Jesus and the 'sinful' Nature?

Carl Emerson said:

We therefore have the war within, Paul spoke of, that Jesus did not experience - His temptations were all from an external source.

Click to expand...

I guess I would challenge that last part.

I.
A) Jesus for the most part doesn't seem to have as many problems as we do, but I think a lot of that came from His single minded commitment to the Father, his sense of purpose / destiny etc.

B) Besides this there is an issue of ingrained behavior, bad habits, bad thinking that people have that does cause the war within. e.g. There is a lot of cognitive research that shows things like depression etc. that shows the longer people practice various negative thinking that strengthens that area of the brain for that in the future. It's almost like your brain works like your department of Transportation that strengthens the roads and highways you use the most and the fact that those roads are so smooth and wide means you want to use them a lot. So when it comes to bad habits, addictions etc. that a person has done for years they got much more struggle the longer they do them.



II.
1)There are certainly times when Jesus did face a battle within himself. Gethsemane probably the best example. The fact that he knew what was going to happen to him, asked the Father if their was another way out, and sweated blood showed that he was under tremendous strain, (people tend to buckle from duress much less than that since that is really rare condition that we seldom hear about).

Anyway that kind of issue does show some pressure from the Sarx, namely the self preservation instinct.



III "What is not assumed is not redeemed" / "What is not assumed is not healed".

Those are two similar quotes from two Church Fathers (Athanasius and Gregory of Nazianzus) that show the understanding that Jesus had to have the same nature as ours (of course without sin) to complete his mission on Earth (Because of the Divine Economy of "how things work" so to speak). Basically those quotes are a analysis / summary of some major major scriptures of saint Paul like Romans 5:12 (and the surrounding verses), 1 Cor 15, Genesis 2 and 3.

Andrewn said:

God did not create in people a nature that is sinful, fallen, or unredeemed. These concepts are not biblical. He created a nature that is 'human' and Jesus took that same nature.

The 'human nature,' which the Lord assumed, is composed of a 'human spirit' and a 'human flesh.'

"The flesh (Gr sarx) is not always evil in Scripture. Indeed, it is used positively in relation to sexual intercourse in marriage (Eph 5:31) – as well as for the sinless human body of Jesus (Jn 1:14; 1 Jn 4:2,3). Indeed, flesh (what is physical) is necessary for the body to live out the faith the Lord works in (Gal 2:20)."

Contrary to gnostic views (and Watchman Nee), the flesh in the NT is a morally-neutral life force (without which we cannot survive) and leads to desires (some are good and some are evil). This is explained in posts #34 and #109.

Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth.

The evil desires are referred to in the Bibles with the words 'lust' and 'coveting.' Jesus had our 'human flesh' leading to good desires, as in Luk 22:15 but no evil desires (lust / coveting).

Click to expand...

God created man and woman and He saw that they were both "good". The Holy Spirit dwelled in them. They had a personal relationship with God. They walked with God. They were not created "bad".
God and humans have a unique nature. They share a relationship. No other created being has this as humans are made in His image . Adam and Eve were given power and dominion. With this responsibility also came a command of obedience. When the fall came, the two unique natures were no longer bonded. In other words, the relationship was severed. The "good news" is He came back to restore the relationship through Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Blessings.

What Christ did not take on is not redeemed. If Christ did not take on our will, it would have remained unredeemend. Christ had to be tempted just as we are.

Jesus was "tempted in every way, just as we are, yet without sin" (Hebrews 4:15

CONJECTURE: I think that he may have been tempted on two occassions - in the desert and perhaps in Gethsamane. I'm venturing into deep waters and am more liable to sink than swim here, but that's my conjecture.
I say this because He lived in such tight-knitted unity to God. His entire being was God-mediated and God-fcused. It seems improbable that he would be tempted in the course of normal living. The two aforementioned episodes are unique cases. In the first incident, Christ was led into the desert for a time of trial. It had a purpose. In the second, Christ waged war with the pull of human nature away from suffering.

