Did Jesus Have a Sinful Nature While on Earth?

[drfuss]

HP: If we sin due to the necessitated impulses of our nature, our nature would have to be changed to obey. If it is changed to obey, then that would be just as necessitated as it was to sin, just in an opposite manner, making sin an absolute impossibility once the nature was changed. What ever happened to the will choosing? Whatever happened to the concept of just punishment or praise for our actions? Whatever happened to the right concept of love, sin, or morality in general? Is man just some piece of putty reacting out of necessity to either some irresistible force of evil or good, depending on which one is necessitating his action at the moment?

I can assure you that until you escape the pollution of Augustinian original sin, the false notion that sin lies in the flesh as opposed to the will, that you will live and die chasing rabbit trails leading to anywhere and everywhere but truth.

drfuss: Thanks, What you say appears to make sense. I will have to think about it.

Added question - HP, are you saying that man does not have a sinful nature?

 

[drfuss]

drfuss...to answer your questions one has to discuss and have an understanding of the following:

What was state of man and his purpose before the Fall...
What was the state of man after the Fall...
Why did Christ come and what did He accomplish...
Christ came as Saviour, in order to redeem man. But to redeem man from what?

here's a link to an article I'd like for you to read, which may better explain who Christ is from an Orthodox Christian perspective:

Who is Jesus Christ

In XC
-

A long interesting article, but I don't think it answered my question.

 

[ccrobinson]

Can you support your ideas from Scripture? Where does Scripture even mention a sin nature 'from birth?' Who said the sin nature comes from 'man' in any sense that is separating 'man' as opposed to a woman? Who said the virgin birth was necessary to keep Christ from some inherited contagion? Where do Scriptures ever represent sin as some contagion anyway?

Yes, I think I have Scripture to support what I'm saying. Starting with Romans 5:12.

Romans 5:12 - Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Sin entered the world by Adam and was passed onto all of us by him. I know of no other way for Adam's sin to be passed onto us except through the seed of the man. In order for Jesus Christ to be our sacrifice, he has to be perfect. If he has a sin nature, can he be the perfect sacrifice? I say no. Thus the need for the virgin birth.

If a sin nature causes me to sin and that by necessity, tell us how Christ could take upon Himself that very nature as Scripture states He did without inheriting the same sin we do? Abraham was a man was he not?

Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

Christ took on the flesh of man, but that doesn't mean he took on the sin nature of man. He couldn't have if he's the perfect sacrifice for us.

What right to the throne of David as the Messiah did Christ have if in fact He was not of the physical lineage of David, yet another 'man?'

That's a good question. I'll research it and hope that somebody who knows this answer can respond.

If my nature necessitates me to sin, what purpose is temptation anyway? If all I can do is sin due to my nature, temptation is necessitated by my nature. If Christ is tempted in all points as we are, and we are tempted by our natures driven by necessity, the same would have to apply to Christ as well if tempted as we are, is that not correct?

Our sin nature isn't the only thing that causes us to sin. Sin is a willful choice of disobedience to God, made easier by the fact that we have a sin nature.

Has anyone read James lately?

Yes, I have. What's your point?

 

[David Michael Harris]

Yes, I have. What's your point?

I will echo that. I read James a lot.

 

[Johnv]

Has anyone read James lately?

If you're referring to what I think your'e referring to, I addressed that here:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1499614&postcount=15

On a sidenote, it's usually poor exegesis to lift a verse from the context of its whole passage.

 

[David Michael Harris]

Don't think it's that.

 

[David Michael Harris]

God cannot even look upon sin. Never mind be tempted by it.

 

[David Michael Harris]

That's why Jesus could never have been tempted in the sense that we understand it.

It would have been immediately repulsive to him. Yes He was tempted. He understands.

We are talking about a Man here who kept the Mosaic Law perfectly.

Never did He not love God less than He should have.

Never did He steal.

Never did He disrespect His parents.

Never did He covet.

Never did He look at a young lady or woman without pure intentions.

Etc etc etc etc etc. He kept God's Law. All His Life.

Lover of my Soul. Bless You Jesus. Blessed Saviour. My Beloved.

 

[webdog]

Good thread.

