Sinful Nature

[Bookman]

Here's something that is puzzling me. We know that Jesus was without sin. And yet we know He was tempted. In fact, He was tempted "at all points as we are." But we have a sinful nature. Jesus didn't. I think if I didn't have a sinful nature I could resist sinning too. Can anyone help me connect the dots as to how Jesus was tempted like we are when He didn't have a sinful nature?

I know Adam and Eve sinned before they had a sinful nature...but when I sin, I can feel the pull of my old nature to the desired sin. That must be something different than what Adam and Eve went through...and Jesus too, right?

Anyone have any ideas?

 

[duster1az]

Bookman writes: "I think if I didn't have a sinful nature I could resist sinning too."

Really? Christ was Theanthropic, possessing both human and divine natures and the divine nature isn't peccable or temptable (James 1:13). Jesus' other nature was, even though He didn't have a fallen sin nature (Heb. 4:15); but what Jesus' human nature might have done had it been unsupported by His divine nature would only be a guess. As for how an impeccable person could be tempted; I suppose it would be in the same sense an unconquerable city could be attacked.

In Christ,
Tracey

 

[bluevelvet]

Hi Bookman,

The way I've learned it in my descipleship class, is that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary for this exact reason; not to be created from the seed of man, and have the sinful nature passed to Him. I'll have to look up the scriptures, but this is maybe a place to start investigating, or someone here will have more detailed info.

Just my thoughts on the subject.

Blessings
Kim (bluevelvet)

 

[oneiric]

maybe this will help... http://www.carm.org/islam/obj_Jesus-sin.htm

 

[bluevelvet]

Oh, thank you oneiric, thats one of my favorite sites for info. I think still too new of a member to post links to other sites.Bless you, Kim

 

[FormerFundy]

Please define sin nature

 

[duster1az]

Former writes: "Please define sin nature"

When Adam sinned he experienced a conversion downwards. He became degenerate and depraved and developed within himself a fallen nature which is contrary to God and is always prone to evil. His whole makeup was altered and he became a different being than the one God created.

No other has ever become a sinner by sinning, as Adam did, but are born sinners because of the nature they inherit from the progenitor of the race.

In Christ,
Tracey

 

[Reformationist]

We know that Jesus was without sin.

Yes.

And yet we know He was tempted. In fact, He was tempted "at all points as we are."

Yes. He can relate to us because He experienced every sort of external temptation that we experience. This is a very important distinction if we are to understand the sinlessness of our Lord.

Think of it this way. If I "tempt" you to do something sinful then you have been tempted, yet it is quite possible that you are not "tempted" to give in to that temptation. That is the difference with Christ, well, at least one of them. Christ was tempted by encountering all of the same external coercions to sin yet as His desire was only to do the Will of the Father He was not "tempted" [internally] to sin.

But we have a sinful nature. Jesus didn't. I think if I didn't have a sinful nature I could resist sinning too.

I think you could too. In fact, when we are glorified we will be entirely cleansed of all sinfulness and have no desire to sin, therefore we will not sin, as Christ did not sin.

I know Adam and Eve sinned before they had a sinful nature...

No. The very desire to disobey God was a sinful desire which is not something that a creature who is "very good" could have. A person who does not have a sinful nature, which encompasses Adam and Eve prior to their first rebellious act of disobedience, which was a desire to sin, not the actual sin itself, and Christ. The truth of the nature of Adam and Eve is that they were created without a sinful nature and then God changed their nature. He did not give them a sinful nature. He changed their desires. They freely sinned according to their desire to sin.

but when I sin, I can feel the pull of my old nature to the desired sin. That must be something different than what Adam and Eve went through

Not entirely different. When you and I sin we do so because at that point of rebellion we desire to sin more than we desire to obey the Lord. Jonathan Edwards once said that man must always choose according to his greatest desire or inclination at that moment. As Christians we strive to make our greatest desire always be to serve the Lord in righteous obedience. We are not always successful. Oftentimes we give in to the desires of our still present fallen nature, or our "old man." We are, by nature, desire driven creations. When our desire to sin is greater than our desire to obey we will sin.

and Jesus too, right?

Well, obviously Jesus didn't sin but Jesus is a great example of what I'm talking about. Jesus' greatest desire was always to obey the Father. That's why, even though satan and the world sought to tempt him, He was without sin. He was morally unable to sin because He never desired to sin. He showed that in the temptation He endured in the desert. After forty days He was hungry. Obviously hunger isn't sinful. However, Christ desired to not eat because it was the Will of God that Christ endure the very real temptation to eat and yet not eat. He desired to obey the Father more than He desired to obey His flesh so that's exactly what He did, in spite of the temptations that the devil was tempting Him with.

