Christ's Nature

He would of had to gotten the 100% God out of the way for Him to be able to sin.

 

I have major problems with this view..as did the early fathers of the church. The subject is HUGE and hard to go into with a few post. I can give you a few books to read on this...that would help.

 

Hebrews, chapter 4
15: For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
16: Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

 

agree..he was tempted.

God cannot be tempted

 

There is a difference of placing a candy bar before someone tempting them or someone looking at a candy bar being tempted.

high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities

 

agree...Christ was 100% man...thus Christ was temped just as we are...and sinned not.

and...He was 100% God...

Son of man...
Son of God...

He was both...yet one person. Thus hypostatic

 

Like I said before...it is huge subject. I myself do not have time to start from the beginning and build into the right view. Maybe others will want to do this. But like I have said...this is very old debate...and has been address. One can find all this in church history.

If you do not agree with this view, write your own.

 

I think in this debate thoughout the theologian world that the majority believes Jesus could not sin for He is God in a man where we are man in a man.

 

not really.

In the history books you will find very few that would agree with that statement. The only church group I know of right off, is no longer around. There have been a few cults that hold to this. That one church group... was Nestorianism that later became the Assyrian Church. This church moved toward China..and when the ...Ming Dynasty fell...it kinda fall with it.

Something like that...anyway...

look at this...

http://www.carm.org/doctrine/2natures.htm

also..
Look up Nestorianism and hypostatic union on google

ADDED LATER.....Well I guess I should have looked this up. I told ya I'm getting old.

Nestorianism was not the view as I said.. its Eutychianism or Monophycitism. Some say this is the same...but others disagree

 

Sin separates us from God.

How could God separate from God? To say God could sin is to say He could lie and destroy the plan of Salvation of man that He had put in place and all that He had ever said about the coming of the messaih. Show me where it was ever prophesied that Jesus could sin. This argument is "mute". Jesus did not sin and to argue either way is foolish.

 

Not really mute at all. One must see Christ as Man and God, or there was no death on the cross.

 

No problem whatsoever but Jesus is God in man and man is a man in man.

Sin is against God and for Jesus to sin would be God sinning against God.

makes about as much sense as falling off a log backwards.

 

No one said Christ sinned. This is the point.

To be fully human, able to sin other wise He is God. Christ was 100% man and 100% God and as a man...
He got hungry....God never gets hungry....
He went to sleep....God never sleeps
He had to open doors to walk into a room....God was and needed not open the door.
He grow......God never had to grow.
He prayed.....Does God pray?
He died...did God die?

Christ human nature had to be just as man...or he was not man.

I'll go with the early church view. You can believe what you want.

Chalcedonian Creed​

 

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.

:type:

 

James, this comment needs more clarification. Are you saying that, like other men, He was born "dead in sin"?

edit...your post after this clarified my question.

 

indeed....Christ had no sin nature, for God was His father.

If we limit this to one sin it is easy to see. Lets say to pick up a rock is sin.

In man, he is fully able to pick up the rock.

Christ was able to pick up the rock.

In man, he has a desire to pickup the rock, because of sin nature.

Christ has not the desire, for he had no sin nature.

Man was from Adam.

Christ is born from God and is the 2nd Adam with no sin nature.

Man will pick up the rock and sin.

Christ is able to pick up the rock, but will not.

 

He had the power to do or not do any of those things as He said "you take not my life, I lay it down".

Yes, God the Son died or we still in our sins.

I don't see where this differs from what I been posting. Where does this say He could sin?

 

not at all.

This is why there was a Virgin birth. God the Father begot the Son...so there is no Sin nature.

 

I edited my post before you replied.

 

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?