Quote:
Originally Posted by CKG
I'm not sure why you addressed this to me because I never said Jesus had a sin nature. I already knew he didn't have one because no such thing as a sin nature exists in the Bible. The term sin nature comes from reformation theology, not Bible theology. If we sin because we have a sin nature then what caused Adam and Eve to sin? Did they have a sin nature before the fall? They sinned because of the same reason we do. They chose their own lusts and desires over God's will.
But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. (James 1:14-15)
And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. (Genesis 3:6)
For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. (1 John 2:16) Our problem is the flesh!
This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. (Galatians 5:16-17) The virgin birth of Christ is an important, essential and non-negotiable doctrine of the faith, but the idea that Jesus had to be virgin born to avoid the sin nature is silly and a moot point. It was the only way he could be born into this world since he is God and has existed from eternity past. You and I don't have a pre-existence. Our life begins at conception as the result of the union between a man and woman (preferably husband and wife). He couldn't be conceived the same way you and I are or else he would've just been another man. He had to enter the world and take on a body like ours in order to die on a cross and pay for our sins and the only way he could be born was through the virgin birth. He took on a body just like ours EXCEPT he never ever once sinned. I know there are many deep things in the Bible that require a lot of study to understand but a lot of times it is man who complicates things with his man-made theology.
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: (Romans 8:3)
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; (Hebrews 2:14)
As far as Genesis 6; Job 1:6, 2:1, and 38:7 is pretty clear about who these sons of God were. |
Craig, as I said to Jen, I've unsubscribed from the thread, and addressed her question on Genesis 3 out of courtesy and friendship. I made my position known on the sin nature of Christ whatever theological entity may have originated the phrase and do not wish to argue the point. I've said all I know to say on the issue of the fornicating angel legend and you all will enjoy the thread a lot more without me because I am a Pauline dispensationalist and there may well be half-demon/half Satanic X-Files creatures running around with respect to Satan's war on Israel in
OT times and in the Tribulation. Paul tells us that principalities and powers were shown the door by Christ's work on Calvary and that what demonic activity God has allowed is in opposition to Paul's message of Grace, his primacy as the Apostle for today; in other words,
words, not Vampires & Werewolves For Lucifer.
We, not me alone,
we have been given the Great Commission of Acts 9:15 as chosen vessels to bear Christ's name to Gentiles, kings, and Jews as ambassadors for Christ and ministers of the reconciliation, not ministers of exorcisms, occultic studies, and angelogical anatomy.
Christ's sinless nature and the avenue of the Adamic sin nature from the seed of the male are two precepts I absolutely will not move from or compromise on. The passage of this corrupt nature from father to child is
obvious. Christ was fully human and was tempted,
indeed He was led of the Spirit into the wilderness expressly for that purpose according to the Scriptures and not to demonstrate to me or any of us His attributes, I believe Him without demonstration, but to fulfill the love of Son to His Father and to also demonstrate to Satan,
New Sheriff In Town, your time is short.
To me, any hint that Christ had the nature and capacity to commit sin is a heretical doctrine from the bipolar mind of Ellen White of the SDA, as heretical as Bullinger's soul sleep and Universal salvation of lost sinners in hell(along with demons). As heretical as the current "original manuscript" fraud sweeping IFB and Grace churches and the "kenosis theory", that Christ "emptied Himself" of His attributes of Deity that's hovering on the edges of the Grace Movement. "Heresy" is an offensive word and at the same time one Christians are scared to death of due to the Catholic Church having associated it with
killing people. "Angels in Genesis 6". Is that a heresy? No, it's like soldiers arguing over the correct color of a rifle strap in combat. Christ having the nature and capacity to sin? Yes,
heresy. Not a new thing. I had Charles Finney's autobiography once, the
very first sentence he wrote, "America is a paradise of heterodoxy(heresy)". That was
well over 100 years ago.
Now, you all discuss the topic(s) raised in this thread to your heart's content and have fun, it's just a dead-end precept with no resolution to me personally Craig.
Grace and peace brother
Tony