Did Jesus have a sin nature?

[Robert Snow]

It was said in another thread that our precious Lord Jesus Christ had a sin nature.

Jesus is God; God cannot sin, so our Lord, being God, could not sin!

The scripture quoted as an attempt to back up this blasphemy was:

1. There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
2. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
3. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4. That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Rom 8:1-4 KJV

Notice that Jesus was made in the "likeness" of sinful flesh. This is a far cry from actually being sinful.

Before someone says that Jesus Christ was tempted, this only proved who He is, it didn't make Him what He is, which is God. You take gold and test it, not to see if it is gold, but to prove it's gold.

What do you think?

 

[The Archangel]

It was said in another thread that our precious Lord Jesus Christ had a sin nature.

Jesus is God; God cannot sin, so our Lord, being God, could not sin!

The scripture quoted as an attempt to back up this blasphemy was:

1. There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
2. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
3. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4. That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Rom 8:1-4 KJV

Notice that Jesus was made in the "likeness" of sinful flesh. This is a far cry from actually being sinful.

Before someone says that Jesus Christ was tempted, this only proved who He is, it didn't make Him what He is, which is God. You take gold and test it, not to see if it is gold, but to prove it's gold.

What do you think?

By the way, to say that Jesus didn't have a sin nature means that Jesus wasn't fully human. A savior who is less than completely human is no savior at all.

And, you will notice what I said:

Jesus aged because He was also man. Jesus had a sin-nature (though He never sinned). Jesus was everything we are as humans. His humanity is not (and cannot be) diminished. The difference with Jesus is that He is the God-Man--fully God and fully man at the same time.

Jesus needed to be fully human (including our inherent sin nature) so that we could be fully redeemed. As Athanasius said (paraphrase): that which is not taken up is not redeemed. Meaning that had Christ not had our sin nature, we could not be redeemed in totality.

So, to enter a ridiculous hypothetical, we may pose the question: Had Christ lived to be 75 before the cross, would He have had gray hair and wrinkles? To some extent, I think the answer has to be yes. But there is no way to know and an exploration of this particular hypothetical exercise would literally be fruitless.

The Archangel

You clearly missed the point I was making--Jesus, having a sin nature as a human, was also completely God. The "God" part--and his inherent inability to sin--trumps His humanity. This is what theologians refer to as the hypostatic union.

If you had taken the time to try to understand my position---you might have learned something.

The Archangel

 

[quantumfaith]

It was said in another thread that our precious Lord Jesus Christ had a sin nature.

Jesus is God; God cannot sin, so our Lord, being God, could not sin!

The scripture quoted as an attempt to back up this blasphemy was:

1. There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
2. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
3. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4. That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Rom 8:1-4 KJV

Notice that Jesus was made in the "likeness" of sinful flesh. This is a far cry from actually being sinful.

Before someone says that Jesus Christ was tempted, this only proved who He is, it didn't make Him what He is, which is God. You take gold and test it, not to see if it is gold, but to prove it's gold.

What do you think?

Would those who held to such a position be known as gnostics?

 

[Greektim]

It was said in another thread that our precious Lord Jesus Christ had a sin nature. I cannot believe that any Christian could utter such blasphemy as this.

Jesus is God; God cannot sin, so our Lord, being God, could not sin!

The scripture quoted as an attempt to back up this blasphemy was:

1. There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
2. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
3. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4. That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Rom 8:1-4 KJV

Notice that Jesus was made in the "likeness" of sinful flesh. This is a far cry from actually being sinful.

Before someone says that Jesus Christ was tempted, this only proved who He is, it didn't make Him what He is, which is God. You take gold and test it, not to see if it is gold, but to prove it's gold.

What do you think?

1Jn 3:5 You know that he was revealed to take away sins, and there is not any sin in him.

or literal:

"... sin is not in him."

 

[Greektim]

Would those who held to such a position be known as gnostics?

no...



_____

 

[Greektim]

If you're going to call me a blasphemer, why you don't you man-up and do it, instead of posting what you did.

By the way, to say that Jesus didn't have a sin nature means that Jesus wasn't fully human. A savior who is less than completely human is no savior at all.

And, you will notice what I said:



Be VERY careful about calling me a blasphemer--charging me with saying (or implying) that Jesus was a sinner--when I clearly stated that He never sinned.

