How Did the Fall of Adam Affect the Lord Jesus?

[Aaron]

Okay, and taking that stance on one phrase is going to undo every bit of context in the whole chapter and it's going to undo every bit of parallel to 1st Corinthians 15

Gotcha

No it doesn't. All have sinned. You're wresting the passage to say not all have sinned.

 

[JonC]

No it doesn't. All have sinned. You're wresting the passage to say not all have sinned.

The context of that statement is that all men sin (both those under the Law and those apart from the Law) and fall short of the glory of God. We fall short of the glory of God by nature, but by human nature and not by some mythological "fallen nature".

Romans 3:19-26
Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin. But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

 

[JonShaff]

The context of that statement is that all men sin (both those under the Law and those apart from the Law) and fall short of the glory of God. We fall short of the glory of God by nature, but by human nature and not by some mythological "fallen nature".

Romans 3:19-26
Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin. But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

We can go further back...

Romans 2:1
1 Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.

Practice--present, active, indicative.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

We're told explicitly that it is impossible for God to lie. It is, therefore, impossible for Jesus to lie.

It is similarly impossible for God to die.
Christ, then, being God, did not die for our sins....
we're doomed.
An argument which proves too much proves nothing.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Simple, straightforward, unambiguous Scripture:

Heb 2:16
For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

Heb 2:17
Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

Heb 2:18
For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.
Could not be clearer.

 

[JonShaff]

Simple, straightforward, unambiguous Scripture:

Heb 2:16
For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

Heb 2:17
Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

Heb 2:18
For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.
Could not be clearer.

This is probably another thought for another thread but...

This also says we have the victory over our flesh through the Lord Jesus Christ and the Power of His Holy Spirit Dwelling in us, meaning, if we sin it's because we choose to, not because we were unable to overcome (as a believer) .

Christ had the same nature, and overcame temptation. SO can we .

 

[HeirofSalvation]

This is probably another thought for another thread but...

This also says we have the victory over our flesh through the Lord Jesus Christ and the Power of His Holy Spirit Dwelling in us, meaning, if we sin it's because we choose to, not because we were unable to overcome (as a believer) .

Christ had the same nature, and overcame temptation. SO can we .

Yup!!!
Which implies that, even if true....impeccability is not necessary as an explanation for Christ's sinlessness. ​

 

[JonShaff]

ahhh...i'm seeing this more clearly. This doctrine of "Original Sin" necessitates that Christ was made into something that we were not, otherwise, He would have this "Original Sin" on Him as well...Which contradicts the passages you just quoted in Hebrews Chapter 2.

Yup!!!
Which implies that, even if true....impeccability is not necessary as an explanation for Christ's sinlessness. ​

 

[JamesL]

ahhh...i'm seeing this more clearly. This doctrine of "Original Sin" necessitates that Christ was made into something that we were not, otherwise, He would have this "Original Sin" on Him as well...Which contradicts the passages you just quoted in Hebrews Chapter 2.

Part of the problem stems from the thinking that we inherit some spiritual quality, or dynamic, through a physical relation to Adam. And that stems from a lack of recognition that there's a distinction between spirit and body, inner man and outer man

The gist of it - if being physically related to Adam somehow damage is my invisible part, then what hope did Christ have?

Either he would have been damaged just like us, or he could not have been made just like us. An unbiblical quandary either way

 

[HeirofSalvation]

ahhh...i'm seeing this more clearly. This doctrine of "Original Sin" necessitates that Christ was made into something that we were not, otherwise, He would have this "Original Sin" on Him as well...Which contradicts the passages you just quoted in Hebrews Chapter 2.

That's my complaint.
Generally, at least as it's often expressed in Western Churches, sin is a substance not an action contrary to God's will.
It's an inherited.......something............ more akin to a disease than:
1Jo 3:4
Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
This fear of an inherited sin has led us in all manner of crazy directions, specifically docetic ones.
Consider:
Immaculate Conception - Wikipedia
Luther, Calvin, Melancthon...all the great Reformers came from a tradition that accepted this: While Luther did us a mighty good turn, he still had a ways to go. It's time to shake off a few more vestiges of Augustinianism.