I think what God Himself said after the flood would lead us to believe Jesus had no sin nature.
Genesis 8:21 The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.

Clearly, Jesus does not fit this mold even being 100% man.

Remember, man was not created with a sin nature, was tempted...and fell for it. Temptation does not = sin nature, hence the reason Christ was truly tempted, but did not sin. Christ is also referred to as the Second Adam.

 

[Johnv]

That's why Jesus could never have been tempted in the sense that we understand it.

You might have hit the nail on something. Perhaps the issue is not that Jesus wasn't tempted. Rather, it's an issue of him being tempted, but not in the sense that we nondivine humans understand it.

Just brainstorming there.

 

[David Michael Harris]

You might have hit the nail on something. Perhaps the issue is not that Jesus wasn't tempted. Rather, it's an issue of him being tempted, but not in the sense that we nondivine humans understand it.

Just brainstorming there.

It's a discussion board.

Teach me brother.

 

[David Michael Harris]

Jesus Christ my Lord. Pure and blameless Man.

You removed my sin as far as the east is from the west.

Jesus Christ my Lord.

I can see me ending on this note a lot lol.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Drfuss: HP, are you saying that man does not have a sinful nature?

HP: That depends on what you are referring to. Man is not born with a sinful moral nature, for neither sin or morality cannot be predicated of any necessitated state devoid of choice. Neither sin or righteousness are created states nor can they be. Morality at its heart centers on the ability to do something other than what one does under the very same set of circumstances apart from consideration of punishments or rewards. Without the initiation of an act of the will in the formation of an intent of either benevolence or selfishness, no morality can be predicated of the soul or the ‘nature’ we are born into by necessity. Morality rules in the realm of choice alone as opposed to the realm of necessity.

In another sense, if we are speaking of a natural proclivity to sin, a natural inclination to sin that is the results of physical depravity as a result of the fall and sin, and limit the word ‘nature’ to the realm of the sensibilities, yes, in a sense man is born with a nature to sin. Because the natural proclivities have clearly been corrupted by the fall, and serve as formidable influences to selfishness, the root of all sin, in a sense it could be said we are born with a sinful nature. Again, I am limiting the word ‘nature’ to our corrupted sensibilities and not the will itself.

Because of what I see as utter confusion in much of the Church as to our constitutional makeup from birth, and the all but total inability to distinguish between the sensibilities, those impulses and influences via the flesh itself that are not sin (for they are necessitated traits) and the will itself (the chooser), I would as a general rule refrain from saying we have a sinful nature.

I believe it far more an accurate depiction of the state we are born into to refer to our state as being born with a natural proclivity to sin or an natural inclination to sin, but clarify that neither of these in and of themselves are sin. Only as we yield our wills to these selfish impulses is sin conceived.

As a statement of faith I might say the following: All are born with a natural proclivity to sin as a direct result of the fall that corrupts the sensibilities of man, and all that come to the age of accountability sin and become guilty before God.
Note: the ‘sin itself’ comes subsequent to, as a result of, the will choosing and not before.

Of a truth, all men in our dispensation have indeed yielded their wills voluntarily to the proclivity to sin we all are born with, and as such have sinned and became guilty before God.

Does this help answer your question in a manner you can follow? Am I confusing as you see it in my explanation?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ccrobinson: Our sin nature isn't the only thing that causes us to sin. Sin is a willful choice of disobedience to God, made easier by the fact that we have a sin nature.

HP: Whatever serves as the ‘cause’ of our sin is that and that only that our sins can be blamed on. Scripture no where blames man for the nature he was born into or with, but everywhere condemns man for their own selfish choices. Our will is the cause of our sin, not our nature. Our nature only serves as a proclivity or inclination to sin, and is not sinful in and of itself.

We only are sinful when? James says it best. Note carefully the progression that sin takes and when the inclination or temptation upon the will initiates sin. Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ge 8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth;

The words are 'evil from his youth.'

 

[DHK]

Ge 8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth;

The words are 'evil from his youth.'

