Did Jesus have a sin nature?

[zrs6v4]

As God, could Christ sin? NO As man, could Jesus sin? YES Do I understand this paradox? NO Do I accept it? YES It is not necessary for me to understand truth before I accept it as true.

We are not supposed to fully understand it. Is it ok to talk about with a little philosophy based on what we know about God? I'd say so as long as we are Christ-like about it. I think Scripture is clear that it is impossible for God to sin. I think it is also clear that man is wicked at heart.

Just thought I'd kick the dead horse a few more times thats all

 

[freeatlast]

The flesh of Jesus was just like all of ours. Jesus was God wrapped in flesh and walked among us in a flesh veil so He could be with us and walk with us and talk with us.

The flesh had to be defeated and it was defeated by God and through Jesus we have the same victory.

I do believe we will be given a new body or a renewed body a Spiritual body. Since Jesus did not sin His Body was turned right to Spiritual. The Lamb of God will still have the scars and one day we will see them for ourselves.

If Jesus body wasn't like ours where would be the victory, what did Jesus triumph over that Adam did not?

This raises a question. If Jesus flesh was like ours and His temptation was like ours are you saying that He wanted to do adultery but just bit the bullet and did not? In other words He felt lust? Is that what you are saying?

 

[michael-acts17:11]

How about this paradox: Can God die or can the Trinity be divided? Both occurred on the cross. Jesus, as God, DIED. How? He is the God-man. Where do you think the Greeks got their idea of Perseus? When Jesus cried, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?", God had separated Himself from Christ in judgment of the sin that Jesus had taken upon Himself for us. This was the true sacrifice of the cross; the Son was not part of the Trinity for a time.
Jehovah is a God of infinite complexity that we will never fully understand. Our very existence is in contradiction with His holy nature. His grace & judgement are diametrically opposed & yet exist in complete harmony through the person & sacrifice of Christ. Christ's ability to sin was in complete harmony with His submission to the Father's will. BTW, if His will was the same as the Father's, then how could He have submitted to Him? To submit implies freedom of choice & freedom of choice is the ability to sin.

 

[psalms109:31]

This raises a question. If Jesus flesh was like ours and His temptation was like ours are you saying that He wanted to do adultery but just bit the bullet and did not? In other words He felt lust? Is that what you are saying?

Nope there can be a beautiful woman before me to tempt me, but I do not sin until I lust not just to commit the sin but lust in my mind.

That is the difference of being tempted and not given over to the temptation.

 

[freeatlast]

Nope there can be a beautiful woman before me to tempt me, but I do not sin until I lust not just to commit the sin but lust in my mind.

That is the difference of being tempted and not given over to the temptation.

So are you saying that Jesus never felt the temptation? It was one sided? It was offered but he had no desire for the offering?
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.

 

[michael-acts17:11]

Hebrews 4:15 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.

 

[Robert Snow]

A person does not have to be able to carry out a sinful act in order to be tempted. A paralyzed man could be tempted by lust without having the ability to actually commit adultery.

 

[freeatlast]

A person does not have to be able to carry out a sinful act in order to be tempted. A paralyzed man could be tempted by lust without having the ability to actually commit adultery.

So are you saying that the Lord's temptation was of the type where He felt the temptaion, but just resisted it? Or did He not feel anything and if so please explain this verse;
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.

 

[psalms109:31]

So are you saying that Jesus never felt the temptation? It was one sided? It was offered but he had no desire for the offering?
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.

Originally Posted by psalms109:31 View Post
Nope there can be a beautiful woman before me to tempt me, but I do not sin until I lust not just to commit the sin but lust in my mind.

That is the difference of being tempted and not given over to the temptation.

Matthew 5:
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[Exodus 20:14] 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

 

[freeatlast]

Matthew 5:
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[Exodus 20:14] 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Nice scripture, but how are you using it? I ask that because satan came to the Lord in the wilderness and tempted Him to turn stones into bread. Are you saying that the Lord was not hungry in His mind? If so how is this scripture true;
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.

How does He feel our infirmitiesif He felt nothing?

 

[psalms109:31]

Nice scripture, but how are you using it? I ask that because satan came to the Lord in the wilderness and tempted Him to turn stones into bread. Are you saying that the Lord was not hungry in His mind?

