Did Jesus Have a Sinful Nature While on Earth?

Jesus wasn't tempted to see if He would sin or not, He was tempted to show us that He was God in the flesh! The Temptation shows his authenticity!

 

HP: By elevating His Deity to the point you are doing, eliminates His true humanity. Temptation at its heart presents a test, and if there was no test it proves there was no temptation, neither was it possible to be tempted. If that is true, you contradict Scripture which clearly states He ‘was’ tempted, and as such tested, in ALL points as we are.

 

I quoted Scripture; you quoted your philosophy. You can choose to believe Scripture or believe your "absurdities." The choice is yours.

 

DHK, everyone has a philosophy stated or implied, and your stated positions and comments certainly are no exception and clearly reveal your own philosophy. Simply quoting a Scripture seldom reveals the truth as to ones position. In the end it is how one interprets the Scriptures that really matters.

As theologians and philosophers our duty is to seek out error wherever it is found and to eliminate any and all absurdities. We can certainly entertain many uncertainties, but we should never entertain absurdities.

 

To which I reiterate, as I have in a previous post in this thread:

 

I could say and ask the same questions to you......... but oh well, what would that prove,add to this discussion, or how would it further the truth or Christian charity? It would simply do nothing, nothing at all, therefore I will simply refrain. :thumbsup:

 

It is heresy to say that God can sin! Either you believe heresy or you don't believe Jesus is God, which is it?

 

Either you believe Christ was a man or He wasn’t. God humbled Himself and came in the form of man, divesting Himself to one degree or another of certain powers, glory, etc. to be tested and tempted even as we are. It is absurd to consider temptation if the ‘possibility’ could not exist that Christ could have sinned IF He so desired. Scripture is clear that Christ was tempted in ALL points as we are, yet without sin.

One often runs into absurd conclusions when one eliminates ‘possibilities,’ especially in the realm of morality. Morality ceases where ‘possibilities’ of contrary intents and subsequent actions cease to exist. No choice? Absolutely impossible to be tempted, unless of course you believe you can tempt rocks or the such like.

 

HP believes that Christ could be tempted exactly like we can because he believes that we do not have a sin nature. Thus the "heresy" is that man is basically good, whereas the Bible teaches that man is inherently evil.

 

It is a flat out misrepresentation of anything I have ever said to say that I believe man is basically good.

Read my lips. Man is NOT, did you hear that DHK, NOT basically good. Man is created neither sinful nor righteous. Man is not even created a moral being period, but rather with the ‘capacity to become a moral being.’ ALL THAT HAVE CAME TO THE AGE OF ACCOUNTABILITY HAVE SINNED AND CAME SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD and as such are NOT, I repeat, NOT good, but SINNERS and in need of a Savior. Is that plain enough for you DHK? Can you get it right just once in the hundreds if not thousands of posts I have written on the subject?


Thank you in advance for your kind consideration of my remarks. :thumbsup:

 

Doesn't Scripture say He was tempted in every way we were (Heb. 4:15)?

 

Let's talk logic.
Does man have an inherited sin nature--inherited from Adam?
Yes or no?
If he doesn't, then man is basically good.
It is that simple.

 

HP: Here is your logic: Does DHK eat pizza on every Monday?
If not that proves he must eat spaghetti on Fridays.

 

If man has an inherited sin nature he is evil from his childhood or infancy upward. He inherently evil. Did Jesus have a sin nature as we have?
Or do we have a sin nature. If we don't have a sin nature, then we are basically good are we not? If not please explain this conundrum?

 

DHK, I will tell you precisely where your problem lies. You have no conception of the distinction between the will of man and the sensibilities of man and confuse the two. You make no distinction between depraved sensibilities (physical depravity) and moral depravity, depravity of the will that can only occur subsequent to moral agency from the formation of sinful selfish intents.


Because man is not born with original sin does not mean he is born good in any moral sense.

Water is pure and it is good but it is not good in any moral sense. Infants are pure and good in their creation but are NOT good in a moral sense. They are not moral agents to be classified as good or evil. Good and evil involves a moral choice of the will and is not a state one is born in. Morality is not predicated of anyone until they reach the age of accountability and either act in a righteous manner or a sinful manner. If there is no possibility of acting in a righteous manner, there can be no morality, good or bad predicated of their intents or subsequent actions, for morality involves a choice of the will. NOT just a choice to act ‘as one wills,’ as so often is said in Calvinistic circles, but there must be the ability to form an intent of love and benevolence or selfishness for morality to be predicated of the will.

At the point of their first moral choice can moral good or evil be predicated of their nature. Up until that point their sensibilities, obviously depraved from infancy, (in the for of physical depravity, not to be confused with moral depravity as original sin suggests) do serve as formidable influences to selfish choices, but sin is not conceived prior to moral agency.

There is no moral good in any individual, neither is there any moral evil, until the age of accountability, at which Scripture informs us that all that have reached that age have sinned subsequent to reaching that age, and became guilty before God.

Now where is that ‘good’ you keep talking about that you say I believe men are mostly made up with???????

 

HP: Christ was not born with a sin nature as you describe, but neither is any man. You cannot birth morality into any man. If it is a necessitated trait it is NOT nor can it be moral in nature. Morality denotes choice which involves the ability to form selfish intents contrary to a known commandment of God, expressed by either a natural or developed conscience. You have to understand the intrinsic nature of a command in order to act in a moral fashion. Infants understand no such thing.

Man is born with depraved sensibilities, which reside in the form of physical depravity. I do believe all men are born physically depraved, and I believe Christ was born just as we are in that sense. His flesh was born subject to the same natural propensities as any man would be born with. How else could of He be tempted in all points as we are if he did not have our natural propensities of depraved flesh, when James tells us clearly that is the source of temptation that men yield to when they sin? Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.

 

Those of you who think Christ could have sinned. Let me ask you this question, "What would have happened if Jesus had, in fact sinned?" Would God then send Himself to Hell?

 

Hey, that's what Benny Hinn believes! Does he have company here?

 

I think the question is disgusting. Of course God cannot sin.

 

Of course the question is disgusting. The real problem is that some Christians evidently believe it.