You clearly missed the point I was making--Jesus, having a sin nature as a human, was also completely God. The "God" part--and his inherent inability to sin--trumps His humanity. This is what theologians refer to as the hypostatic union.

If you had taken the time to try to understand my position--rather than call me a blasphemer--you might have learned something.

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.

 

[jbh28]

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.

I was thinking the same thing in regards to Adam. Did Adam have a sin nature? And of course, what is exactly a sin nature. In these discussions, I think it might be good if we defined the terms. Sometimes disagreement can come from differing definitions.

 

[luke1616]

Jesus is God; God cannot sin, so our Lord, being God, could not sin!

Jesus shed His godly authority to be like us. He was a man like us when He walked this earth. You cannot tempt God, Jesus was tempted. He was born under the Law of Sin and Death. He was in perfect relationship with His Father, and did not sin. If you say Jesus was God on earth and that's why He could not sin, why was He tempted if you cannot tempt God? Your statement is flesh trying to understand spirit.:jesus:

 

[jbh28]

btw...my answer to the question...

No, Jesus did not have a sin nature. We do our actions/decisions in accord with our nature. Jesus never sinned. He possessed no sin nature. The Holy Spirit kept the transmission of the sin nature from going to Jesus. Jesus is God, therefore He cannot sin. We have to remember that Jesus was the God-man. He wans't 50% God and 50% man, but 100% God and 100% man.

 

[michael-acts17:11]

Perhaps we should clarify the definition of "sin nature". Our sinful nature came as a result of the original sin, but the ability to chose to sin, sin nature as we call it, predates the original sin. Jesus had the ability to sin, act in contradiction to the Father's will, but He chose to submit to the Father's will. Case in point; at the garden of Gethsemane He asked God to relieve Him of the cup that was to soon come to Him, but He submitted His human will to the Father. There is a differentiation between the ability to sin & the desire to sin.

Is it possible to be fully human & not have the ability to chose to sin? I think not. The great truth is that Jesus was in all points tempted & yet CHOSE not to sin. This is the ultimate expression of the freewill of man within Scripture.

 

[luke1616]

Perhaps we should clarify the definition of "sin nature". Our sinful nature came as a result of the original sin, but the ability to chose to sin, sin nature as we call it, predates the original sin. Jesus had the ability to sin, act in contradiction to the Father's will, but He chose to submit to the Father's will. Case in point; at the garden of Gethsemane He asked God to relieve Him of the cup that was to soon come to Him, but He submitted His human will to the Father. There is a differentiation between the ability to sin & the desire to sin.

Is it possible to be fully human & not have the ability to chose to sin? I think not. The great truth is that Jesus was in all points tempted & yet CHOSE not to sin. This is the ultimate expression of the freewill of man within Scripture.

:thumbs::thumbs:

 

[percho]

Perhaps we should clarify the definition of "sin nature". Our sinful nature came as a result of the original sin, but the ability to chose to sin, sin nature as we call it, predates the original sin. Jesus had the ability to sin, act in contradiction to the Father's will, but He chose to submit to the Father's will. Case in point; at the garden of Gethsemane He asked God to relieve Him of the cup that was to soon come to Him, but He submitted His human will to the Father. There is a differentiation between the ability to sin & the desire to sin.

Is it possible to be fully human & not have the ability to chose to sin? I think not. The great truth is that Jesus was in all points tempted & yet CHOSE not to sin. This is the ultimate expression of the freewill of man within Scripture.

I have a lot I want say on this thread but do not know where to begin. Michael this is a great passage and you are correct and this next passages corresponds to this one yet is never applied to Jesus but I believe it does and that is: Hebrews 12:4 Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin. This was speaking of Jesus in the garden. The Word was made flesh. For a purpose. When we was the Word was with God and was God Phil. 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: When the Word was made flesh: Phil. 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: A lot took place when that in bold happened. The purpose for him being made flesh was for death. Death another subject. If in the flesh he was 100% God then God can't die and your sins cannot be paid for. Heb. 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. 2 Cor. 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. We are made the righteousness of God in him by his faith in his blood and God making him a mercy seat and raising him from the dead see Rom. 3:22-26 Expressly verse 25. In Gal. 3 Paul speakes of the promises made to Abraham and his seed. If something big did not happen in Phil.4:7 then why would a promise have to be made to the seed Christ of Abraham. What was that promise? Does it have anything to do with the Comforter that could not come unless Jesus went away and received it from the Father see Acts 2:33 and believe it or not Titus 3:5.

