He Was More than Just a Man

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Nina

Praxeas,

The mere man I was referring to is Jesus.

If He was born with only a human nature, He was born a sinner. Right?

Nina

I knew we were talking about Jesus. I did not need to be told that.

No, he was born with a human nature, a sinner is someone that commits sin...what do you mean "only a human nature"...what other kind of human nature is there?

[tbpew]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I knew we were talking about Jesus. I did not need to be told that.

No, he was born with a human nature, a sinner is someone that commits sin...what do you mean "only a human nature"...what other kind of human nature is there?

I think it is painfully common knowledge that this general topic very often describes the Son as one with TWO natures.

....my guess is she is making a reference to the oft discussed FULLY God 'nature' that is attributed to the composition of the Son of God, the God/man....you know...DUAL natures.

So Prax, are you teaching that the Son is an entity with two natures or one?

[tbpew]

So Nina,
I have not answered your inquiry related to”

Bro, tbpew,
Do You teach sinless perfection?

I went back to your opening post to try and see if you were pointing back to an aspect of a viewpoint held by someone else you are in conversation with…I did not find such a reference, so…..

I do not use the phrase so I guess that’s a pretty good indicator (to me) that I do not actively share any specific scriptural understanding that would conclude this as some expected condition among all born-again believers.

Just for the sake of conversation,
let me make an assumption and then use that assumption as a point of reference for what I DO BELIEVE is light from scripture. The following is a kind of “stream of conscience” --not copy/paste from anything.

Assumption: The term sinless perfection supposes that a believer should live a life that is free (or void) of sin. Now since the phrase includes PERFECTION, that word normally supposes a process bringing one to ‘completed state’, so maybe this phrase that you have made repeated inquiry of me (and others), is speaking of an EXPECTATION that the born-again believer should press toward reaching ---in this life.

I offer two scriptural circumstances/settings for consideration:
1. The nation of Israel passing through the Red Sea as part of their exodus from Egypt.
2. Paul’s witness (seemingly personal) that is read in Romans Chapter 7, and the fact that it FOLLOWS Romans Chapter 6. A chapter that provides such a vivid witness of the death/cutting away that is accomplished when we are buried with Christ in water baptism.

Circumstance No. 1
The Israelites were absolutely delivered from their former taskmaster, Pharaoh, when he was suffocated under the returning waters of the Red Sea. Yet even AFTER having this former taskmaster cutoff/separated from them, they still had to wander in this new place (the wilderness). The purpose for this season in their sojourning was to give space for UNBELIEF to DIE out in preparation for entering into the promised land. So death continued to perform its work for forty more years after the DEATH of their former taskmaster.

Circumstance No.2
Paul is giving us such ‘apples of Gold’ in Romans Chapter 6 concerning an essential understanding: DEATH is the operation that delivers from sin.

Beginning with verse 6 we read what is accomplished in water baptism: DEATH to our FORMER taskmaster –the BODY of SIN!
Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with [him], that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

So now, as Israel no longer served Pharaoh in the wilderness, they still had to deal with the presence of UNBELIEF among their members. In like manner, those of us who have been crucified with Christ have to reconcile that we ourselves are DEAD to sin. I submit that we each must deal with the former strongholds that manifest themselves within our members as UNBELIEF.

Verses 7-13 are life freeing.
v. 7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
v.8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
v.9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
v.10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
v.11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
v.12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
v.13 Neither yield ye your members [as] instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members [as] instruments of righteousness unto God.

Our new birth journey involves that which WE MUST NOT YIELD TO and we MUST YIELD TO.

The taskmaster is DEAD, his dominion over our lives is destroyed in the waters of baptism; being baptized in the name of the one who died for us.
We each must confront what remains as an influence within our own members that is NOT OF FAITH; unbelief should be dying daily, as we recon ourselves dead indeed unto sin.

So Nina, at the very least, that is certainly not sinless perfection at the point of any new birth. I suppose it is reasonable to say that those of us who do sin have not reconciled ourselves dead to sin.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by tbpew

I think it is painfully common knowledge that this general topic very often describes the Son as one with TWO natures.

....my guess is she is making a reference to the oft discussed FULLY God 'nature' that is attributed to the composition of the Son of God, the God/man....you know...DUAL natures.

So Prax, are you teaching that the Son is an entity with two natures or one?

I think I already stated that in this thread let alone many times in others that the Son has two natures, Deity and Humanity but that the Divine attributed were latent IN him as per the Kenosis

[tbpew]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I think I already stated that in this thread let alone many times in others that the Son has two natures, Deity and Humanity but that the Divine attributed were latent IN him as per the Kenosis

wow. Can you imagine if repeating ourselves ever became a GIVEN on online discussion boards.

