The Sinless Human

NetChaplain

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2021
Messages
79
Location
Missouri
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The Lord Jesus was fully human physically but not spiritually, that is, He had the nature of our body but not the nature of our soul (the soul being the reasoning entity of our spirit). The nature of a human soul is sinful, but the nature of Christ’s soul was sinless! Thus only Christians have two natures in their soul (old and new man)! This “new man” or new nature in those reborn is something “created in righteousness and true holiness,” and “after the image of Him that created him (it)” (Eph 4:24; Col 3:10). Man was created in God’s “likeness,” but the Son of God was incarnated after the “likeness of sinful flesh” (Rom 8:3 – “He sent His own Son in a body like the bodies we sinners have” -NLT).

The word “likeness” here is in the sense of similarity, in appearance only, but not as identically the same. One (Jesus) taking on a body has the appearance of having the sinful nature, but it is common knowledge of course that the Lord Jesus did not partake of the sinful nature (“old man”) of a human. He partook of the nature of a human body (if its “infirmities” - Heb 4:15 - can be considered a nature) but not the nature of a human soul, which is sinful. After all, does not all spirit beings have their own soul, as Jesus has His own Soul.

There may be some who may think that human sin coexisted in Christ with His deity, but this is incorrect! During the crucifixion at His death, the guilt of all believers sin was “laid on Him” (Isa 53:6), but never in Him, i.e. He was made out to be sin, not actually be sin but imputatively; “to be the offering for our sin” (2Co 5:21 NLT). Not to stray too far from the subject matter, there are some (e.g. J MacArthur, R C Sproul, etc.) who believe that Christ was peccable and was capable of sinning, but this conflicts with the fact that “God cannot be tempted with evil” (Jam 1:13). Also, to sin you must have a sin nature!

The best I can say is that He did not need to partake of the nature of man’s soul to “be touched with the feeling of our infirmities”; nor could He, because the sin sacrifice required being “spotless.” Jesus was “tempted of the devil,” but He was not enticed within Himself to do evil, as a man would, He being without a sin nature.

Here (Rom 8:3) the word “flesh” is in relation to the nature of man’s spirit, which is sinful, and not in the sense of the physical body because a thing or object cannot be considered sinful, it being without spirit and soul. Things can be used sinfully but never become sinful! Therefore, the proper interpretation here for “flesh” is in reference to the nature of man’s spirit and not the body of man’s spirit. ‘Sarx’; Strong’s definition IV: “the flesh, denotes mere human nature, the earthly nature of man apart from divine influence, and therefore prone to sin and opposed to God.”
 

Cassia

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2016
Messages
1,735
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Since like begets like then what we have in Christ is His likeness to the Father (spiritual) and likeness to Mary (flesh). Those are the prerequisites of the 2 natures. Perhaps the y chromosome was missing from His dna, somehow leaving behind the sin nature, but of this is speculation.


What is known tho is that Jesus was, by one nature, ; the Sin nature, submitted to the spiritual nature, and is how we can; in repentance and an identification to His nature of humanity, to obtain to the reckoning of it (our sin nature) committed to His soul, just as He committed His soul to God (into your hands I commit my spirit as He died) That baptism into Him is for the sin nature’s redemption.


Sin nature and sin(s) are not the same thing. Sins are dealt with according to the degree of commitment (sanctification) one has to the sanctifier. Upon that is the anchor of the soul, which is Hope.


Hopefully that made sense to you.
 

NetChaplain

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2021
Messages
79
Location
Missouri
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
When Scripture writes that "God saw that it was good" it designs the intention that He foreknew He would use all for good that He created, like the Tree of good and evil, Satan and man, hell and the lake of fire. He knew all would be use for the good of His plan and pleasure. It's also a common mistake in the belief that Adam and Eve did not possess the old man (sin nature) until they partook of the Tree, but this merely manifested that they did have the sin nature prior to the temptation. They expressed possesing "all that is in the world" (1Jo 2:16) in Gen 3:6 prior to partaking of the Tree: "saw that the tree was good for food" (which God said it was in 1:12 but with man it is "lust of the flesh" or great hunger for food or anything we desire in excess relating only to this life), "was pleasant to the eyes" (same thing concerning great desire for all that is appealing to see), "the pride of life" (which Gill comments that "which above all was the most engaging, and was the most prevailing motive to influence her to eat of it, an eager desire of more wisdom and knowledge; though there was nothing she could see in the tree, and the fruit of it, which promised this; only she perceived in her mind, by the discourse she had with the serpent, and by what he had told her, and she believed, that this would be the consequence of eating this fruit, which was very desirable, and she concluded within herself that so it would be."

