johnnybanano
August 22nd 2003, 10:01 PM
The following quote was made by Spokoina in the threat Results of Continual Sin. I thought it was a good question but I didn't want to change the subject of the thread, so I put it here.
My question about this, and perhaps it is for another thread, is then...
We say the "flesh" caused it. Yet Jesus had human flesh, he took on flesh like you and me, and DIDN'T sin.
How did he do it,...talking before the crucifixion, not after with his glorified body.
And if he did it before he had a glorified body, does that mean we to should be able to?
It may be a bit off topic but it is a great question.
I have always wondered if this whole blaming sin on the flesh thing is a valid argument. It seems like a logical point when you consider the fact that even though someone has received the Holy Spirit, they can continue to fall short of the glory of God. How is it that these two natures co-exist, the desires of the flesh and the desires of the Spirit? I would think that in putting on the Spirit, one would have to put of the sinful nature. However, Paul talks about the two natures at work within the members of his body. (Romans 7) I am very interested in finding out how these two natures/laws can co-exist in the same body.
I am also interested in learning about our "Freedom in Christ". Paul talks about how it is Jesus who saves us from our bodies of death. (Romans 7:24-25)
It seems pretty clear to me that Paul is recongnizing the fact that he is both a slave to the law of God and to the law of the sinful nature. It also seem clear that Paul claims that he claims that Jesus frees us from sin. In my mind, I am still a slave to sin if I keep on sinning. Paul says that he is still sinning (or at least that the law of the sinful nature is still at work in the members of his body). So it seems clear that he is not yet free from sin. While he is free from the future consequences of sin. He is still a slave to the sinful nature of the flesh. So apparently this freedom from our bodies of death comes at some point in the future, perhaps when we die.
The problem lies in the fact that Jesus had a body, which I assume is what gives us the sinful nature. However, could we say that Jesus had a sinful nature. Could he have had a sinful nature and just, with the help of his faith in the Father, resisted his carnal desires. I don't think that many people would argue that Jesus had just as much faith as anybody. Perhaps with that much faith, it was possible to have sinful desires but to resist them.
There is, however, a problem with this. It seems as though, under this theory, that it is possible for us to resist all sin if we have enough faith. Is it in fact possible? If we were to have enough faith would we be able to resist all sin?
There is another thought that I had also. Forgive me if it sounds a bit heretical but my sincere persuit here is that of truth and I will forsake tradition for that truth. My thought is that perhaps Jesus was without sin mentioned in the Law of Moses. Paul says that he himself was faultless in regard to legalistic righteousness. He of course was not without sin, but in regard to the Law, he was without fault. This may have been the case with Jesus, it may not have been; I have a feeling that it probably is not the case, but I will need to find the Scriptures conveying Christ's purity, purity not the result of a purification, but a purity which was, is, and will be eternal.
If this is the case, that the man, Jesus, was not eternally pure, but was purified by his exemplary faith or perhaps by the fact that he was God incarnate; then we have hope in the fact that by our faith, we too can be purified as Jesus was. Another reason why I believe that this may not be the case is that the purifier is our faith, and, unless faith is completely a gift from God, then part of our purity rests in our hands and we are not totally dependant upon God.
This is starting to get longer than I thought it would and I have to go, so I'll post this and let me know what you think. If I have more, I'll post again.
Love and Respect
My question about this, and perhaps it is for another thread, is then...
We say the "flesh" caused it. Yet Jesus had human flesh, he took on flesh like you and me, and DIDN'T sin.
How did he do it,...talking before the crucifixion, not after with his glorified body.
And if he did it before he had a glorified body, does that mean we to should be able to?
It may be a bit off topic but it is a great question.
I have always wondered if this whole blaming sin on the flesh thing is a valid argument. It seems like a logical point when you consider the fact that even though someone has received the Holy Spirit, they can continue to fall short of the glory of God. How is it that these two natures co-exist, the desires of the flesh and the desires of the Spirit? I would think that in putting on the Spirit, one would have to put of the sinful nature. However, Paul talks about the two natures at work within the members of his body. (Romans 7) I am very interested in finding out how these two natures/laws can co-exist in the same body.
I am also interested in learning about our "Freedom in Christ". Paul talks about how it is Jesus who saves us from our bodies of death. (Romans 7:24-25)
It seems pretty clear to me that Paul is recongnizing the fact that he is both a slave to the law of God and to the law of the sinful nature. It also seem clear that Paul claims that he claims that Jesus frees us from sin. In my mind, I am still a slave to sin if I keep on sinning. Paul says that he is still sinning (or at least that the law of the sinful nature is still at work in the members of his body). So it seems clear that he is not yet free from sin. While he is free from the future consequences of sin. He is still a slave to the sinful nature of the flesh. So apparently this freedom from our bodies of death comes at some point in the future, perhaps when we die.
The problem lies in the fact that Jesus had a body, which I assume is what gives us the sinful nature. However, could we say that Jesus had a sinful nature. Could he have had a sinful nature and just, with the help of his faith in the Father, resisted his carnal desires. I don't think that many people would argue that Jesus had just as much faith as anybody. Perhaps with that much faith, it was possible to have sinful desires but to resist them.
There is, however, a problem with this. It seems as though, under this theory, that it is possible for us to resist all sin if we have enough faith. Is it in fact possible? If we were to have enough faith would we be able to resist all sin?
There is another thought that I had also. Forgive me if it sounds a bit heretical but my sincere persuit here is that of truth and I will forsake tradition for that truth. My thought is that perhaps Jesus was without sin mentioned in the Law of Moses. Paul says that he himself was faultless in regard to legalistic righteousness. He of course was not without sin, but in regard to the Law, he was without fault. This may have been the case with Jesus, it may not have been; I have a feeling that it probably is not the case, but I will need to find the Scriptures conveying Christ's purity, purity not the result of a purification, but a purity which was, is, and will be eternal.
If this is the case, that the man, Jesus, was not eternally pure, but was purified by his exemplary faith or perhaps by the fact that he was God incarnate; then we have hope in the fact that by our faith, we too can be purified as Jesus was. Another reason why I believe that this may not be the case is that the purifier is our faith, and, unless faith is completely a gift from God, then part of our purity rests in our hands and we are not totally dependant upon God.
This is starting to get longer than I thought it would and I have to go, so I'll post this and let me know what you think. If I have more, I'll post again.
Love and Respect