-
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!
Was Jesus born with exact same human nature as all of us?
- Thread starter Yeshua1
- Start date
Jesus had flesh just like us;however He was born of the seed of the woman not man Gen 3:16.
If He had been born by the seed of man, He would have been sinful like us.
Congrats, we are now debating Federal Headship vs Traducianism
If He had been born by the seed of man, He would have been sinful like us.
Congrats, we are now debating Federal Headship vs Traducianism
Was his human nature than as Adam was when originally created, and so not like any of ours?
37818
Well-Known Member
We inherit the knowledge of good and evil from our human parents as handed down from Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:11; Genesis 3:22). For Jesus it was always His knowledge as the LORD God (Genesis 1:22; John 1:14; Hebrews 4:15; Colossians 1:14-18).
His human nature could not have come from Joseph , as he was a sinner, and could only pass on sin nature....
I'm pretty sure that's what they're arguing. Ever since Augustine at least that is the common trope. M.R. DeHaan's book The chemistry of the Blood argues that very thing in the Modern age. A common Protestant view is that the "sin-nature" is passed through human fathers and the virgin-birth was necessary to avoid that. The Catholic conception is that any human parent can pass on this mysterious gene hence the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Which is the doctrine that Mary was miraculously conceived without a sin nature so she wouldn't pass it on to Jesus.
Immaculate Conception - Wikipedia
Round and round the Circle of Manicheanism goes.
Last edited:
Thanks for the info. I was hoping I had misunderstood. 1 Timothy 4:7.
Just that all humans since him save for Jesus have been born with the sin nature, due to the Fall!
Here's the thing......
All humans sin. Period.
All people will sin....full stop.
But, where is the Biblical justification for speaking of man possessing some "sin-nature" which he inherited as a result of the fall?
That is an assumption that I am uncomfortable with, and is not, IMO Biblical.
The results of the fall were clear:
Man will die...…….check
The ground was cursed.....check
Increased pain in childbearing...…….check
Increased conflict between man and wife.....check
The curse of the Serpent...…..check
Those things were what the Bible says occurred at the fall.
It says nothing else other than what was listed.
The writer of Genesis wasn't ignorant of the idea that mankind was somehow constitutionally altered such that he was incapable of making right choices.....because it didn't happen. (And that would make God the author of sin anyway).
If the system (generally the Calvinist system) is to be believed...something in the constitution of man changed such that he was rendered incapable of making the right choices...………….but Genesis is silent about this, and says no such thing.
It is from these erroneous assumptions that these "nature" questions arise.
Believing the Biblical assertions (and them only) removes so many of these quandries and renders these questions unnecessary.
lol....no...you didn't....they're alive and well
Given what I suggested above:
Jesus was a Man.
REALLY a man.
The second person of the trinity came to earth as a real man........(not a man with a special non-man "nature")
And he lived without sinning.
The Holy Spirit was always key in his life....read the gospels closely.
No Docetism required.
The "sin nature" question is one which invariably always results in a docetic view of Christ.
He had the same "nature" as all men do.
But men aren't sinners by "nature"....and Genesis tells us no such thing at the fall....we're sinners because we choose to sin.
Christ did not. It's simple, it's magnificent and it glorifies Christ all the more to know he lived as a man (a real man) without sin.
Praise God!
Jesus was a Man.
REALLY a man.
The second person of the trinity came to earth as a real man........(not a man with a special non-man "nature")
And he lived without sinning.
The Holy Spirit was always key in his life....read the gospels closely.
No Docetism required.
The "sin nature" question is one which invariably always results in a docetic view of Christ.
He had the same "nature" as all men do.
But men aren't sinners by "nature"....and Genesis tells us no such thing at the fall....we're sinners because we choose to sin.
Christ did not. It's simple, it's magnificent and it glorifies Christ all the more to know he lived as a man (a real man) without sin.
Praise God!
Rom3:23 says all sinned.......at one point in time, that is the fall.
Well said. Much of Christianity has adopted a myth of "the Fall" where Adam's nature was changed and this "fallen nature" is passed down.
Scripture presents man as having a human nature which itself is not a sin. Adam sinned (Adam never merited righteousness which became evident when he sinned). And we sin (we are just like Adam) and need a Savior.
Nowhere in Scripture is Adam said to have experienced a change in nature. Never is Adam said to have experienced a spiritual death. Scripture is very specific about the consequences of Adam's sin and the resulting curse. I do not know why some see this is indufficient. I guess they find myth more exciting. I do not. Scripture is, IMHO, sufficient.
Good post Heir.
It says all have sinned....there you're correct.
The rest of your assertion, which I'll quote: (at one point in time, that is the fall.)...is not in that passage, but is an extrabiblical assertion required by the Theological system you hold.
Romans does not say that...
Genesis does not say that....
Genesis tells us what happened at the fall.
I provided an exhaustive list of everything Genesis asserted.
Nothing was left out. Including the addition you want to insert there.
Your Theological system adds that, and completely without justification, to the text.
"HeirofSalvation,
Sorry HOS, the word have is not in the text...it says, all sinned.
So you are wrong on this and all your theories follow.