A human consists of a spirit, body, soul and nature. The only "likeness" that was of Christ's incarnation or humanity was His body and its "infirmities" which He endured from it. His spirit being has always existed, but His body, like ours was incarnated; and His soul and nature could ever only be Divine. Concerning that Christ "was in all points tempted like as we are" (Heb 4:15), I like how Gill's comment addresses this in Heb 2:18:

"For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted",.... "By Satan, at his entrance on his public ministry, and a little before his death; which was done, not by stirring up sin in him, for he had none, nor by putting any into him, which could not be done, nor could Satan get any advantage over him; he solicited him one thing and another, but in vain; though these temptations were very troublesome, and disagreeable, and abhorrent to the pure and holy nature of Christ, and so must be reckoned among his sufferings, or things by which he suffered: and as afflictions are sometimes called temptations, in this sense also Christ suffered, being tempted, with outward poverty and meanness, with slight and neglect from his own relations, and with a general contempt and reproach among men: he was often tempted by the Jews with ensnaring questions; he was deserted by his followers, by his own disciples, yea, by his God and Father; all which were great trials to him, and must be accounted as sufferings: and he also endured great pains of body, and anguish of mind, and at last death itself."

"A body hast Thou prepared Me," so that God could "condemn sin in the flesh (sin in the nature, i.e. not the body which has no sin within itself); for He did not desire "burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin" (Heb 10:6).
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
NetChaplain,


I confess, I'm just too sure what your point is.... Could you summerize?


Yes, Scripture and Tradition insist that JESUS (the God/Man.... 100% both..... sharing BOTH natures inseparably but not combined) is sinless. Void of the "disease" and thus its symptoms. He had no sin and thus never sinned.

WHY this is the case is a point Scripture does not clearly state. And nor has Tradition. SOME in the Western Latin church have theorized this is a result of the Virgin Birth of Jesus, that He had no biological father (Augustine is of this school, I seem to recall). OTHERS have theorized this is a result of the "Communication of Attributes" of His two natures.... that the sinlessness of God simply "communicated" to His human nature since the two natures are inseparable (Luther and Calvin were among those in this school). But both are theories, neither doctrine.

In some faith communities ("perfectionists") there is a theory that we (here and now) can BE sinless. I reject this.... We can be FORGIVEN via the Blood of the Lamb..... DECLARED clean ("white as snow") but this is by grace through faith, not because we have become perfect and thus no longer need God or Christ or faith or the Cross cuz we're risen to the level of God. We CAN make progress (the whole point of sanctification) - and we are called to that, we are to "press on to make it our own" but I disagree that we do this side of heaven.

But I long for your clarification.


Blessings!

Josiah




.
 

NetChaplain

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2021
Messages
79
Location
Missouri
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
NetChaplain,


I confess, I'm just too sure what your point is.... Could you summerize?


Yes, Scripture and Tradition insist that JESUS (the God/Man.... 100% both..... sharing BOTH natures inseparably but not combined) is sinless. Void of the "disease" and thus its symptoms. He had no sin and thus never sinned.

WHY this is the case is a point Scripture does not clearly state. And nor has Tradition. SOME in the Western Latin church have theorized this is a result of the Virgin Birth of Jesus, that He had no biological father (Augustine is of this school, I seem to recall). OTHERS have theorized this is a result of the "Communication of Attributes" of His two natures.... that the sinlessness of God simply "communicated" to His human nature since the two natures are inseparable (Luther and Calvin were among those in this school). But both are theories, neither doctrine.

