Did Jesus Have a Sinful Nature While on Earth?

[DHK]

HP: Christ was not born with a sin nature as you describe, but neither is any man.

David O. Beale, in his book "In Pursuit of Purity," (page 121), describes how Reformed Theology began to go liberal in 18th Century America

[FONT=&quot]The Old School party, as the name implies, insisted on maintaining the denomination’s distinctive traits: strict Presbyterian Church government; benevolent and evangelistic work carried out by Presbyterian agencies or boards; Reformed theology as it has been historically understood; and traditional methods of evangelism, in contrast to the “new measures” as practiced by Charles Finney, the darling of the New School.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The primary issue was New School theology, a modified Calvinism influenced by New England Theology. While the Old School emphasized the holiness, glory, and majesty of God, the New School inclined towards restating Calvinism in terms of what man actually experiences. Consequently, the New School redefined sin as self-love and virtue as “disinterested benevolence.” Even God, they reasoned, could not be primarily interested in His own attributes; such would be selfishness, and God cannot sin. They also rejected the doctrine of the immediate transmission of Adam’s sin to his posterity and viewed all sin as individual and voluntary. In other words, there is no “inherent” guilt; men do not sin because they are sinners, but rather men are sinners because they sin. Whereas the Old School, following John Witherspoon (1723-1794) and the Princeton tradition, inclined towards Scottish “common-sense” realism, the New School inclined towards a philosophic idealism. With many New School men, such speculative idealism would eventually blend with German rationalism.[/FONT]

This New School Theology or New England Theology as it sometimes called was popularized by Charles Finney. Finney's theological views were heretical. Believing in entire sanctification, and reformation instead of regeneration, his views led more to a social gospel than the Biblical gospel. He believed he could build a "Christian community"--a community composed of Christians that would never sin. But since man has a sin nature, and cannot help but sin, his dream was doomed from the beginning.

What Beale describes here (many of them akin to your beliefs) was right at the forefront of liberalism, that which the Old School was fighting.

 

[grahame]

The problem with that line of thought though is that the Bible teaches that we must be born again because of our very nature. Was Jesus born again? Impossible.

The moment a baby is born, it does not sin, but it's in Adam and cut off from God.

Do you see the point, it's not about committing sin, it's the very fact of the nature.

I know I'm coming in late here and this may already been observed. I haven't read all the posts up til now. But I thought that a person must be born again, not because of his/her human nature. But because man is dead in trespasses and sins (spiritually) not physically? (Eph 2:1)

And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

and (Col 2:13)

And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

I will probably be opening a big can of worms here. But even as Christians our body is dead because of sin (Fomans 8:10)

And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

(Christ's righteousness of course)
See also Romans 7:24

O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

Human nature in and of itself is not sinful. This is the nature that Christ took on himself. "In the likeness of sinful flesh". We must of course be careful in case we fall into the same heresy as the gnostics who some of them taught that Jesus didn't come in the flesh because flesh was sinful and Christ was sinlesss. So we must read "In the likeness of sinful flesh" as meaning in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh. In other words Although he was truly human whilst being truly divine, he was not sinful or did not inheret our sinful natures.
So the difference must have been to do with the fact that Mary was a virgin. So must we deduce from that, that the sinful nature must come from the seed of man and not from the egg of the woman? Or am I barking up the wrong tree here?

 

[webdog]

I think the question is disgusting. Of course God cannot sin.

...however Christ was / is 100% man as well. I think it's a given God cannot sin, however Scripture does state Christ was tempted in every way we are. God also cannot die...yet Christ did. This is one of the mysteries our minds cannot fathom, but He clearly was tempted to sin, and by definition it must mean He could have. How? No clue, but we need to take Scripture at face value when It states He was tempted. Now, it does say He didn't sin...not couldn't sin.

Hebrews 2:18 Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

Hebrews 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin.

 

[grahame]

...however Christ was / is 100% man as well. I think it's a given God cannot sin, however Scripture does state Christ was tempted in every way we are. God also cannot die...yet Christ did. This is one of the mysteries our minds cannot fathom, but He clearly was tempted to sin, and by definition it must mean He could have. How? No clue, but we need to take Scripture at face value when It states He was tempted. Now, it does say He didn't sin...not couldn't sin.

Hebrews 2:18 Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

Hebrews 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin.

In the same way as Adam (who was innocent and did not have a sinful nature at that time) was tempted and failed. Christ the last Adam was tempted and prevailed. Thank God for that. For it was his victory over sin that secured our salvation.

 

[ccrobinson]

I haven't read all the posts up til now.

So the difference must have been to do with the fact that Mary was a virgin. So must we deduce from that, that the sinful nature must come from the seed of man and not from the egg of the woman? Or am I barking up the wrong tree here?

Please see posts earlier in the thread, specifically post #20 on page 2.

 

[grahame]

Please see posts earlier in the thread, specifically post #20 on page 2.