He was hungry but He didn't obey the word of satan instead man can't live on bread alone but every word that comes from the mouth of God.

There is nothing wrong with being hungry, but something wrong with obeying the devil.

Is it a sin to be hungry?

 

[convicted1]

2Cor.5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Psa. 8:4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?

5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:

7 All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field;

8 The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.

9 O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth!

Heb. 2:7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:

8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.

9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

Jesus was made a "little lower than the angels", because He was to taste death for us, which the angels in heaven couldn't do, die for our sins. His flesh was like ours, but I believe His flesh was "sinless". He had a "earthly" mother(like all of us), but He had/has a heavenly Father, and our father is a natural man. This is what seperates His earthly flesh He had here on earth from ours now. We have a completely different daddy than He had/has.

i am I am's!!

Willis

 

[freeatlast]

He was hungry but He didn't obey the word of satan instead man can't live on bread alone but every word that comes from the mouth of God.

There is nothing wrong with being hungry, but something wrong with obeying the devil.

Is it a sin to be hungry?

I am just trying to clarify what you are saying. If we claim to be tempted when we feel nothing and it is not sin but the temptation becomes sin when we do feel something, then how does this work;
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.
Hunger is a natural feeling as is lust (desire) and neither is sin, but the temptation in the wilderness was not for hunger, but to satisfy that hunger in a certain manner. The same with lusting for a woman not your wife.
How was the Lord tempted as we are?

 

[The Archangel]

A Needed Clarification

Since Robert has (intentionally?) dragged my name through the mud and called me a blasphemer (because he was, obviously, incapable or unwilling to read the entirety of my post), It is obvious that some clarification is needed.

It amazes me that people who fancy themselves "educated" will not read the entirety of what was said. (Robert, I am talking to you). In what I posted (here) I claimed 2 things: 1.) Jesus had a sin-nature and 2.) He never sinned.

When I say that Jesus had a sin-nature I mean what Augustine meant (which is wonderfully summarized):

[Augustine] begins by drawing a distinction between two meanings of the word 'sin.' According to Augustine, sin can refer either to actual sinful actions or to the consequences of those actions: death. He argues that Christ was not guilty of sin in the first sense, for his entire life was free of every kind of sinful action. Rather, Christ bore sin in the second sense--that is, he suffered death, the consequence of sin: 'So sin means both a bad action deserving punishment, and death the consequence of sin. Christ had no sin in the sense of deserving death, but He bore four our sakes sin in the sense of death as brought on human nature by sin.' [1]

If one were to read a previous post, it would be more plain that this is the way I was saying Christ had a "sin-nature." I said (here) that things like cancer, AIDS, alcoholism, etc. were the result of sin. To put it better, these are the result of living in a fallen and sinful world.

Now, just so there is no further misunderstanding, let me state this succinctly: Jesus was absolutely, unequivocally, and totally without sin--inherited or committed by Himself.

There is a logical disconnect in the minds of some persons that a "sin nature" means that one must sin. As I have demonstrated, that is not at all the way I was using the concept.

Do I think Jesus could have contracted a cold? Absolutely. Was that part of (using Augustine's thought) sin having impacted His human nature? Sure. Having a cold is the byproduct of living in a fallen, sinful world--a world to which Jesus was not immune.

A FURTHER EXPLANATION:

There is the concept in scripture of "Original Sin." The concept means that we are held guilty for Adam's sin because we, in some way, sinned with him in the garden.

The virgin birth negates this in Jesus. This Original Sin (or as some call it "Original Guilt") is passed through the man. This is what necessitates Jesus having to be born of a virgin. So, Jesus is free from Original Sin due to the virgin birth because no man was involved and the curse passes through the man.

However, Mary was still human and still a sinner. Therefore, Jesus bears a human nature impacted by sin (in the second way described Augustine) though He Himself bears none of Adam's guilt nor any guilt of His own.

Jesus (being the God-Man) has two natures (but one person) expressed in the term "Hypostatic Union"--in which the divine nature and the human nature are present in one person.

Jesus is Himself "the second Adam" and as David Wells would say: Jesus is everything Adam was intended to be and wasn't. [2]

To set the record straight even further: I do not believe it was possible for Jesus to sin when tempted. There was no way He could because there was never a time when He was not God and God cannot sin.

