-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Jesus had a human nature?
- Thread starter Salamander
- Start date
This will be in a few posts - I'm typing as fast as I can but it's a LOT. From Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem:
pg. 537 -Could Jesus have sinned?
The question is sometimes raised, "Was it possible for Christ to have sinned?" Some people argue for the impeccability fo Christ in which the word impeccable means "not able to sin". Ohters object that if Jesus were not able to sin, His temptations could not have been real, for how can a temptation be real if the person being tempted is not able to sin anyway?
In order to answer this question we must distinguish what Scripture clearly affirms, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, what is more in the nature of possible inference on our part. (1) Scripture clearly affirms that Christ never actually sinned. There should be no question in our minds at all on this fact. (2) It also clearly affirms that Jesus was tempted, and that these were real temptations (Luke 4:2). If we believe Scripture, then we must insist that Christ "in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin" (Heb. 4:15). IF our speculation on the question of whether Christ could have sinned ever leads us to say that He was not truly tempted, then we have reached a wrong conclusion, one that contradicts the clear statements of Scripture.
(3) We also must affirm wiht Scripture that "God cannot be tempted with evil" (James 1:13). but here the question becomes difficult: if Jesus was fully God as well as fully man (and we shall argue below that Scripture clearly and repeatedly teaches this), then must we not also affirm that (in some sense) Jesus also "could not be tempted with evil"?
This is as far as we can go in terms of clear and explicit affirmations of Scripture. At this point we are faced with a dilemma similar to a number of other doctrinal dilemmas where Scripture seems to be teaching things that are, if not directly contradictory, at least very difficult to combine together in our understanding. For example, with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity, we affirmed that God exists in three persons and each is fully God and there is one God. Although those statements are not contradictory, they are, nonetheless, difficult to understand in connection with each other, and although we can make some progress in understanding how they fit together, in this life, at least, we have to admit that there can be no final understanding on our part. Here the situation is somewhat similar. We do not have an actual contradiction. Scripture does not tell us that "Jesus was tempted" and that "Jesus was not tempted" (a contradiction if "Jesus" and "tempted" are used exactly in the same sense in both sentences). The Bible tells us that "Jesus was tempted" and "Jesus was fully man" and "Jesus was fully God" and "God cannot be tempted." This combination of teachings from Scripture leaves open the possibility that as we understand the way in which Jesus' human nature and divine nature work together, we might understand more of the way in which he could be tempted in one sense and yet, in another sense, not be tempted. (This possibility will be discussed further below.)
part 2 next
pg. 537 -Could Jesus have sinned?
The question is sometimes raised, "Was it possible for Christ to have sinned?" Some people argue for the impeccability fo Christ in which the word impeccable means "not able to sin". Ohters object that if Jesus were not able to sin, His temptations could not have been real, for how can a temptation be real if the person being tempted is not able to sin anyway?
In order to answer this question we must distinguish what Scripture clearly affirms, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, what is more in the nature of possible inference on our part. (1) Scripture clearly affirms that Christ never actually sinned. There should be no question in our minds at all on this fact. (2) It also clearly affirms that Jesus was tempted, and that these were real temptations (Luke 4:2). If we believe Scripture, then we must insist that Christ "in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin" (Heb. 4:15). IF our speculation on the question of whether Christ could have sinned ever leads us to say that He was not truly tempted, then we have reached a wrong conclusion, one that contradicts the clear statements of Scripture.
(3) We also must affirm wiht Scripture that "God cannot be tempted with evil" (James 1:13). but here the question becomes difficult: if Jesus was fully God as well as fully man (and we shall argue below that Scripture clearly and repeatedly teaches this), then must we not also affirm that (in some sense) Jesus also "could not be tempted with evil"?
This is as far as we can go in terms of clear and explicit affirmations of Scripture. At this point we are faced with a dilemma similar to a number of other doctrinal dilemmas where Scripture seems to be teaching things that are, if not directly contradictory, at least very difficult to combine together in our understanding. For example, with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity, we affirmed that God exists in three persons and each is fully God and there is one God. Although those statements are not contradictory, they are, nonetheless, difficult to understand in connection with each other, and although we can make some progress in understanding how they fit together, in this life, at least, we have to admit that there can be no final understanding on our part. Here the situation is somewhat similar. We do not have an actual contradiction. Scripture does not tell us that "Jesus was tempted" and that "Jesus was not tempted" (a contradiction if "Jesus" and "tempted" are used exactly in the same sense in both sentences). The Bible tells us that "Jesus was tempted" and "Jesus was fully man" and "Jesus was fully God" and "God cannot be tempted." This combination of teachings from Scripture leaves open the possibility that as we understand the way in which Jesus' human nature and divine nature work together, we might understand more of the way in which he could be tempted in one sense and yet, in another sense, not be tempted. (This possibility will be discussed further below.)
part 2 next
Jarthur001
Active Member
Yes..I agree. This means that the temptation was before Christ just as it was before all men, But Christ had no desire...(was not tempted) to come to sin.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Amy.G said:Aren't "human nature" and "sin nature" usually used interchangeably?