Hope that helped,
God bless

 

[Luchnia]

The sinner is cleansed from sin when he repents, forsakes sin and is born again, and there is no statement in God's word that implies that a saint is sinning before being glorified as is often taught.

We find that the sinful nature is often mistaught as well. Man does not have a sinful nature unless he choose that path of disobedience much like reformationist posted about Adam. A man must choose sin pure and simple.

So many contend that somehow all are born with some sort of sinful nature, but they tend to forget John the Baptist, Jesus, Enoch, etc. Even John had the Spirit from the womb. This blows the sinful nature concept out of the water, so-to-speak. Men choose sin, just as the Word shows us throughout. The Word shows us that sin entered through Adam, not that men are sin from birth and are born with some sort of "sin nature." If this be so, than the union of man and woman that was instilled by God would be in darkness, of course, we know this is not so. Also, the birth of Jesus from a woman would be sin, and Jesus would be sin.

Man is responsible for temptation as the scripture declares, "each is drawn away of his OWN lust..." Even being drawn away by man's lust is not sin (James chapter one). People want to make God liable for serving sin and satan, but it doesn't work. God simply cannot be tempted by man's evil. The child of God does not have the desire to sin for he is led by the Spirit of God and the Spirit of God does not lead us to sin. Most teach otherwise, but God's word is clear about the Spirit and how it leads the saint in righteousness. There is no darkness in a saint of God for he or she is God's and led by the Spirit. The one that sins is of his father the evil one as it is written.

Word up!

 

[Reformationist]

The sinner is cleansed from sin when he repents, forsakes sin and is born again, and there is no statement in God's word that implies that a saint is sinning before being glorified as is often taught.

Are you contending that once a person is saved their sinfulness is no longer counted as sinning?

We find that the sinful nature is often mistaught as well. Man does not have a sinful nature unless he choose that path of disobedience much like reformationist posted about Adam. A man must choose sin pure and simple.

Umm...I did not post any thing like that. And, even if I did, any comparison between PRE-Fall Adam and POST-Fall mankind is just going to get you into theological hot water. The only commonality that you can find between the decisions of pre-Fall Adam and Eve and post-Fall mankind is that each of their respective decisions are made according to their greatest desires.

So many contend that somehow all are born with some sort of sinful nature

We ARE born with a sinful nature. That is expressed all throughout the Bible.

but they tend to forget John the Baptist, Jesus, Enoch, etc. Even John had the Spirit from the womb. This blows the sinful nature concept out of the water, so-to-speak.

Yeah. Sure it does.

Men choose sin, just as the Word shows us throughout.

Luchnia, once again you have taken an accepted truth from the Bible and drawn unsupported conclusions. You say, "Men choose to sin." Any learned theologian would agree. The difference in your opinion is that the decision to sin is what creates our sinful nature whereas the Truth of the Gospel is that we choose, either righteously or rebelliously, according to our nature. IOW, we don't BECOME sinners because we sin. We sin because we ARE sinners.

The Word shows us that sin entered through Adam, not that men are sin from birth and are born with some sort of "sin nature."

Adam was not created with a sinful nature. He did not desire to sin. Post-Fall mankind, however, was created with a sinful nature as they are of the seed of fallen Adam. That is the whole reason why the Christ must be born of the seed of a woman instead of from the seed of man because if He had been born of the seed of man He would have been born with a sinful nature.

God bless

 

[Luchnia]

Reformationist, I wasn't posting my post toward you by any means. I find that what you have typed is unsupported conclusions from God's word.

It is not expressed throughout the bible that man is born with a sinful nature. It is supported that man chooses his path to sin. I guess disagreeing views like ours makes life rich and full of flavor

Word up!

 

[Reformationist]

Reformationist, I wasn't posting my post toward you by any means. I find that what you have typed is unsupported conclusions from God's word.

Would you care to debate that? The reason I ask is that I'm not aware of any Christian denomination that disputes man's natural sinful disposition towards God. The denomination that most strongly opposes my views are the Catholics and even they acknowledge man's natural enmity towards God. Granted, they don't believe that man is dead in his trespasses and sins prior to God's regenerative grace but they do believe that apart from His grace man is incapable of responding in righteousness. They also believe that the grace of God only accomplishes what it was intended to accomplish if man cooperates with His grace but they do feel the grace is necessary. The differences boil down to this:

I feel that God's grace is not only necessary but sufficient to bring about man's salvation.