Butterball1 said:

Hi,

Romans 13:2 "Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."

If men were born with a sinful nature it would be impossible for them to resist the devil and impossible to obey God's will. Hence their being lost would not be due to a moral choice they willfully made but lost due to a natural inability they were born with. God therefore could not rightly, justly condemn men due to a natural inability they were born with. It would be like condemning a man born with out legs for not walking. God does not judge men according to natural inabilities but does judge men according to the free moral choices men make for themselves.

Click to expand...

This thesis ignores the work of the holy spirit within the saved.

We are saved by grace and His work through us follows.

It is impossible to resist the Devil before we have the Hoy Spirit within.

The fundamental response that then determines eternal fruitfulness is surrender.

Surrender does not depend on any natural ability.

Clare73 said:

There is no implication in Ephesians 5:31 that the human body is not sinful, mortal and morally compromised as taught by Paul.

Click to expand...

I would take a position between yours and Andrewn. Paul uses flesh with a range of meanings, from a neutral one like Eph 5:31, to places that see it as corrupted. Taken together, I think his view would be that flesh is by nature corruptible, but in practice corrupted. That would allow for Christ to be in the flesh, since for him the corruption isn't present. His flesh (i.e. his mortal person) would be by nature corruptible (in NT terms, subject to temptation) but not corrupted.

It's also worth noting that in this context flesh is being used to represent the whole human existence. He doesn't have the view that our flesh is evil and our souls good. It's us as corrupted flesh and the Holy Spirit renewing us, not our flesh as evil and our spirit as good. That's the difference between Paul and Gnosticism.

Rom 7:21 is the most difficult here. But Paul is really talking about the contrast between natural, what he is, and what he wants to be and eventually will be. Despite his contrast between sarx and mind, he is not claiming that the body is the source of sin and his mind would otherwise be pure. It’s not a contrast between a corrupted flesh and uncorrupted mind, but between what he is and what he wants to be.

Andrewn said:

Do we struggle with sin only before and not after being born again?

Click to expand...

NO of course not...

Maria Billingsley said:

God created man and woman and He saw that they were both "good". The Holy Spirit dwelled in them. They had a personal relationship with God. They walked with God. They were not created "bad".

Click to expand...

What evidence do we have that Adam and Eve were indwelled by the Holy Spirit.

Jeremiah prophesied that this indwelling was distinctly new covenant.

Minister Monardo said:

John 3:7 Do not marvel that I said to you, You must be born again.

Click to expand...

Being born again would be another impossiblity if men were born with a sin nature.

Carl Emerson said:

This thesis ignores the work of the holy spirit within the saved.

We are saved by grace and His work through us follows.

It is impossible to resist the Devil before we have the Hoy Spirit within.

The fundamental response that then determines eternal fruitfulness is surrender.

Surrender does not depend on any natural ability.

Click to expand...

Men could never come to salvation at all if men were born with a sinful nature, could never find grace. But would always reject God, the Holy Spirit and salvation.

The Holy Spirit would not randomly, unconditionally "work" on one person and not another for such would make God, Holy Spirit respecter of persons. Nor could God justly, rightly condemn those the Holy Spirit failed to "work" on due to a natural inability they were born with against their will.

Eftsoon said:

What Christ did not take on is not redeemed. If Christ did not take on our will, it would have remained unredeemend. Christ had to be tempted just as we are.

Jesus was "tempted in every way, just as we are, yet without sin" (Hebrews 4:15

CONJECTURE: I think that he may have been tempted on two occassions - in the desert and perhaps in Gethsamane. I'm venturing into deep waters and am more liable to sink than swim here, but that's my conjecture.
I say this because He lived in such tight-knitted unity to God. His entire being was God-mediated and God-fcused. It seems improbable that he would be tempted in the course of normal living. The two aforementioned episodes are unique cases. In the first incident, Christ was led into the desert for a time of trial. It had a purpose. In the second, Christ waged war with the pull of human nature away from suffering.

