Featured The Sin Nature

I may. I may not. It depends on how you define "nature".

I will disagree that Adam's nature changed, or that Jesus didn't have a nature like ours.

But I think this depends on how you define "nature".

 

I think we have to first define "nature" in "sin nature" before we can determine if it is biblical. I understand the "sin" part, but the "nature" part has to be fleshed out.

I know what happened to Adam and Eve. Their eyes were opened and they became like God knowing good and evil. This, per Scripture, was not moving from an innocent state as much as gaining a "knowledge of good and evil".

So if "sin nature" is having one's eyes opened, becoming like God knowing good and evil - and it very well may be - then we may actually agree.

I haven't thought of it that way before, but I suppose this is what happened. Adam and Eve changed and "became like God" in terms of morality yet remained flesh (Adam was created flesh, not a spirit).

Jesus is God and man. He is Spiritually alive. He could experience the desires of the flesh and remain without sin because He is spiritually alive where Adam was not.

 

Thats a good place to start.

Let's look at the passage speaking of man's two natures and exactly where man inherits the "sin nature" from Adam.

Sometimes disagreements are simply using different terms. Sometimes they are legitimate disagreements.

While we may disagree on terms we both believe Scripture is accurate. So let's start there.

 

Paul is indeed speaking of two desires - the flesh and the spirit. And they are at odds. And Paul is speaking of Christians. We do struggle between the desires of the flesh and the spirit.

Note that Paul never says "fallen man". It is "flesh" and "spirit".

"Nature," fit here. It means "instinct or desires".

But the desires of the flesh are not sin in and of themselves. They are at odds with the desires of the spirit. But it is acting on those desires that constitute sin.

This tells us two important things.

First, Adam's nature did not change. He sinned when he gave in to the flesh. But his nature didn't change. His eyes were opened to a knowledge that the flesh (human nature) falls short of God's nature.

Second, Jesus had this same human nature. He was likewise tempted. But He submitted His will (of the flesh) to the will of the Father (He set His mind on spiritual things).


This is why one must be born of the Spirit. Flesh and blood cannot inherent the kingdom of God.

 

Yep. One cannot resist the desires of the flesh if one is not born of the Spirit. And unless born of the spirit we have only the "flesh". We must be born of the Spirit.

This is why Adam sinned. And Jesus had the same nature (desires of the flesh, temptations). But Jesus submitted His will (what you call "sin nature") to the will of God (set His mind on the Spirit).

 

Not according to Scripture.

By your own post this "sin nature" is one of two natures (flesh and spirit). You posted that we are to walk in the spirit and not fulfill the desires of the flesh.

Jesus had desires of the flesh. We see this when He was tempted by hunger. We see this when He was tempted by worldly power. We see this when He prayed "let this cup pass".

But Jesus walked in the Spirit. We see this when He overcame temptation. We see this when He prayed "not my will but Yours". We see this in His obedience.

We also see that Adam gave into the desires of the flesh and disobeyed.

To deny that Jesus had our nature is to deny that the Word became flesh, that He was made like us, and that He overcame legitimate temptation.

 

Not per Scripture. All desires of the flesh are desires of the flesh. And when one walks in the flesh it is sin. The temptation for worldly power has evidenced itself as a very powerful desire.

The desires of the flesh are natural. Scripture does not talk about nature as a sin. It is setting one's mind on the flesh that leads to sin.


Your posts show why I don't like the extra-biblical term "sin nature". If we use Biblical words we have no problem understanding that the Wird became flesh, that Jesus was tempted by desires of the flesh but set His mind on the things of the spirit.

But when we create terms we risk straying a bit from the Bible.

"Flesh" and "Spirit", the words the Bible use, is safer and certainly not less accurate. The Word became flesh. Jesus was tempted in all points as is common to man. He did not sin.

 

Christ did none of those. Those are WORKS of the flesh. Not DESIRES of the flesh.

That is the point. He set His mind on the things of the Spirit, was obedient to the Father.

He was tempted in all points common to man. This is a major point of Scripture (actually, why He can be our Savior). He overcame where we have failed.


Desiring food is not a sin. Gluttony is. Attraction is not a sin. Lust is.

Jesus had a human nature. He had our nature. He is the Son of Man (representing mankind...the next Adam).

 

This is false. You already acknowledged that Christ was tempted by Satan. It would have been a sin had Jesus submitted to the desire you acknowledge He had (to satisfy His hunger during that time to fast and pray, to exchange obeying the Father for worldly power).


My point is that your idea of "sin nature", while it could be Biblical in definition, is completely unbiblical.

Your objection to Jesus being made like us, being tempted in all points as is common to man, is based on the extra-biblical term "sin nature".

If we use Biblical terms there is no issues believing that the Word became flesh.

 

I said that our views were similar, but it depends on how you define "nature".

Scripture tells us why Jesus was born of a virgin. It was not to escape some "sin nature" Scrioture never even mentions. It was a a sign and fulfillment of prophecy.

How'd you come to believe that sin only exists in men, or in men's bodily fluids? This is not biblical.