They feel that while God's grace is necessary, it is not sufficient, in and of itself, to bring about man's salvation. Man must add to His grace their own works of righteous acquiescence.

As I said, these are the predominant Christian theologies accepted today. What you're espousing seems to be a pretty heretical form of Pelagianism.

Could you describe man's inherent nature from birth, i.e., his inclinations either for or against God, his moral ability to choose righteously, his desire to serve God, etc.?

It is not expressed throughout the bible that man is born with a sinful nature. It is supported that man chooses his path to sin.

You say that man chooses to sin as if that means that he isn't born with a sinful nature. What makes you think these two things are mutually exclusive? Once again, I don't deny that man chooses to sin. He does. However, there is a reason that man chooses to sin. It's because he has a nature that desires to rebel against God, a sinful nature. He has this nature from birth. Apart from the grace of God the thoughts of his heart (his mind) are only evil constantly:

Genesis 6:5
Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

The Bible is rife with examples of man's natural love of the darkness, how he was, in fact, the darkness. Read Romans 3:10-18. That is a description of man's natural nature:

Romans 3:10-18
As it is written:
"There is none righteous, no, not one;
There is none who understands;
There is none who seeks after God.
They have all turned aside;
They have together become unprofitable;
There is none who does good, no, not one."
"Their throat is an open tomb;
With their tongues they have practiced deceit";
"The poison of asps is under their lips";
"Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness."
"Their feet are swift to shed blood;
Destruction and misery are in their ways;
And the way of peace they have not known."
"There is no fear of God before their eyes."

That sound like a creation that isn't naturally sinful?

I guess disagreeing views like ours makes life rich and full of flavor

Or dangerous to people's perception of their own righteousness and ability to be righteous apart from the grace of God...

 

[Luchnia]

Whether christian denominations support the views I typed, or not, that I do not know, but we cannot oppose scripture because of what denominations believe.

Reformationist types: Genesis 6:5
Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

>>>>So then, Adam's, Enoch's, Noah's, Jesus, etc., hearts and intents were evil and wicked? It would be best to reconcile this contextually and see exactly "who" the author is writing about.
>>>>


Reformationist types: The Bible is rife with examples of man's natural love of the darkness, how he was, in fact, the darkness. Read Romans 3:10-18. That is a description of man's natural nature:

Romans 3:10-18
As it is written:
"There is none righteous, no, not one;
There is none who understands;
There is none who seeks after God.
They have all turned aside;
They have together become unprofitable;
There is none who does good, no, not one."
"Their throat is an open tomb;
With their tongues they have practiced deceit";
"The poison of asps is under their lips";
"Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness."
"Their feet are swift to shed blood;
Destruction and misery are in their ways;
And the way of peace they have not known."
"There is no fear of God before their eyes."


>>>>So then, Jesus lied when He said there were righteous people? He came for the sinner and not the righteous man. He said the healthy did not need Him, but the sick. Wicked men always love darkness, righteous men do not love darkness. There are many that simply do not believe in God that are good men. They do not love darkness at all. There are many that love good better than most saints do. I have known many that live righteously and have not wicked hearts.

Who was the author writing about in the text you have posted? What type of people where they? Which people were not righteous? Does this mean John the Baptist, Cornelius, Jesus, etc., were not righteous? Cornelius is a great examply of a righteous man even before he was told the way to be saved. It is clear his heart was on righteousness continually.

Does the text you use mean that all the saints of God up to the time the author wrote this were not righteous? Why not consider who the writer is implying that does not seek after God? Does the saint curse God? Does the saint shed blood? Does the saint know the peace of God? Does the righteous man do wicked and evil? A careful reading of the text would indicate a certain type of people. Go back even further and look at what the Word has to say about these type of people. You will see a clear distinction between them and good people that Jesus spoke about. Was Noah among those that were constantly bent on wickedness?

It would help once again to understand this text and who the author is writing about. Once you see the type of people the author was referring to, you will see that they were vile and wicked and indeed loved darkness. They were not righteous people like Enoch, Cornelius, John, Paul, Stephen, Phillip, and all those that lived righteous throughout the Bible.

What do you think about John the Baptist? If he had the sinful nature from birth, then the Holy Spirit partook of the sinful nature. Can you explain that so that we may see how John was filled with this sinful nature and yet had the Holy Spirit from birth? We don't want to somehow make the Spirit of God liable for sin and darkness.

We can get into many other examples, but for the sake of brevity we should keep it simple.
>>>>

Word up!

 

[Tawhano]

Romans 8:3
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

The part of Jesus that was of sinful nature is the flesh. Paul explains how the flesh is at war with the mind in obedience to God.