Thanks :thumbsup: Could you show me the scriptures that teach this please. Although I'm pretty sure I know which ones you are referring to? I'm talking to some Muslims at the moment and as you may be aware they believe in the virgin birth of Jesus.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Webdog: Now, it does say He didn't sin...not couldn't sin

HP: Now there is an honest statement without an agenda. :thumbsup: Now you do know that placed you on the 'heretics' list of some on this board don't you? :tonofbricks: Oh well, you are in great comapany. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK, this is not about Beale’s misguided opinions nor is about Finney or any other. This is not about some off the wall notion of what is liberal or conservative, for those words are often nothing more than the meaningless blathering of one with an axe to grind concerning one that disagrees with his own misguided opinions. He has certainly stooped low to falsely castigate a man of God that God used to start and perpetuate the greatest revival of religion this nation has ever seen, or most likely will ever see. He reminds me of Job’s miserable comforters. God may well have the last say concerning Mr. Beale’s remarks, whoever he is.

Your post is nothing more than a cheap shot at an attempt of character assassination to derail the import of this thread. Oh well, nothing new.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Grahame: So the difference must have been to do with the fact that Mary was a virgin. So must we deduce from that, that the sinful nature must come from the seed of man and not from the egg of the woman? Or am I barking up the wrong tree here?

HP: Clearly barking up a tree called unsupported conjecture mate. If I was a guessing man I would say the best you will get out of that tree is more unsupported conjecture. Certainly no reasonable way to develop or establish theology.

 

[JTornado1]

I agree with Agnus Dei. Jesus is 100% human and 100% divine.

If He had a sinful nature, He would be unable to save us.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

JTornado1, if you do not define what you mean by a ‘sinful nature’ you have done little to nothing in explaining your position.

 

[DHK]

DHK, this is not about Beale’s misguided opinions nor is about Finney or any other. This is not about some off the wall notion of what is liberal or conservative, for those words are often nothing more than the meaningless blathering of one with an axe to grind concerning one that disagrees with his own misguided opinions. He has certainly stooped low to falsely castigate a man of God that God used to start and perpetuate the greatest revival of religion this nation has ever seen, or most likely will ever see. He reminds me of Job’s miserable comforters. God may well have the last say concerning Mr. Beale’s remarks, whoever he is.

Your post is nothing more than a cheap shot at an attempt of character assassination to derail the import of this thread. Oh well, nothing new.

First, Beale has no axe to grind; he is a historian. He records history. Finney was never accepted among the ranks of Fundamentalism or among those who were orthodox in doctrine. He was liberal in doctrine and considered a heretic by many then, and by many now.
So he had a great "revival." So what.
Scott Hahn is a great evangelist--for the RCC. Will you follow him too?
I can give you the name of an Islamic evangelist. Will you follow him also?
Jim Jones had many followers also.
Just because a person had many followers or success in numbers doesn't make him correct in doctrine.
If numbers is your measure of success then consider that the fastest growing religion in America is Islam, and the religion now that has the greatest number of adherents in the world is Islam. According to your own statements you need to convert to Islam, for numbers is the indicator of success.

Your post is a refusal to accept truth.
Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy of the virgin birth and Math.1:21-23 is a fulfillment of it. What is its significance? Jesus had to be born of a virgin because man has an inherent sin nature passed on to him through the seed of Adam. If he was born of man he would have inherited a sin nature and would have been evil like the rest of mankind.

A sinless sacrifice was required for sinners like you and I and even the infants of the world who are sinners by nature. Christ is the only one was sinless in his nature--both human and divine.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Jesus had to be born of a virgin because man has an inherent sin nature passed on to him through the seed of Adam. If he was born of man he would have inherited a sin nature and would have been evil like the rest of mankind.

HP: Where is your Scriptural support for that philosophical conjecture???

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK, there is not a shred of Scriptural evidence that infants are sinners in need of a Savior. You are reading too many books, or listening to too many others that base their opinions on the error of Augustine DHK, that sin lies in the constitution of the flesh and not in the will.

 

[ccrobinson]

Jesus had to be born of a virgin because man has an inherent sin nature passed on to him through the seed of Adam. If he was born of man he would have inherited a sin nature and would have been evil like the rest of mankind.

Where is your Scriptural support for that philosophical conjecture???

It's in one of the posts you chose to ignore.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Yea sure it is. In between what two lines? Maybe it is just one of those 'penumbral' notions, eh?:thumbs:

 

[ccrobinson]

If you want to put some sort of smiley on a post, at least try to make the post funny.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

That's right. It was your post that needed the smiley. Sorry. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

CCRobinson: It's in one of the posts you chose to ignore.

HP: Seriously CCR, why make such an ambiguous statement pointing to some mysterious post I ‘supposedly’ ignored? Why not simply point directly to the post I ignored, if in fact I did? Then we can properly and fairly ascertain the validity, or the lack thereof, of your comment? Fair enough?

 

[DHK]

HP: Where is your Scriptural support for that philosophical conjecture???

Neither Jesus nor the Holy Spirit spouted off "philosophical conjectures," and you shouldn't accuse them of such.
You also should do some of your own research.
Try here:

http://fundamentalists.whybaptist.com/chapterthirty.aspx