Consider beloved "Away in a manger" (that we almost all sing every Christmas):
"The cattle are lowing, the baby awakes.........but little Lord Jesus, no crying he makes"..............
Huh????? Jesus didn't even cry as an infant now??? Why????

Our Western tradition is absolutely marinated in subtle Docetism....
We been Had!
We been Hoodwinked!
BAMBOOZLED!....

 

[Darrell C]

I think He was probably tempted often, and every man is tempted through the course of life.

As do I...therefore, I can't see how if he simply had a "Divine Nature" which was not even susceptible to sin in any way, there's no sense in which he could be tempted as we are.
He is (in that view) simply a being which is "wholly other"....and not like us in any sense which matters.

And just as I said, what you are doing is going to an extreme to the exclusion of the relevant elements. He was God, He was man, yet you are having a problem leaving both elements in place.

You are demanding a hyper humanism in Christ that does not exist.

Again, I would recommend you cease reading about "Spirit Christology" and just read your Bible.

He does not serve as an example for us...because we are nothing like him, aren't tempted like him, don't have the tools at our disposal he had....
In some views...he's just God putting on a mask and pretending he is something that he absolutely is NOT...

HoS, listen, what you are overlooking is the primary difference between Christ and Man, when He took on flesh, that separated Him from man then, and still separates Him from man today, and that is His Eternal Union with the Father and the Spirit.

What has changed, now that God is reconciling men to Himself, is that we too are in eternal union with the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but, we are still...not God.

There is a difference between the natural man being filled with the Spirit and the natural man being immersed in God. Under New Covenant conditions we are both immersed in God (Baptized with the Holy Ghost) and...filled. A Christian can be in Christ yet not filled. And that was not the case with Christ, because He was never separated from the Father and Spirit.

I don't think that's right.

That is pretty obvious, lol. But, we can continue to look at it.

I would view this temptation as no greater than a man being tempted to commit adultery. Say a man is in a horrible marriage, and along comes the opportunity to hook up with a beautiful woman, and in doing so, he gains great riches. Both are equally vile.And I don't think He looks at it as "Well, I withstood greater temptation," but, that all temptation holds an equable quality. We would have to categorize sin in order to take that view, and Scripture doesn't do that. Sin is sin. And while some sin is given distinction before God, any sin will do the trick, right?

I guess we Probably disconnect a little here:
While your propositions are true:
I see the "Temptation of Christ" as a uniquely eschatological scenario wherein the promised Messiah, the "strong-man" was defeating the powers of sin and Satan...

I hate to be the one to have to break this to you, but the "Strong Man" is Satan.



So you might want to rethink your understanding of Christ's temptation in the wilderness.

He was never in danger of yielding to Satan's temptation, because...

1. He is God;
2. He came to put the strong man down;
3...He already owned the Kingdoms of the world.

Frankly, I don't see it as particularly relevant to what we face.

Temptation is temptation, HoS. You are categorizing sin.

It was a culmination of Spiritual warfare

Not much of a battle.

Christ was in control at all times.

It was a culmination of Spiritual warfare wherein the promised Messiah gained victory over the principalities and powers and rulers of darkness as God issued in his Age of Grace (so to speak) against demonic forces keeping the Kosmos in bondage...

That didn't take place in the wilderness, my friend, it took place at the Cross. Christ overcame the world by not yielding to temptation, by being a man without sin.

I don't think it really corresponds to us a whole lot...but that's a whole different discussion.

Not really, it is relevant to this discussion because you are, first, overemphasizing Christ's humanity to the exclusion of His Deity (Christ never ceased being God), and secondly downgrading temptations as though to yield to one temptation is any better than yielding to another.

As I said...sin is sin.

