Did Jesus Have The Human Sinful Nature?

[DevotiontoBible]

Your first premise, that a human is born with a "sinful nature" is wrong, it is only AFTER sinning that the individual's nature becomes sinful! Isaiah 53v6, Ezek 18 (all), Matt 19v14.

You have swallowed the error of Augustine, which is NOT what the early Church believed.

So Christ came into this world like any other child and was tempted in ALL points like as we are, but because He did not sin, He did NOT partake of a sinful nature! Heb 2v14-18, 4v15, Luke 2v40,52.

That makes you a Pelagian. Pelageus was rightly branded a heretic not Augustine.

 

[Leftheri]

Would you say a newborn baby with the sinful himan nature is sinful?

There is a difference between the use of the word "sin" as a verb, a noun and the "sin nature".

 

[DevotiontoBible]

There is a difference between the use of the word "sin" as a verb, a noun and the "sin nature".

Can you explain those differences?

 

[Leftheri]

Let us remember that Jesus was under the Law in His earthly life. Our will is part of the "sin nature". Jesus was also baptized after which the Dove decended upon Him and God acknowledged Him as His son.

To say that He was under the sin nature is to say that He needed to be born again. Or was His birth of the Holy Spirit the key to His being born spiritually alive? Can anyone imagine Jesus being born spiritually dead?

We are born again unto a new life with Christ. Jesus was acquainted with our physical and mindful nature, having been tempted and tested just as mankind for whom He came to redeem and give life. As Adam was spiritually disconnected from God and cast out of Eden due to his nature to be imperfect and by that he disobeyed God, Jesus was perfect from His birth; He was God in the flesh from conception. He had authority over the natural and spiritual. Although we are in the world and not of the world anymore, at our rebirth we are translated into Christ's nature, to become like Him as He was...ON EARTH.

 

[Leftheri]

Can you explain those differences?

The sin nature depicts our spiritual condition from our birth and our need to be redeemed by the blood of Jesus. The word "sin" can be used as a noun to depict the wrongful acts we commit. Also, it is used as a verb as in the act of sinning. I was a sinner so I committed sins because it was in my (sinful) nature. The same can never be said about Jesus Christ.

 

[DevotiontoBible]

Let us remember that Jesus was under the Law in His earthly life. Our will is part of the "sin nature". Jesus was also baptized after which the Dove decended upon Him and God acknowledged Him as His son.

To say that He was under the sin nature is to say that He needed to be born again. Or was His birth of the Holy Spirit the key to His being born spiritually alive? Can anyone imagine Jesus being born spiritually dead?

We are born again unto a new life with Christ. Jesus was acquainted with our physical and mindful nature, having been tempted and tested just as mankind for whom He came to redeem and give life. As Adam was spiritually disconnected from God and cast out of Eden due to his nature to be imperfect and by that he disobeyed God, Jesus was perfect from His birth; He was God in the flesh from conception. He had authority over the natural and spiritual. Although we are in the world and not of the world anymore, at our rebirth we are translated into Christ's nature, to become like Him as He was...ON EARTH.

Even though we are all, including Jesus, born with the fallen sin nature under law we are spiritually alive until we actually sin around the age of accountability:

Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died.
Romans 7:9 NIV
https://bible.com/bible/111/rom.7.9.NIV

Therefore, Jesus could have the fallen sin nature, never give into it and remain spiritually alive unto God.

 

[DevotiontoBible]

The sin nature depicts our spiritual condition from our birth and our need to be redeemed by the blood of Jesus. The word "sin" can be used as a noun to depict the wrongful acts we commit. Also, it is used as a verb as in the act of sinning. I was a sinner so I committed sins because it was in my (sinful) nature. The same can never be said about Jesus Christ.

You missed your own point. Sinful is not a verb or a noun but an adjective used for "sinful nature". It is a non moral condition as defined already here in this discussion.

 

[jb]

That makes you a Pelagian. Pelageus was rightly branded a heretic not Augustine.

LOL, I think you need to go and do some serious study on this subject, for you clearly don't know what you're talking about...

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

You missed your own point. Sinful is not a verb or a noun but an adjective used for "sinful nature". It is a non moral condition as defined already here in this discussion.

Sinful means full of sin. IMO you're a blasphemer to even suggest that Jesus' flesh was full of sin.

 

[DevotiontoBible]

Sinful means full of sin. IMO you're a blasphemer to even suggest that Jesus' flesh was full of sin.

Rom 8:3 shows I am not a blasphemer.

 

[DevotiontoBible]

. And if any of her seed was mixed in with his, he would have been tainted. I'll let you be.

I am the only one here with Scripture. The Christ was Mary's seed:

And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel."
Genesis 3:15 NASB
https://bible.com/bible/100/gen.3.15.NASB

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Rom 8:3 shows I am not a blasphemer.

That verse says Christ became in the likeness of sinful flesh, not that he became sinful flesh, which is the blasphemy you teach.

 

[DevotiontoBible]

That verse says Christ became in the likeness of sinful flesh, not that he became sinful flesh, which is the blasphemy you teach.

So you are also saying Jesus was in the likeness of a man not that He actually was a man in Phil 2:7?

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

So you are also saying Jesus was in the likeness of a man not that He actually was a man in Phil 2:7?

Philippians 2:7 does not say a man (singular); it says men (plural). So Jesus did not become mankind (men; plural) or men, but he became a man in their likeness.

 

[DevotiontoBible]

Philippians 2:7 does not say a man (singular); it says men (plural). So Jesus did not become mankind (men; plural) or men, but he became a man in their likeness.

That is what you are saying that just as Jesus was not in sinful flesh (Ro 8:3) He was not a man (Ph 2:7) but only like a man.

 

[jaybird88]

1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

 

[theanointedsinner]

I think while Jesus took the penalty for our sins, God was so angry at sin that when sin is placed on Jesus, God would destroy sin because of his holy anger against sin,
so that sin is destroyed during the process of transferring to Jesus

it is Jesus who cleanse us from sin, and this might illustrate how, not sure if it's accurate or not, but hope it helps

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

That is what you are saying that just as Jesus was not in sinful flesh (Ro 8:3) He was not a man (Ph 2:7) but only like a man.

I really don't like having discussions with you because you are unable to grasp the most basic points, and just twist everything I say to say what you want it to say.

 

[DevotiontoBible]

I really don't like having discussions with you because you are unable to grasp the most basic points, and just twist everything I say to say what you want it to say.

I see that you want to have the same word have two different meanings not based on context and grammar but based on your theological bias.

 

[OstrichSmiling]

I think while Jesus took the penalty for our sins, God was so angry at sin that when sin is placed on Jesus, God would destroy sin because of his holy anger against sin,
so that sin is destroyed during the process of transferring to Jesus

it is Jesus who cleanse us from sin, and this might illustrate how, not sure if it's accurate or not, but hope it helps

Could God be so angry at sin? When his divine power and foresight created the paradigm of righteousness and sin and reward and penalty?