Prax, I am consistently willing to give various philosophers their own quiet place to imagine unique "work arounds" to make their preferred belief system work. I count your 'LATENT' explanation in this general category. I submit the following scriptural settings to offer some perspective to highlight JUST HOW LATENT the FULLY God nature must be, when considered with the testimony of God's only begotten Son.

Prax writes:
[SIZE="3"]that the Divine attributed were latent IN him as per the Kenosis"[/SIZE]

Latent...that's a good one....particularly for an entity that is presented as being FULLY GOD. (General note: Latent means HIDDEN).

So LATENT that this one (the Son of God) speaking to Mary at his empty tomb says:
"Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God." [John

So LATENT that John records the words of this one speaking from his glorified state and saying:[john20:17]
"Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, [which is] new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and [I will write upon him] my new name." [Rev 3:12]

So LATENT was this devine attribute/nature that knowledge was limited AND the vessel could be tempted EVEN though God can not be tempted.
""But of that day and [that] hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." [Mk 13:32]
AND
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. [Heb 4:15]

So LATENT was the devine nature (the FULLY GOD attribute), that the Son thought less of his own SON manifestation by declaring himself to be less than his Father (manifestation?).
"Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I." [John 14:12]

To my FULLY God, FULLY Man folks, dual nature, one singular entity sponsoring two concurrent manifestations called FATHER and SON:
If the Son's human self is so overt, and the divine self so LATENT, based upon the perspective of the Son revealed by his own testimony, why is it so displeasing to your theology to understand that God really did father a Son born of a woman; God's word became flesh.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by tbpew

wow. Can you imagine if repeating ourselves ever became a GIVEN on online discussion boards.

Prax, I am consistently willing to give various philosophers their own quiet place to imagine unique "work arounds" to make their preferred belief system work. I count your 'LATENT' explanation in this general category. I submit the following scriptural settings to offer some perspective to highlight JUST HOW LATENT the FULLY God nature must be, when considered with the testimony of God's only begotten Son.

Prax writes:
[SIZE="3"]that the Divine attributed were latent IN him as per the Kenosis"[/SIZE]

Latent...that's a good one....particularly for an entity that is presented as being FULLY GOD. (General note: Latent means HIDDEN).

So LATENT that this one (the Son of God) speaking to Mary at his empty tomb says:
"Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God." [John

So LATENT that John records the words of this one speaking from his glorified state and saying:[john20:17]
"Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, [which is] new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and [I will write upon him] my new name." [Rev 3:12]

So LATENT was this devine attribute/nature that knowledge was limited AND the vessel could be tempted EVEN though God can not be tempted.
""But of that day and [that] hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." [Mk 13:32]
AND
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. [Heb 4:15]

So LATENT was the devine nature (the FULLY GOD attribute), that the Son thought less of his own SON manifestation by declaring himself to be less than his Father (manifestation?).
"Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I." [John 14:12]

To my FULLY God, FULLY Man folks, dual nature, one singular entity sponsoring two concurrent manifestations called FATHER and SON:
If the Son's human self is so overt, and the divine self so LATENT, based upon the perspective of the Son revealed by his own testimony, why is it so displeasing to your theology to understand that God really did father a Son born of a woman; God's word became flesh.

I don't have a clue what your point was....you speak with sarcasm yet you quote scriptures to prove my point. But then you add the quip about "why is it so displeasing to your theology to understand that God really did father a Son born of a woman; God's word became flesh" as though anyone here expressed displeasure in acknowledging that fact, which actually nobody denied that fact.

He had the Divine nature, but He has a human nature. The Divine attributes were latent in Him so that he was functionally a human being

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I don't have a clue what your point was....you speak with sarcasm yet you quote scriptures to prove my point. But then you add the quip about "why is it so displeasing to your theology to understand that God really did father a Son born of a woman; God's word became flesh" as though anyone here expressed displeasure in acknowledging that fact, which actually nobody denied that fact.

He had the Divine nature, but He has a human nature. The Divine attributes were latent in Him so that he was functionally a human being

I am confused by my friend's (tbpew) post here as well.

[tbpew]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I am confused by my friend's (tbpew) post here as well.

A nature will establish our response within any circumstance we experience.

Our nature predisposes the governance, the lens, through which we conduct our life.

There is no logic or witness for the Son of God having dual natures.

A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways.

If the last Adam came fortified as a FULLY divine nature being crowded in with his FULLY human nature, he was not a kinsman redeemer because the first Adam did not have a FULLY divine nature.

It's time to move on and quit inventing illogical and unsupportable conditions involving God's Christ.