Only to say, I can't think that your equivocation between that unique event is anything like a man being tempted to commit adultery. I think it was eschatological Spiritual Warfare and the Strong man binding Satan......nothing like what we are subjected to.

Well, you have Christ in the role of Satan, what more do I need to say about your theory?


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

He was, we are told that.

Yes, and I've no doubt you accept that is true by faith....

No, I accept that because that is what Scripture tells us. Think about it, HoS, that He would go to the Cross as the sinless Lamb of God was fore-ordained before the world began. There is simply no possibility that the Son of God...could have yielded to temptation.

I think you are reading more into...

Hebrews 4:15
King James Version (KJV)

15 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.

...than we need to. Christ can sympathize with us and has experienced the sorrows of life firsthand. That does not mean that at any time the Redemptive Plan of God was in jeopardy.

But, I can't see that that is a statement which holds any deep meaning for you.

You are quick to judge.

To say he was "tempted like as we are"....is a VERY powerful statement.

True, but not what you make it to be, which is a result of your fascination with "Spirit Christology."

You are seeking to make Christ more human than Deity, and the fact is He was both God and man. The flesh was a veil, and if you want to consider that as "wearing a mask," so be it. Your view sounds more like a man having access to God, rather than being God.

If he's impeccable, that's a very real problem.

Only if you disregard His Nature.


Continued...

 

[HeirofSalvation]

And just as I said, what you are doing is going to an extreme

I am not extreme.

to the exclusion of the relevant elements. He was God, He was man, yet you are having a problem leaving both elements in place.

How?

You are demanding a hyper humanism in Christ that does not exist.

I'm demanding a Chalcedonian humanity....
TRULY man.

Again, I would recommend you cease reading about "Spirit Christology" and just read your Bible.

I'm hardly obsessed with it, and only mentioned it in passing. I've not even read much on the topic. I only said that it has some promising observations...that's hardly a googleyed-obsession...good grief.
It's reading my Bible.....not anything else which leads me as I do.

HoS, listen, what you are overlooking is the primary difference between Christ and Man, when He took on flesh, that separated Him from man then, and still separates Him from man today, and that is His Eternal Union with the Father and the Spirit.

That would be the essence of Spirit Christology which you seem to despise.

What has changed, now that God is reconciling men to Himself, is that we too are in eternal union with the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but, we are still...not God.

Exactly....tell us something I don't affirm.

There is a difference between the natural man being filled with the Spirit and the natural man being immersed in God. Under New Covenant conditions we are both immersed in God (Baptized with the Holy Ghost) and...filled. A Christian can be in Christ yet not filled. And that was not the case with Christ, because He was never separated from the Father and Spirit.

Agreed....that's the essence of Spirit Christology actually:
Christ in perfect communion with the Father and Spirit:
I recommend you stop reading about Spirit Christology and stick with your Bible.

I hate to be the one to have to break this to you, but the "Strong Man" is Satan.

I'm aware of that. I mistyped. It was late, and I had been up for nearly 24 hrs.

So you might want to rethink your understanding of Christ's temptation in the wilderness

.
It was a simple mistype.

Well, you have Christ in the role of Satan

Again, a simple mistype.

what more do I need to say about your theory?

That perhaps you pounced on a simple mistype and obsessed over it to the exclusion of proper reason?????????
I don't know.

But, I don't think you are interested in proper discussion.
You are on a witch-hunt at this point, so...whatever I say, all you will hear is the voice of evil. There's no point.
God bless

 

[Darrell C]

I tend to stay away from systems, because what they usually do is center on only one aspect (which is what the article you posted objected to, lol) and neglect all elements which are relevant.

I agree
But the observations of "Sprit Christology" are valuable tools...

You don't agree, lol.

And this system of thought is to be rejected in my opinion.

It isn't a "System".

It is. You will shape your entire theology around this misguided extremism.

One can I.M.O. take it as far as one wants and no farther.

I would take it to trash can, and get back to the Bible.