If we say that Christ had a human nature, is that the same thing as saying He had a sin nature, since human nature is sinful?
It all depends on context. Adam was made sinless. He ended up sinning. All his decendents are sinful. by their relationship to him. Jesus is sinless by choice, action, and nature. He is the new Adam restoring humanity back. This was a very early problem in the church and Sabalianism was born. To say Jesus was not human was to deny his sacrifice. There are a lot of others who will quote the verses but I wonder at this constant regurgitation of old heresies.
Jarthur001
Active Member
nunatak said:
May God be praised
Hi James. Your post above says to study the headship of Christ. Is that what you're referring to?Jarthur001 said:not at all...
see my post above.
I wish you guys would quite throwing monkey wrenches around. :laugh:
I always knew that Christ was human/God, but now you've gone and made me think again about really deep stuff like His human nature! :laugh:
Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem
pg. 537 -Could Jesus have sinned?
Part 2
At this point, then, we pass beyond the clear affirmations of Scripture and attempt to suggest a solution to the problem of whether Christ could have sinned. But it is important to recognize that the following solution is more in the nature of a suggested means of combining various biblical teachings and is not directly supported by explicit statements of Scripture. With this in mind, it is appropriate for us to say: (footnote: In this discussion I am largely following the conclusions of Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948), pp. 339-42) (1) If Jesus' human nature had existed by itself, independent of his divine nature, then it would have been a human nature just like that which God gave Adam and Eve. It would have been free from sin but nonetheless able to sin. Therefore, if Jesus' human nature had existed by itself, there was the abstract or theoretical possibility that Jesus could have sinned, just as Adam and Eve's human natures were able to sin. (2) But Jesus' human nature never existed apart from union with his divine nature. From the moment of his conception, he existed as truly God and truly man as well. Both his human nature and his divine nautre existed united in one person. (3) Although there were some things (such as being hungry or thirsty or weak) that Jesus experienced in his human nature alone and were not experienced in his divine nature (see below), nonetheless, an act of sin would have been a moral act that would apparently have involved the whole person of Christ. Therefore, if he had sinned, it woul dahve involved the whole person of Christ. Therefore if he had sinned, it would have involved both his human and divine natures in sin, then God himself would have sinned and he would have ceased to be God. Yet that is clearly impossible because of the infinite holiness of God's nature. (5) Therefore, if we are asking if it was actually possible for Jesus to have sinned, it seems that we must conclude that it was not possible. The union of his human and divine natures in one person prevented it.
But the question remains, "How then could Jesus' temptations be real?" The example of the temptation to change the stones into bread is helpful in this regard. Jesus had the ability, by virtue of his divine nature, to perform this miracle but if he had done it, he would no longer have been obeying in the strength of his human nature alone, he would have failed the test that Adam also failed, and he would have not earned our salvation for us. Therefore, Jesus refused to rely on his divine nature to make obedience easier for him. In like manner, it seems appropriate to conclude that Jesus met every temptation to sin, not by his divine power, but on the strength of his human nature alone (though, of course, it was not"alone" because Jesus, in exercising the kind of fath that humans should exercise, was perfectly depending on God the Father and the Holy Spirit at every moment). The moral strength of his divine nature was there as a sort of "backstop" that would have prevented him from sinning in any case (and therefore we can say that it was not possible for him to sin), but he did not rely on the strength of his divine nature to make it easier for him to face temptations, and his refusal to turn the stones into bread at the beginning of his ministry is a clear indication of this.
Part 3 next (after I put the kids to bed)
pg. 537 -Could Jesus have sinned?
Part 2
At this point, then, we pass beyond the clear affirmations of Scripture and attempt to suggest a solution to the problem of whether Christ could have sinned. But it is important to recognize that the following solution is more in the nature of a suggested means of combining various biblical teachings and is not directly supported by explicit statements of Scripture. With this in mind, it is appropriate for us to say: (footnote: In this discussion I am largely following the conclusions of Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948), pp. 339-42) (1) If Jesus' human nature had existed by itself, independent of his divine nature, then it would have been a human nature just like that which God gave Adam and Eve. It would have been free from sin but nonetheless able to sin. Therefore, if Jesus' human nature had existed by itself, there was the abstract or theoretical possibility that Jesus could have sinned, just as Adam and Eve's human natures were able to sin. (2) But Jesus' human nature never existed apart from union with his divine nature. From the moment of his conception, he existed as truly God and truly man as well. Both his human nature and his divine nautre existed united in one person. (3) Although there were some things (such as being hungry or thirsty or weak) that Jesus experienced in his human nature alone and were not experienced in his divine nature (see below), nonetheless, an act of sin would have been a moral act that would apparently have involved the whole person of Christ. Therefore, if he had sinned, it woul dahve involved the whole person of Christ. Therefore if he had sinned, it would have involved both his human and divine natures in sin, then God himself would have sinned and he would have ceased to be God. Yet that is clearly impossible because of the infinite holiness of God's nature. (5) Therefore, if we are asking if it was actually possible for Jesus to have sinned, it seems that we must conclude that it was not possible. The union of his human and divine natures in one person prevented it.