No not at all my friend
From preceptaustin;
The aorist tense here is referred to as "timeless aorist" which gathers up the whole human race for all time into this condemnation (see also A T Robertson). There are no exceptions save Christ Jesus as Paul has made clear in the preceding indictment in (Ro 1:18-3:20)
Godet agrees writing that the aorist tense "transports us to the point of time when the result of human life appears as a completed fact, the hour of judgment."
MacDonald writes that the aorist tense pictures the fact that "Everybody sinned in Adam; when he sinned, he acted as the representative for all his descendants. But men are not only sinners by nature; they are also sinners by practice.
Leon Morris - The aorist pictures this as past, but also as a completion. It certainly does not mean that sin belongs wholly in the past, for Paul goes on to a present tense when he says fall short of the glory of God. Elsewhere in Romans the glory is often future (Ro 2:7, 10; 5:2; 8:18, 21). But there is also a present glory, for God “made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ” (2 Cor. 4:6; cf. 2 Cor. 3:18; John 17:22). But this is something Christ produces in believers. Sinners fall short of it. Not only did all sin in the past, but they continually come short of God’s glory. (Ibid)
Vincent writes that the aorist tense means "looking back to a thing definitely past — the historic occurrence of sin."
No theological system adds anything. The facts speak for themself.
Sorry HOS, the word have is not in the text...it says, all sinned.
So you are wrong on this and all your theories follow.
No not at all my friend
From preceptaustin;
The aorist tense here is referred to as "timeless aorist" which gathers up the whole human race for all time into this condemnation (see also A T Robertson). There are no exceptions save Christ Jesus as Paul has made clear in the preceding indictment in (Ro 1:18-3:20)
Godet agrees writing that the aorist tense "transports us to the point of time when the result of human life appears as a completed fact, the hour of judgment."
MacDonald writes that the aorist tense pictures the fact that "Everybody sinned in Adam; when he sinned, he acted as the representative for all his descendants. But men are not only sinners by nature; they are also sinners by practice.
Leon Morris - The aorist pictures this as past, but also as a completion. It certainly does not mean that sin belongs wholly in the past, for Paul goes on to a present tense when he says fall short of the glory of God. Elsewhere in Romans the glory is often future (Ro 2:7, 10; 5:2; 8:18, 21). But there is also a present glory, for God “made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ” (2 Cor. 4:6; cf. 2 Cor. 3:18; John 17:22). But this is something Christ produces in believers. Sinners fall short of it. Not only did all sin in the past, but they continually come short of God’s glory. (Ibid)
Vincent writes that the aorist tense means "looking back to a thing definitely past — the historic occurrence of sin."
No theological system adds anything. The facts speak for themself.
Last edited:
Another way to look this "change of nature" idea is to consider the Creation account. I have actually seen the myth of a "Falken nature" defended by the idea God created man "upright" (I can't remember if it was on the BB or elsewhere, but it has been suggested).
If Adam's nature had to have changed when he sinned rather than an inevitable consequence of the progression of events (a demonstration of his nature) then this was not the first time. By application of this myth's logic Adam would have been created asexual and his nature changed to heterosexual when Eve was formed. God would have altered Adam physically as well.
When people start holding to myth as if it were Scripture more problems are created than solved.
If Adam's nature had to have changed when he sinned rather than an inevitable consequence of the progression of events (a demonstration of his nature) then this was not the first time. By application of this myth's logic Adam would have been created asexual and his nature changed to heterosexual when Eve was formed. God would have altered Adam physically as well.
When people start holding to myth as if it were Scripture more problems are created than solved.
The spiritual component of man died in the fall, as that is what to get born again in order to have a spiritual relationship with God. we have fallen natures, dead in ourselves to God and his spiritual things, as per Paul. Are you denying that we have a fallen nature then?
I am aware that "have" is not in the Greek, but is supplied by translators as they sometimes need to do. They weren't foolish to do so.
I am also fully aware that it is in the aorist as well.
This does not mean that we have to read into this the notion that all of humanity at the same point in time subsequently committed the same sin at the same time as in with Adam.
That is a Theologically driven supposition with no warrant.
Naturally, I have read gazillions of commentators parroting this assumption and therefore do not need you to supply them. There are also Theologians who disagree that we should read that into the text. I agree with those who do not make these suppositions.
Naturally, you will agree with those commentators who share that belief with you. That doesn't make either you nor them correct.
Last edited:
I am saying Genesis lists precisely what happened during the fall.
I am also saying Genesis says nothing about mankind becoming constitutionally altered at the core of his being.
Those are Theologically-driven assumptions.
It is enough for me that all men are obviously inclined towards sin, and that in time all humans will invariably sin at some point.
I have no need to say we have "sin natures" and no need to conjure up fanciful stories for how Christ side-stepped that sin nature. Those are Catholic relics adopted from Gnostic Philosophy carried over into Protestant assumptions.
Genesis says nothing about a "spiritual component" of man dying at the fall. The threat was death....normal death. And it happened. Man became subject to death. It may be perfectly decent Theological short-hand to speak of "Spiritual death" if it's helpful....but it isn't Biblical verbiage. It's Theological verbiage.