I hope that clarifies what I was saying. In the future, I guess, I will have to be more careful to explain what I am saying upfront, so that no one goes of the deep end.

Blessings,

The Archangel



[1] Steve Jeffery, Michael Ovey, and Andrew Sach, Pierced For Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2007), 178.

[2] David Wells, The Person of Christ (Westchester: Crossway, 1984), 175 quoted in Daniel L. Akin, "The Person of Christ," in A Theology For The Church, ed. Daniel L. Akin, David P. Nelson, and Peter R. Schemm, Jr. (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2007), 539.

 

[freeatlast]

Since Robert has (intentionally?) dragged my name through the mud and called me a blasphemer (because he was, obviously, incapable or unwilling to read the entirety of my post), It is obvious that some clarification is needed.

It amazes me that people who fancy themselves "educated" will not read the entirety of what was said. (Robert, I am talking to you). In what I posted (here) I claimed 2 things: 1.) Jesus had a sin-nature and 2.) He never sinned.

When I say that Jesus had a sin-nature I mean what Augustine meant (which is wonderfully summarized):

If one were to read a previous post, it would be more plain that this is the way I was saying Christ had a "sin-nature." I said (here) that things like cancer, AIDS, alcoholism, etc. were the result of sin. To put it better, these are the result of living in a fallen and sinful world.

Now, just so there is no further misunderstanding, let me state this succinctly: Jesus was absolutely, unequivocally, and totally without sin--inherited or committed by Himself.

There is a logical disconnect in the minds of some persons that a "sin nature" means that one must sin. As I have demonstrated, that is not at all the way I was using the concept.

Do I think Jesus could have contracted a cold? Absolutely. Was that part of (using Augustine's thought) sin having impacted His human nature? Sure. Having a cold is the byproduct of living in a fallen, sinful world--a world to which Jesus was not immune.

A FURTHER EXPLANATION:

There is the concept in scripture of "Original Sin." The concept means that we are held guilty for Adam's sin because we, in some way, sinned with him in the garden.

The virgin birth negates this in Jesus. This Original Sin (or as some call it "Original Guilt") is passed through the man. This is what necessitates Jesus having to be born of a virgin. So, Jesus is free from Original Sin due to the virgin birth because no man was involved and the curse passes through the man.

However, Mary was still human and still a sinner. Therefore, Jesus bears a human nature impacted by sin (in the second way described Augustine) though He Himself bears none of Adam's guilt nor any guilt of His own.

Jesus (being the God-Man) has two natures (but one person) expressed in the term "Hypostatic Union"--in which the divine nature and the human nature are present in one person.

Jesus is Himself "the second Adam" and as David Wells would say: Jesus is everything Adam was intended to be and wasn't. [2]

To set the record straight even further: I do not believe it was possible for Jesus to sin when tempted. There was no way He could because there was never a time when He was not God and God cannot sin.

I hope that clarifies what I was saying. In the future, I guess, I will have to be more careful to explain what I am saying upfront, so that no one goes of the deep end.

Blessings,

The Archangel



[1] Steve Jeffery, Michael Ovey, and Andrew Sach, Pierced For Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2007), 178.

[2] David Wells, The Person of Christ (Westchester: Crossway, 1984), 175 quoted in Daniel L. Akin, "The Person of Christ," in A Theology For The Church, ed. Daniel L. Akin, David P. Nelson, and Peter R. Schemm, Jr. (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2007), 539.

[SIZE=+0]No disrespect to you, but you need to get over this. In my humble opinion Robert does have some grounds to suggest that saying that Christ had a sin-nature is blasphemy even if it was not intentional on your part. My guess is that we all have blasphemed the Lord in many ways with our beliefs or lack there of and to have it pointed out does cause us to re-think what we have said, or at least it should. The problem today is that it seems like everyone wants to make up their own definitions to words. The term sin-nature NEVER means what you are saying. I really don't think Robert is the problem here. it is your definition and usage of the word which has confused your intent.[/SIZE]

 

[psalms109:31]

[SIZE=+0]I am just trying to clarify what you are saying. If we claim to be tempted when we feel nothing and it is not sin but the temptation becomes sin when we do feel something, then how does this work;[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0]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.[/SIZE]
Hunger is a natural feeling as is lust (desire) and neither is sin, but the temptation in the wilderness was not for hunger, but to satisfy that hunger in a certain manner. The same with lusting for a woman not your wife.
How was the Lord tempted as we are?

