Did Jesus Have a Sinful Nature While on Earth?

[Thinkingstuff]

I don't know where this conversation is going but to the thread question of whether Jesus had a sinful nature while incarnate. I would say a vehemently loud NO!

Any questions?

 

[DHK]

I don't know where this conversation is going but to the thread question of whether Jesus had a sinful nature while incarnate. I would say a vehemently loud NO!

Any questions?

Just one. How did God make it possible for Christ to enter this world without a sinful nature?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Just one. How did God make it possible for Christ to enter this world without a sinful nature?

That's part of the miracle of the incarnation. Didn't the Holy Spirit Cover Mary for the conseption of Jesus? So it was the work of the Holy Spirit that Kept Jesus without a sin nature.

 

[DHK]

That's part of the miracle of the incarnation. Didn't the Holy Spirit Cover Mary for the conseption of Jesus? So it was the work of the Holy Spirit that Kept Jesus without a sin nature.

That is right. And so Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. It is why the virgin birth was so necessary. That is part of the reason this thread has taken a turn to the emphasis on the virgin birth. It is part of the proof that Christ did not have a sinful nature.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

That is right. And so Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. It is why the virgin birth was so necessary. That is part of the reason this thread has taken a turn to the emphasis on the virgin birth. It is part of the proof that Christ did not have a sinful nature.

I can go with that. So who denies the virgin birth. To deny it is a heretical belief. Sorry that is like a fundamental Christian belief from the begining. Especially when the Gospels record it.

 

[webdog]

That is right. And so Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. It is why the virgin birth was so necessary. That is part of the reason this thread has taken a turn to the emphasis on the virgin birth. It is part of the proof that Christ did not have a sinful nature.

Was the virgin birth necessary, or was that simply the means God ordained for Christ to come into the world?

 

[Steven2006]

Was the virgin birth necessary, or was that simply the means God ordained for Christ to come into the world?

I would say it was necessary for the very reason that is what God ordained.

PS How is the new job going?

 

[Winman]

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 disagree. The scriptures do not teach that Adam's sin passed on us, it teaches that the death penalty for sin that Adam introduced into the world passed on us.

For example, 20 years ago there were no laws against looking at someone else's e-mail as computers and e-mail was very new. But because some people did this laws were passed against it. That law and it's sentence has passed upon us so now we might be arrested if we look at someone else's e-mail without authorization.

God forbid the Jews for punishing any man for the sins of his father and vice versa. So if Adam's sin passed on us God would be violating his own law.

What we did inherit from Adam was our flesh. Our flesh has desires and lusts that pull us toward sin. Eve was drawn away by the lusts of her flesh.

Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Eve allowed her fleshly desires to get the best of her. This fruit looked beautiful and good for food, and she thought it could make her wise. The scriptures say we sin when we allow our lusts to draw us away.

James 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

We can't blame Adam for our sin. The scriptures say every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust. And if you give in to your own lust you sin.

James 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

It is sin that brings forth death. You have to actually sin before the death sentence passes upon you.

Jesus was made flesh, but he never sinned. He had desires, he was hungry in the wilderness when he fasted for 40 days. But he resisted the devil's temptation and did not cause the stones to be turned into bread.

He was not sinful flesh because he never sinned. Sinful is a legal definition, not a force. Just as someone who is convicted of a crime is a "convict".

 

[webdog]

I would say it was necessary for the very reason that is what God ordained.

PS How is the new job going?

Slow, it's harder than I thought it would be. You would think realtors, and lenders would want to receive free marketing and help non profit organizations if there was no cost and time associated with it...simply a 1 page authorization form to be filled out for their preferred title company.

 

[Steven2006]

Slow, it's harder than I thought it would be. You would think realtors, and lenders would want to receive free marketing and help non profit organizations if there was no cost and time associated with it...simply a 1 page authorization form to be filled out for their preferred title company.

Sorry to hear that. Maybe it is just one of those things that after a lot of hard work you just get over a hump and it snowballs from that point. Sadly our lives are so busy and hectic that many people will not consider any change to their routines regardless if it is of little cost to them. One thing I have found is that if you are getting resistance with a customer and do not know why just directly ask them, but first always ask permission to do so. I have used this statement countless times and it has worked wonders.

"if you don't mind me asking......." Say those six words, be sincere and then ask them anything you want and you will be surprised how often they will drop their guard and tell you just what their core objection to your product is.

Sorry for derailing the thread a little bit.

 

[DHK]

Was the virgin birth necessary, or was that simply the means God ordained for Christ to come into the world?

God could have sent Christ via a space ship, an ostrich egg, or any other means, if that is your simple objection.
But the virgin birth was necessary, not simply because it was a fulfillment of prophecy or the way that God ordained, but for many other reasons.
1. It was the way that deity (as a man) had to enter the world.
2. It was the way that sinless man had to enter the world (there was no other possible way.
3. It was the only way for Christ to remain sinless, and keep his entire humanity.
4. It was the only way for Christ to be 100% God and 100% man both at the same time.
5. It was the only way for Christ to enter the world and still be the rightful heir to the throne of David.
6. It was the only way that Christ could be tempted in all points such as we are.
7. It was the only way that Christ could become our Great High Priest.
8. It was the only way that Christ could make an atonement for our sins.

A denial of the virgin birth affects all these doctrines, and also the very gospel itself. Almost all the fundamental doctrines of the Bible are affected by the virgin birth of Christ. One may go so far as to say that one cannot be saved without believing in the virgin birth of Christ.