I do not know if he could have sinned or not but I do know that he did not sin.

I'm not sure about the freewill of man part because your freewill understanding of Rom. passage above is different from mine.

 

[zrs6v4]

It was said in another thread that our precious Lord Jesus Christ had a sin nature. I cannot believe that any Christian could utter such blasphemy as this.

Jesus is God; God cannot sin, so our Lord, being God, could not sin!

The scripture quoted as an attempt to back up this blasphemy was:

1. There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
2. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
3. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4. That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Rom 8:1-4 KJV

Notice that Jesus was made in the "likeness" of sinful flesh. This is a far cry from actually being sinful.

Before someone says that Jesus Christ was tempted, this only proved who He is, it didn't make Him what He is, which is God. You take gold and test it, not to see if it is gold, but to prove it's gold.

What do you think?

You posted a question in another forum, and I simply gave you Romans 8:1-4 without saying a word. Of course Jesus was sinless but He also was in sinful flesh.

Its not fair to me and Archangel (I think that was the other) the way you gooped this together, mixing two separate peoples answers into one and labeling it blasphemy.

 

[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.

I'm sorry, what is "VB?"

The Archangel

 

[Amy.G]

Did Jesus have a sin nature? You're kidding right?

Jesus could not have had a sinful nature or He would have been unable and unqualified to offer Himself as a sacrifice for sin.


Ephesians 2:3 Among whom also we all had our behavior in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.


If our nature makes us children of wrath then Jesus would also be a child of wrath if He had a fallen sinful nature.

 

[michael-acts17:11]

Jesus is the second Adam(1 Cor 15). He had the ability to sin but chose to submit to the Father.

 

[freeatlast]

Jesus had no sin nature. His will was to do the will of the Father only. To have a nature to do somehting means to have that desire from birth. it is our nature to sin, but it was never the nature of the Lord to sin and He never did.

 

[Zenas]

Perhaps we should clarify the definition of "sin nature". Our sinful nature came as a result of the original sin, but the ability to chose to sin, sin nature as we call it, predates the original sin. Jesus had the ability to sin, act in contradiction to the Father's will, but He chose to submit to the Father's will. Case in point; at the garden of Gethsemane He asked God to relieve Him of the cup that was to soon come to Him, but He submitted His human will to the Father. There is a differentiation between the ability to sin & the desire to sin.

Is it possible to be fully human & not have the ability to chose to sin? I think not. The great truth is that Jesus was in all points tempted & yet CHOSE not to sin. This is the ultimate expression of the freewill of man within Scripture.

:thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Zenas]

Jesus is the second Adam(1 Cor 15). He had the ability to sin but chose to submit to the Father.

Adam was free of original sin, yet he could be tempted and was capable of sin.

Jesus was also free of original sin, but could be tempted and was capable of sin. (If you're not capable of sin, there could be no temptation.)

Adam chose to sin; Jesus chose not to sin.

Adam brought the curse of death to mankind; Jesus brought us life and reversed the curse.

 

[zrs6v4]

Perhaps we should clarify the definition of "sin nature". Our sinful nature came as a result of the original sin, but the ability to chose to sin, sin nature as we call it, predates the original sin. Jesus had the ability to sin, act in contradiction to the Father's will, but He chose to submit to the Father's will. Case in point; at the garden of Gethsemane He asked God to relieve Him of the cup that was to soon come to Him, but He submitted His human will to the Father. There is a differentiation between the ability to sin & the desire to sin.

Is it possible to be fully human & not have the ability to chose to sin? I think not. The great truth is that Jesus was in all points tempted & yet CHOSE not to sin. This is the ultimate expression of the freewill of man within Scripture.

If I am understanding you correctly I think this is an accurate representation.

Can you elaborate on what I highlighted please?

I find that the contrast between Jesus- The Light and mankind- The Darkness is a beautiful representation of how ones nature determines his choices.

Jesus the Light- did not sin, could not sin because He was bound by His divine, holy, and good nature. Yet the option of choosing to sin or not to sin was clearly present as you stated.

Man, the Darkness- Is exactly the opposite. Always living in sin completely evil at the core and choosing that sin that their nature binds them to. Yet there is clearly a choice to sin or not to sin for us as well.