Romans 7:21-25
I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

I believe this is how it was with Jesus except he knew no sin and his single purpose was to do the will of God. I doubt he had much problem with putting the flesh in submission as we do.

We see in the scriptures that all have sinned.

Romans 3:23
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

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:
If all have sin then that must mean Enoch, Noah and Abraham sinned as well. We know from scriptures that they were righteous men however.

So how can sinful men be righteous?

Hebrews 11:5-8
By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith. By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.

It is faith that made these men righteous in the eyes of God not that they were sinless. God overlooked their sinful nature and saw only that they had faith in Him. Their faith was counted as righteousness. It didn’t say they were sinless.

I think the biggest problem people have coming to terms with everyone having this sinful nature is their definition of evil and wickedness. They think that this means just the major ‘sins’ like murder and such. The small things as well are evil and wicked just as much as the bigger things. (I’m taking liberty here in saying sins can be bigger or smaller, sin is sin)

James 2:8-10
If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of all.

You see here that just by being a respecter of persons you are as guilty as he who murders. This is why we could not fulfill the law. This is why Jesus was sacrificed for us.

 

[Reformationist]

Luchnia, "for the sake of brevity," why don't you enlighten me as to your opinion of man in his fallen state, that is, the state of man's nature from birth ever since our fall as a whole from the grace of our original creation?

It sounds as if you're espousing some moral neutrality that is neither inclined toward God or inclined to rebel against Him.

Also, if man is only a sinner once he sins, then is there a possibility that someone other than Christ could have, or will, live a life free of sin?

What was it that Christ's life and death of obedience was purposed for? IOW, what was it supposed to accomplish?

 

[Luchnia]

When a man repents, forsakes sin, and turns to God is he a new creation-saint, or is he a old man-sinner?

Word up!

 

[Reformationist]

When a man repents, forsakes sin, and turns to God is he a new creation-saint, or is he a old man-sinner?

Word up!

Not sure if you're asking me but I'll answer. You asked, "When a man repents, forsakes sin, and turns to God is he a new creation-saint, or is he a old man-sinner?" Unregenerate man does not repent, forsake his sin, or turn to God. Unregenerate man revels in his sinfulness and does not desire the things of God so he does not seek them. If a person "repents, forsakes sin, and turns to God" then God has already brought him back to life and shown him his need for a Savior. "Repenting, forsaking sin, and turning to God" are the fruits of God's sovereign work of regeneration. They are the result of Him bringing us back to life. They are not the basis or means by which we are restored. By virtue of fallen man being enslaved to his sinful nature God must monergistically release him from that bondage. Man neither desire to be changed from his unregenerate state nor does he cooperate with God while in that unregenerate state. God does not regenerate all people and then only reward the ones who stay the path. Those who are regenerated by God are progressively sanctified by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Once we have been brought back to life we respond to the inward call of God. We do not respond to the inward call of God while we are dead in our trespasses. If we did then we would most assuredly have something to boast about.

God bless

 

[Peter]

I would like to point out that definition, and even the term, of sin nature is purely a Western Roman Catholic idea. (It was, after all, given by Augustine, who was Roman Catholic.)

The East holds no such view. The Eastern view is basicly that if one were thrown into a swimming pool, one would become wet. This means we are born into a world that has sin in it, "For by one man sin entered the world," and this sin is so pervasive that one cannot resist it, "All we like sheep have gone astray". (Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.)

I am only pointing this out to show the difference between Eastern and Western thinking on the topic.

Peace.

Peter

 

[Patristic]

The East does not see a sin nature as such, but mortality as being the root of sin. Augustine departed from the traditional faith of the Early Church when he said that sin was rooted in the will and not in death or mortality. The East has always maintained the ancient tradition that mankind's mortality is the root and cause of sin. "The sting of death is sin," I Corinthians 15:56.

Let's face it, if we were all immortal then our passions would not be out of balance. We would not have to worry about making enough money, obtaining food and shelter, or taking care of our bodies so that we do not become sick and die. When mankind became mortal we lost this, and now we have to accomplish these things to live, but this takes us away from the purpose for which we were created, namely becoming more like God through apotheosis. Because we have to fulfill these desires our relationship not only with God, but also with other men has become skewed and unnatural, and so we commit sins against our brethren on account of this.

 

[Luchnia]

Thanks Peter, it probably was a rc idea. Not sure where the sin nature thing came from as it is not scriptural. That is good information that you gave us. Maybe, it was something conjured up in some man's mind somewhere and made fit the scriptures. This does happen quite often.

Thanks again,

Word up!