Click to expand...

In both cases the temptations were coming from an external source and not self. In the second case it was a matter of surrender to the Father. Asking if there might be another way is not indicating temptation within.

Carl Emerson said:

In both cases the temptations were coming from an external source and not self. In the second case it was a matter of surrender to the Father. Asking if there might be another way is not indicating temptation within.

Click to expand...

Temptation is always from outside. It always comes from some external trigger or stimuli. The ex-smoker sees someone light up and feels compelled; the young man sees a beautiful woman and feels attracted. We are not brains in a vat, so temptation has to come from outside.

Butterball1 said:

Being born again would be another impossiblity if men were born with a sin nature.

Click to expand...

John 3:6 That which is born of sarx is sarx, that which is born of pnuema is pnuema.
The need to be born again pertains to a spirit that needing to be 'resurrected' in Christ.
With God, all things are possible.

Carl Emerson said:

What evidence do we have that Adam and Eve were indwelled by the Holy Spirit.

Jeremiah prophesied that this indwelling was distinctly new covenant.

Click to expand...

" In the cool of the day ". God walked with Adam and Eve until they were cursed.

Andrewn said:

God did not create in people a nature that is sinful, fallen, or unredeemed. These concepts are not biblical. He created a nature that is 'human' and Jesus took that same nature.

The 'human nature,' which the Lord assumed, is composed of a 'human spirit' and a 'human flesh.'

"The flesh (Gr sarx) is not always evil in Scripture. Indeed, it is used positively in relation to sexual intercourse in marriage (Eph 5:31) – as well as for the sinless human body of Jesus (Jn 1:14; 1 Jn 4:2,3). Indeed, flesh (what is physical) is necessary for the body to live out the faith the Lord works in (Gal 2:20)."

Contrary to gnostic views (and Watchman Nee), the flesh in the NT is a morally-neutral life force (without which we cannot survive) and leads to desires (some are good and some are evil). This is explained in posts #34 and #109.

Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth.

The evil desires are referred to in the Bibles with the words 'lust' and 'coveting.' Jesus had our 'human flesh' leading to good desires, as in Luk 22:15 but no evil desires (lust / coveting).

Click to expand...

I think we can see this in Jesus’ attitude towards children. He seemed to think that Heaven was people with that kind.

I shared on previous thread [this is the 3rd spinoff on same/similar topic], Hebrews 5 gives much elaboration to chapter 4 on the humanity of the Lord Jesus and is key. Christ had to go through and process all of humanness, yet without sin. Hebrew 4:14-5:10

Another way of identifying the Holy Spirit is from the beginning when God breathed into Adam. So too did Jesus Christ of Nazareth breath on His Apostles to recieve the Holy Spirit once lost through Adam.

Butterball1 said:

Men could never come to salvation at all if men were born with a sinful nature, could never find grace. But would always reject God, the Holy Spirit and salvation.

The Holy Spirit would not randomly, unconditionally "work" on one person and not another for such would make God, Holy Spirit respecter of persons. Nor could God justly, rightly condemn those the Holy Spirit failed to "work" on due to a natural inability they were born with against their will.

Click to expand...

Paul covered your objection in Rom 9:20

Eftsoon said:

Temptation is always from outside. It always comes from some external trigger or stimuli. The ex-smoker sees someone light up and feels compelled; the young man sees a beautiful woman and feels attracted. We are not brains in a vat, so temptation has to come from outside.

Click to expand...

James 1:14
13When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He tempt anyone. 14But each one is tempted when by his own evil desires he is lured away and enticed. 15Then after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.…

So for the believer temptation can be internal.

Maria Billingsley said:

" In the cool of the day ". God walked with Adam and Eve until they were cursed.

Click to expand...

Walked with - not indwelled...