There is two views commonly held within the church concerning the nature Jesus took during the incarnation:
1. Jesus took Adams unfallen nature but inherited a body that degenerated since the fall. That if Jesus had taken a fallen nature then He would have in turn needed a Savior.
2. That Jesus took a fallen nature, but He Himself did not sin. If He hadn't taken a fallen nature then we could never hope to overcome sin in His name.
The church expouses both views without making a stance. I was hoping to encourage discussion on both views to bring out truths on the subject.
1. Jesus took Adams unfallen nature but inherited a body that degenerated since the fall. That if Jesus had taken a fallen nature then He would have in turn needed a Savior.
2. That Jesus took a fallen nature, but He Himself did not sin. If He hadn't taken a fallen nature then we could never hope to overcome sin in His name.
The church expouses both views without making a stance. I was hoping to encourage discussion on both views to bring out truths on the subject.