In some faith communities ("perfectionists") there is a theory that we (here and now) can BE sinless. I reject this.... We can be FORGIVEN via the Blood of the Lamb..... DECLARED clean ("white as snow") but this is by grace through faith, not because we have become perfect and thus no longer need God or Christ or faith or the Cross cuz we're risen to the level of God. We CAN make progress (the whole point of sanctification) - and we are called to that, we are to "press on to make it our own" but I disagree that we do this side of heaven.

But I long for your clarification.


Blessings!

Josiah




.
Hi and thanks for your input and interest! Just establishing that Jesus didn't have a human sin nature as we do! It's been said a lot that He was fully human, which would include the sin nature, but it doesn't. He didn't have to be fully human, just enough to resolve the sin nature of believers.
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Jesus had a complete human nature as well as a complete divine nature. The reason he did not sin, even though sin is common to all humans, is because he had that other nature as well and God cannot know sin. That would apply to no other human being.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Hi and thanks for your input and interest! Just establishing that Jesus didn't have a human sin nature as we do! It's been said a lot that He was fully human, which would include the sin nature, but it doesn't. He didn't have to be fully human, just enough to resolve the sin nature of believers.

Thank you.

Yup, it is a central point of Christianity that Jesus was/is sinless....

I agree with Albion that while Scripture does not tell us WHY that's true, the theory that it's a result of the "communication of attributes" from His divine nature is one I too accept. I further agree with him that actually this makes Jesus MORE human, FULLY human since sin is a "disease" or "flaw" in that nature, it is WE who are less human because our sin is not how God created us.

Thank you.


- Josiah



.
 

atpollard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2017
Messages
2,573
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Jesus is the “second Adam”, so it seems that he had the physical ability to obey or sin (miss the mark) without being born with the anchor around the neck of Adam’s curse (like we are) … yet unlike the first Adam, Jesus chose to obey and not to miss the mark.
 

NetChaplain

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2021
Messages
79
Location
Missouri
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Jesus had a complete human nature as well as a complete divine nature. The reason he did not sin, even though sin is common to all humans, is because he had that other nature as well and God cannot know sin. That would apply to no other human being.
If you're saying "God cannot be enticed (tempted) with evil" I agree (Jas 1:13). He was tested (tempted) to manifest He had no sin nature, in order to confirm His qualification of being "spotless," for the expiation of our sin nature. The victory in this is that now, via the new nature those reborn can no longer be caused to desire sin via the "old man" (sin nature).

It's the nature of a being that determines the quality of its soul, and with the indwelling of the new nature, we "are not in (desirous) the flesh (sin nature) - Ro 8:9, though the sin nature is still in us.
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes

Andrew

Matt 18:15
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
6,645
Age
40
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
No. I thought I was clear enough when saying that Jesus did not sin.
Correct

God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
Numbers 23:19

Jesus was not of mans fallen nature that he could sin being 100% God as well as 100% man
 

NetChaplain

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2021
Messages
79
Location
Missouri
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
No. I thought I was clear enough when saying that Jesus did not sin.
I think we're discussing a different issue. I'm saying He never had the sin nature, because in Christ's earthly life, "God was manifest in the flesh (divine Human), justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I think we're discussing a different issue. I'm saying He never had the sin nature, because in Christ's earthly life, "God was manifest in the flesh (divine Human), justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."
I guess you'll have to explain exactly what you mean by "sin nature" as opposed to sinning if we're to get to the bottom of this. Thanks.

I do not agree with the "divine human" idea, if I understand you correctly about that, for it appears to me to be suggesting a nature that is neither completely human nor divine; and Jesus had two complete natures, not some sort of hybrid.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I guess you'll have to explain exactly what you mean by "sin nature" as opposed to sinning if we're to get to the bottom of this. Thanks.

I do not agree with the "divine human" idea, if I understand you correctly about that, for it appears to me to be suggesting a nature that is neither completely human nor divine; and Jesus had two complete natures, not some sort of hybrid.


Exactly.

Jesus has TWO complete, total natures: Human and Divine. Both/and. both 100%

Not ONE nature that is some blending of the two. Not some "hybrid."



.
 

Andrew

Matt 18:15
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
6,645
Age
40
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Exactly.

Jesus has TWO complete, total natures: Human and Divine. Both/and. both 100%

Not ONE nature that is some blending of the two. Not some "hybrid."