Tempted with things that will tempt all of us, The Spirit within Him wasn't tempted. That is the way I take it, since God cannot be tempted and proved it through Jesus. Jesus flesh can be tempted, but the Spirit within Him defeated it. He seen the desire of the flesh, but Jesus the God within Him defeated the desire of the flesh to eat. I do not and will not compare a lust for food which is not sin with lust for another man's wife a sin. For even the flesh to desire a sin is sin without doing it.

 

[The Archangel]

[SIZE=+0]No disrespect to you, but you need to get over this. In my humble opinion Robert does have some grounds to suggest that saying that Christ had a sin-nature is blasphemy even if it was not intentional on your part. My guess is that we all have blasphemed the Lord in many ways with our beliefs or lack there of and to have it pointed out does cause us to re-think what we have said, or at least it should. The problem today is that it seems like everyone wants to make up their own definitions to words. The term sin-nature NEVER means what you are saying. I really don't think Robert is the problem here. it is your definition and usage of the word which has confused your intent.[/SIZE]

There is no need to "get over" anything.

I freely admit that my usage could have and should have had clarification. I thought clarification was unnecessary because I stated (bluntly) that Jesus never sinned.

Perhaps it would have been better to state that He had a fully human nature (which was and could be impacted by sin, again, in the second sense in which Augustine used it).

In the future, I will do my best to clarify better.

The Archangel

 

[freeatlast]

Tempted with things that will tempt all of us, The Spirit within Him wasn't tempted. That is the way I take it, since God cannot be tempted and proved it through Jesus. Jesus flesh can be tempted, but the Spirit within Him defeated it. He seen the desire of the flesh, but Jesus the God within Him defeated the desire of the flesh to eat. I do not and will not compare a lust for food which is not sin with lust for another man's wife a sin. For even the flesh to desire a sin is sin without doing it.

I understand what you are saying but how is this being tempted as we? If we seperate spirit and flesh we are doing the same thing as the gnostics. The pouint I am trying to make here with all the questions is that so many are speaking like their understanding is absolute. This issue is not simple. There are a lot of possibilities and shades of possibility. We know the lord did not sin. We know in both His flesh and spirit he did not sin. We also know he was tempted even as we. That leaves some questions as to what that means.
I will sign off for tonight. God belss.

 

[DHK]

There is the concept in scripture of "Original Sin." The concept means that we are held guilty for Adam's sin because we, in some way, sinned with him in the garden.

The virgin birth negates this in Jesus. This Original Sin (or as some call it "Original Guilt") is passed through the man. This is what necessitates Jesus having to be born of a virgin. So, Jesus is free from Original Sin due to the virgin birth because no man was involved and the curse passes through the man.

However, Mary was still human and still a sinner. Therefore, Jesus bears a human nature impacted by sin (in the second way described Augustine) though He Himself bears none of Adam's guilt nor any guilt of His own.

Jesus (being the God-Man) has two natures (but one person) expressed in the term "Hypostatic Union"--in which the divine nature and the human nature are present in one person.

The sin nature, as we know it, is a result of "original sin." The RCC believes that this "sin nature" is washed away through baptism (thus infant baptism). However our sin nature is simply our fallen nature that we inherited from Adam, that every man has. From it comes the works of the flesh that Paul spoke of; the defilement of the heart that Jesus spoke of.

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions, parties, envyings, drunkenness, revellings, and such like; of which I forewarn you, even as I did forewarn you, that they who practise such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. (Galatians 5:19-21)

For from within, out of the heart of men, evil thoughts proceed, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, covetings, wickednesses, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, railing, pride, foolishness: all these evil things proceed from within, and defile the man. (Mark 7:21-23)

 

[The Archangel]

What if his humanity was similar to that of ADam; you know that whole "last Adam" motif...

Plus you have to explain where the sin nature comes from. This is where the VB is really important.

And are there any verses to support your conclusion or is it just a theological implication pulled out from a philosophical process of understanding the incarnation? I.e. there are no verses, but to prove this you have to argue your theological view based on what seems logical to you.

Also, it doesn't seem like much of a union if one nature can "trump" the other. Just a thought.

See here for clarification: http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1631174&postcount=54

The Archangel