Concerning the above expression "evil from his youth," Keil and Delitszch, both Hebrew scholars, say this:

It was not because the thoughts and desires of the human heart are evil that God would not smite any more every living thing, that is to say, would not exterminate it judicially; but because they are evil from his youth up, because evil is innate in man, and for that reason he needs the forbearance of God;

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

K&D “because evil is innate in man”

HP: You cannot get that from the text. That is read into the text via presupposition, not the text itself, in spite of the brilliance and or education of these two men.

 

[DHK]

HP: You cannot get that from the text. That is read into the text via presupposition, not the text itself, in spite of the brilliance and or education of these two men.

It is doubtful that K&D read anything into the text. They had no axe to grind; nothing to gain or lose. The fact is that they were liberals. They denied most of the fundamentals of the faith. Their only purpose here was to give an accurate rendering of the Hebrew, which they are very good at.

 

[drfuss]

HP: That depends on what you are referring to. Man is not born with a sinful moral nature, for neither sin or morality cannot be predicated of any necessitated state devoid of choice. Neither sin or righteousness are created states nor can they be. Morality at its heart centers on the ability to do something other than what one does under the very same set of circumstances apart from consideration of punishments or rewards. Without the initiation of an act of the will in the formation of an intent of either benevolence or selfishness, no morality can be predicated of the soul or the ‘nature’ we are born into by necessity. Morality rules in the realm of choice alone as opposed to the realm of necessity.

In another sense, if we are speaking of a natural proclivity to sin, a natural inclination to sin that is the results of physical depravity as a result of the fall and sin, and limit the word ‘nature’ to the realm of the sensibilities, yes, in a sense man is born with a nature to sin. Because the natural proclivities have clearly been corrupted by the fall, and serve as formidable influences to selfishness, the root of all sin, in a sense it could be said we are born with a sinful nature. Again, I am limiting the word ‘nature’ to our corrupted sensibilities and not the will itself.

Because of what I see as utter confusion in much of the Church as to our constitutional makeup from birth, and the all but total inability to distinguish between the sensibilities, those impulses and influences via the flesh itself that are not sin (for they are necessitated traits) and the will itself (the chooser), I would as a general rule refrain from saying we have a sinful nature.

I believe it far more an accurate depiction of the state we are born into to refer to our state as being born with a natural proclivity to sin or an natural inclination to sin, but clarify that neither of these in and of themselves are sin. Only as we yield our wills to these selfish impulses is sin conceived.

As a statement of faith I might say the following: All are born with a natural proclivity to sin as a direct result of the fall that corrupts the sensibilities of man, and all that come to the age of accountability sin and become guilty before God.
Note: the ‘sin itself’ comes subsequent to, as a result of, the will choosing and not before.

Of a truth, all men in our dispensation have indeed yielded their wills voluntarily to the proclivity to sin we all are born with, and as such have sinned and became guilty before God.

Does this help answer your question in a manner you can follow? Am I confusing as you see it in my explanation?

drfuss: Your explanations are very helpful. Thank you. I think the problem I had involved the definition of sinful nature as implied in the book.

The book (mentioned in the OP) indicated that His temptations were different than most of our temptations which is the reason HE did not have a sinful nature, i.e. He was tempted, but differently.

The book suggested that Jesus was tempted to do right things in the wrong way. The example they used was a hungry father stealing food to feed his hungry children, but not for himself. The stealing would be wrong, but for a good cause. Jesus only had this type of temptation and resisted it. It implied that He was only tempted to do rigfht things the wrong way because He did not have a sinful nature.

The example in the book said OUR temptations would be to steal food for our own selfish benefit, i.e. both would be wrong. This would be a part of our sinful nature.

So my issue with the book was:

1. Was Jesus' temptations to sin as strong as our temptations to sin?

2. Were His temptations the same type of temptations as our temptations?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Drfuss: So my issue with the book was:

1. Was Jesus' temptations to sin as strong as our temptations to sin?

2. Were His temptations the same type of temptations as our temptations?

HP: Scripture speaks for itself. He was tempted in all points like as we are. If we are tempted to do the right things the wrong way, so was Christ, but that clearly is not the only way we are tempted according to James. Again, Christ was tempted in ALL points as we are.

Only those holding onto the false presupposition of original sin try and make such unsupported notions stick. They are constantly trying to drum up ‘penumbral’ notions that might provide cover for their false dogma.