.
Just to clarify, my comment was not against 100% man and 100% God, I noticed the op "liked" my comment but the way I worded it could easily be misinterpreted
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Just to clarify, my comment was not against 100% man and 100% God, I noticed the op "liked" my comment but the way I worded it could easily be misinterpreted
For what it's worth, I took that post of yours to be in support of what Josiah and I have been advocating for. But I also was surprised, under the circumstances, to see the "like" come along afterwards.
 

Andrew

Matt 18:15
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
6,645
Age
40
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
For what it's worth, I took that post of yours to be in support of what Josiah and I have been advocating for. But I also was surprised, under the circumstances, to see the "like" come along afterwards.
Thank you
 

Andrew

Matt 18:15
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
6,645
Age
40
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The Lord Jesus was fully human physically but not spiritually, that is, He had the nature of our body but not the nature of our soul (the soul being the reasoning entity of our spirit). The nature of a human soul is sinful, but the nature of Christ’s soul was sinless! Thus only Christians have two natures in their soul (old and new man)! This “new man” or new nature in those reborn is something “created in righteousness and true holiness,” and “after the image of Him that created him (it)” (Eph 4:24; Col 3:10). Man was created in God’s “likeness,” but the Son of God was incarnated after the “likeness of sinful flesh” (Rom 8:3 – “He sent His own Son in a body like the bodies we sinners have” -NLT).

The word “likeness” here is in the sense of similarity, in appearance only, but not as identically the same. One (Jesus) taking on a body has the appearance of having the sinful nature, but it is common knowledge of course that the Lord Jesus did not partake of the sinful nature (“old man”) of a human. He partook of the nature of a human body (if its “infirmities” - Heb 4:15 - can be considered a nature) but not the nature of a human soul, which is sinful. After all, does not all spirit beings have their own soul, as Jesus has His own Soul.

There may be some who may think that human sin coexisted in Christ with His deity, but this is incorrect! During the crucifixion at His death, the guilt of all believers sin was “laid on Him” (Isa 53:6), but never in Him, i.e. He was made out to be sin, not actually be sin but imputatively; “to be the offering for our sin” (2Co 5:21 NLT). Not to stray too far from the subject matter, there are some (e.g. J MacArthur, R C Sproul, etc.) who believe that Christ was peccable and was capable of sinning, but this conflicts with the fact that “God cannot be tempted with evil” (Jam 1:13). Also, to sin you must have a sin nature!

The best I can say is that He did not need to partake of the nature of man’s soul to “be touched with the feeling of our infirmities”; nor could He, because the sin sacrifice required being “spotless.” Jesus was “tempted of the devil,” but He was not enticed within Himself to do evil, as a man would, He being without a sin nature.

Here (Rom 8:3) the word “flesh” is in relation to the nature of man’s spirit, which is sinful, and not in the sense of the physical body because a thing or object cannot be considered sinful, it being without spirit and soul. Things can be used sinfully but never become sinful! Therefore, the proper interpretation here for “flesh” is in reference to the nature of man’s spirit and not the body of man’s spirit. ‘Sarx’; Strong’s definition IV: “the flesh, denotes mere human nature, the earthly nature of man apart from divine influence, and therefore prone to sin and opposed to God.”
Jesus did not have a 'carnal nature' albeit he was God incarnate, Gods incorrupt image, being the Word of God made flesh to walk among men, however Gnostics believed his divinity to be purely 100% God and 0% man.

So what is your belief exactly?

Jesus is 100% man and 100% God and 0% 'carnal nature'?

Or

100% God and 0% man and 0% 'carnal nature'?
 
Last edited:

NetChaplain

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2021
Messages
79
Location
Missouri
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
There are only two strains of nature within the souls of those who are spirit beings (e.g. God, angels and mankind); good or evil. The nature of the human body is its "infirmities," (e.g. Heb 4:15; 5:2).
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
There are only two strains of nature within the souls of those who are spirit beings (e.g. God, angels and mankind); good or evil. The nature of the human body is its "infirmities," (e.g. Heb 4:15; 5:2).

"For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin (Heb 4:15)
 
Top Bottom