 

[drfuss]

God could have sent Christ via a space ship, an ostrich egg, or any other means, if that is your simple objection.
But the virgin birth was necessary, not simply because it was a fulfillment of prophecy or the way that God ordained, but for many other reasons.
1. It was the way that deity (as a man) had to enter the world.
2. It was the way that sinless man had to enter the world (there was no other possible way.
3. It was the only way for Christ to remain sinless, and keep his entire humanity.
4. It was the only way for Christ to be 100% God and 100% man both at the same time.
5. It was the only way for Christ to enter the world and still be the rightful heir to the throne of David.
6. It was the only way that Christ could be tempted in all points such as we are.
7. It was the only way that Christ could become our Great High Priest.
8. It was the only way that Christ could make an atonement for our sins.

A denial of the virgin birth affects all these doctrines, and also the very gospel itself. Almost all the fundamental doctrines of the Bible are affected by the virgin birth of Christ. One may go so far as to say that one cannot be saved without believing in the virgin birth of Christ.

drfuss: DHK, perhaps I just missed it, but I didn't see anybody on here deny the virgin birth. So why do you keep implying that someone did deny the virgin birth?

Some have taken issue with some of your application interpretations of the virgin birth. IMO, making these untrue claims about what others have said just weakens your augument. See the saying below.

 

[DHK]

drfuss: DHK, perhaps I just missed it, but I didn't see anybody on here deny the virgin birth. So why do you keep implying that someone did deny the virgin birth?

Some have taken issue with some of your application interpretations of the virgin birth. IMO, making these untrue claims about what others have said just weakens your augument. See the saying below.

There are some that believe but only because the Bible says it.
They don't see it as necessary. May I be so bold as to say that if the virgin birth is not necessary then salvation is not necessary for salvation could not happen without the virgin birth.

 

[billwald]

>There are some that believe but only because the Bible says it.
They don't see it as necessary.

In a strictly logical context - in 6000 years of study intelligent Jews have never concluded that the messiah was required to have a virgin birth.

 

[DHK]

>There are some that believe but only because the Bible says it.
They don't see it as necessary.

In a strictly logical context - in 6000 years of study intelligent Jews have never concluded that the messiah was required to have a virgin birth.

Whatever would lead you to make such a bold statement like that without any apparent study. The Bible is replete with such evidence, and quite clear evidence at that:

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

 

[webdog]

God could have sent Christ via a space ship, an ostrich egg, or any other means, if that is your simple objection.
But the virgin birth was necessary, not simply because it was a fulfillment of prophecy or the way that God ordained, but for many other reasons.
1. It was the way that deity (as a man) had to enter the world.
2. It was the way that sinless man had to enter the world (there was no other possible way.
3. It was the only way for Christ to remain sinless, and keep his entire humanity.
4. It was the only way for Christ to be 100% God and 100% man both at the same time.
5. It was the only way for Christ to enter the world and still be the rightful heir to the throne of David.
6. It was the only way that Christ could be tempted in all points such as we are.
7. It was the only way that Christ could become our Great High Priest.
8. It was the only way that Christ could make an atonement for our sins.

A denial of the virgin birth affects all these doctrines, and also the very gospel itself. Almost all the fundamental doctrines of the Bible are affected by the virgin birth of Christ. One may go so far as to say that one cannot be saved without believing in the virgin birth of Christ.

Why are you so defensive and nasty...I wasn't objecting to anything but asking a question. I believe in the virgin birth.

 

[DHK]

Why are you so defensive and nasty...I wasn't objecting to anything but asking a question. I believe in the virgin birth.

I made it very clear that I don't think that there is anyone here that denies the virgin birth. But there are some that question its necessity. I don't know if you are one of those or not. Possibly. I don't see that as a nasty post. I was pointing out why the virgin birth is a very necessary doctrine. Why is that "nasty." It is important for us to know these things.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I made it very clear that I don't think that there is anyone here that denies the virgin birth. But there are some that question its necessity. I don't know if you are one of those or not. Possibly. I don't see that as a nasty post. I was pointing out why the virgin birth is a very necessary doctrine. Why is that "nasty." It is important for us to know these things.

Yes the virgin birth is a necessity for a multitude of reasons not the least that it tells us Jesus is sinless.

 

[DHK]

Yes the virgin birth is a necessity for a multitude of reasons not the least that it tells us Jesus is sinless.

And that answers the OP. No, Jesus did not have a sinful nature. He was born without one.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: I made it very clear that I don't think that there is anyone here that denies the virgin birth. But there are some that question its necessity. I don't know if you are one of those or not. Possibly. I don't see that as a nasty post. I was pointing out why the virgin birth is a very necessary doctrine. Why is that "nasty." It is important for us to know these things.

HP: DHK, you need a reality check. There is not one solitary soul that denies the necessity of the virgin birth that I have read.

Contrary to what DHK would like to present as the truth, i.e., by disagreeing with why ‘he’ thinks it is necessary, it is not synonymous with denying the virgin birth was in fact necessary. The plain truth is that Scripture do NOT tell us the ‘why’ concerning the virgin birth, as much as DHK would like to act as if though it does. One could simply say that God for reasons known to Himself chose to enter this world via a virgin, if for no other reason than to fulfill prophesy. That in and of itself would be clearly 'necessary.'

Scripture is clear that Christ took upon Himself the nature of a man, Abrahams nature. Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Possibly DHK would like to make one small exception to the sinful nature he attests to with Abraham, since Christ took on his seed and as such his nature.