But the question remains, "How then could Jesus' temptations be real?" The example of the temptation to change the stones into bread is helpful in this regard. Jesus had the ability, by virtue of his divine nature, to perform this miracle but if he had done it, he would no longer have been obeying in the strength of his human nature alone, he would have failed the test that Adam also failed, and he would have not earned our salvation for us. Therefore, Jesus refused to rely on his divine nature to make obedience easier for him. In like manner, it seems appropriate to conclude that Jesus met every temptation to sin, not by his divine power, but on the strength of his human nature alone (though, of course, it was not"alone" because Jesus, in exercising the kind of fath that humans should exercise, was perfectly depending on God the Father and the Holy Spirit at every moment). The moral strength of his divine nature was there as a sort of "backstop" that would have prevented him from sinning in any case (and therefore we can say that it was not possible for him to sin), but he did not rely on the strength of his divine nature to make it easier for him to face temptations, and his refusal to turn the stones into bread at the beginning of his ministry is a clear indication of this.
Part 3 next (after I put the kids to bed)
Jarthur001
Active Member
By bad amy,Amy.G said:
I was talking about this...
I hope that address what you were asking
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
nunatak said:
Me too. I think part of it will always be a mystery. But look at Gods interaction with mankind. He purposefully weds himself to us. The incarnation is amazing. Imagine how the angels felt! They couldn't hold back their amazement and we see them rejoicing at the birth of Jesus. Think about the bible. God could have writen it himself with his own hand like the 10 commandments but he worked with man using mans abilities and imagination and together wrote his inspired word.
Jarthur001
Active Member
Amy.G said:
Indeed. What a great God we have. What a great salvation.
To HIM goes all glory for ever!!
Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem
pg. 537 -Could Jesus have sinned?
Part 3
Were the temptations real then? Many theologians have pointed out that only he who successfully resists a temptation to the end most fully feels the force of that temptation. Just as a champion weightlifter who successfully lifts and holds over head the heaviest weight in the contest feels the force of it more fully than one who attempts to lift it and drops it, so any Christian who has successfully faced a temptation to the end knows that that is far more difficult than giving into it at once. So it was with Jesus: every temptation he faced, he faced to the end, and triumphed over it. The temptations were real, even though he did not give into them. IN fact, they were most real BECAUSE he did not give in to them.
What then do we say about the fact that "God cannot be tempted with evil" (James 1:13)? It seems that this is one of a number of things that we must affirm to be true of Jesus' divine nature but not of his human nature. His divine nature could not be tempted with evil but his human nature could be tempted and was clearly tempted. How these two natures united in one person in facing temptations, Scripture does not clearly explain to us. But this distinction between what is true of one nature and what is true of another nature is an example of a number of similar statements that Scripture requires us to make (see more on this distinction, below, when we discuss how Jesus could be God and man in one person).
pg. 537 -Could Jesus have sinned?
Part 3
Were the temptations real then? Many theologians have pointed out that only he who successfully resists a temptation to the end most fully feels the force of that temptation. Just as a champion weightlifter who successfully lifts and holds over head the heaviest weight in the contest feels the force of it more fully than one who attempts to lift it and drops it, so any Christian who has successfully faced a temptation to the end knows that that is far more difficult than giving into it at once. So it was with Jesus: every temptation he faced, he faced to the end, and triumphed over it. The temptations were real, even though he did not give into them. IN fact, they were most real BECAUSE he did not give in to them.
What then do we say about the fact that "God cannot be tempted with evil" (James 1:13)? It seems that this is one of a number of things that we must affirm to be true of Jesus' divine nature but not of his human nature. His divine nature could not be tempted with evil but his human nature could be tempted and was clearly tempted. How these two natures united in one person in facing temptations, Scripture does not clearly explain to us. But this distinction between what is true of one nature and what is true of another nature is an example of a number of similar statements that Scripture requires us to make (see more on this distinction, below, when we discuss how Jesus could be God and man in one person).
standingfirminChrist
New Member
Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology is hogwash.
Jarthur001
Active Member
is that not the truth? Wow...nunatak said:
the more I see and understand our God, the more I say woe is me for I am a sinner.
I cry out....really I do....as David...."what is man that thou are mindful of him?" Why God?? Why? I am a sinner that fails you each day. Worthless
But think you Lord for sending your Son.
raying: