical fact. And I never said the sin nature is passed on through the
blood, but through the male
seed, sperm. In my study of mortuary science I had to study hematology, a child in the womb receives nutrients and oxygen via osmosis and returns wastes and carbon dioxide in the same manner, but the blood system of an unborn child is the father's and in no way comes into contact with the mother's.
The father's blood thing is also a
theological fact.
Ac 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of
God, which he hath purchased with
his own blood.
Sister, with that, you all have fun, I've said all I have to say and anything further would be repeating myself.
Grace and peace friends
Tony