I see two views at work here:
1.) A classically reformed one, which has Jesus possessing two "natures" (one human one Divine)..and at all points wherein Jesus is tired, sleeps, is slightly annoyed, or has to poo.........he's human.........
But, at any point wherein he deals with anything of moral significance like sin, Satan, temptation, or the powers of darkness, he simply invokes his Divine Nature, and crushes it with a snap of his fingers.....

That can't be right.
That's Docetism.

First, just because you only see two views doesn't mean you have actually begun to comprehend my own, so let's not limit it to what you see.

Second, I am not Reformed in my Theology, and just because there might be similarities between what I teach and what Reformed Theology teaches, doesn't make me any more "Reformed" than being a Trinitarian makes me a Catholic.

Third...there are so many "reformed groups" that no singular group holds a corner on the market.

Fourth, the above shows you reject a Biblical view of Christ, because you disdain what is taught in Scripture, which is...Jesus Christ was God manifest in the flesh, and at no time was shed of His Deity.

Fifth, it not docetism, because Christ literally had human flesh.

Sixth, where in all of the Bible do you see Christ unable to deal with any morally significant issue?

Seventh, how in the world can you even imply that Christ would somehow be unable to deal with any morally significant issue?

That is the implication of your "Spirit Christology," my friend.

2.) The 2nd person of the Trinity became ACTUAL FLESH...

And you are wasting my time creating false arguments and then answering them. Please do not use my posts to entertain your teaching.

At no time have I ever even intimated that Christ was not in literal flesh. And enlarging letters with bold doesn't make this relevant to anything I said.

He condescended and became a man....the second Adam.

Boom! There it is: "Christ was a man."

Christ was God in the flesh, my friend...first and foremost.

He had no particular tools we don't have,

As a matter of fact He did, its called Eternal Union with God.

That is the same point I started with, and you have ignored that fact.

other than the ministry of the third person of the Trinity who was with him throughout his ministry to show us sinless perfection.

Here is the Spirit said to be with men:


John 14:15-17
King James Version (KJV)

15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.


Here is the Spirit dwelling in man:


John 14:15-17
King James Version (KJV)

15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.


And here is the Spirit Who would come:


John 14:15-18
King James Version (KJV)

15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.



Now, can you see a difference between Christ and the disciples there?


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Therefore, as the Scriptures teach he:
"Learned obedience"
"Grew in knowledge and wisdom"
"Was driven by the Holy Spirit"
"Waxed greater in knowledge"
etc...

And that is relevant to His humanity.

It does not change the fact that He was God manifest in the flesh, and in Eternal Union with God as a man, which was unlike any man who had ever lived prior to the Incarnation.

You need to accept that Christ had an advantage over mankind, and still does.

If we add some property of impeccability, than, he simply shares nothing of moral significance with us and is not a model to follow and doesn't function as the "second Adam" at all.

?

If a grownup plays in the mud with his kids, does he not also get dirty?

Adam wasn't "impeccable".

How is that even remotely relevant, except to further illustrate your diminished view of Christ?

Adam was not God manifest in the flesh.

And he didn't have some "Sin Nature" he had to deal with.

Again, not relevant to anything I have said. That is the position I debate against.

So in the future, please try to address what it is I have actually said, and you will cut down on the need of your antagonist wasting a lot of time dealing with false arguments. If you want to preach your doctrine, then start a thread. That is how it usually works HoS.

Neither did Jesus.

That's not really a big secret.

The next question you need to start thinking about is why do men sin if they do not have a "sin nature?"

I'll give you a hint...it's because they are separated from God, and do not have the Nature of God.

Christ did.

And when we are reconciled to God we are immersed into eternal union with God, and partake of that nature, which is still different than Christ having that Nature because...

...He is God.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Why can we not view Christ as sinless, and ministering through the power of the Holy Ghost? Both are true.

He was sinless...............
because he never sinned.

Boom! There it is again, the result of your "Spirit Christology": Christ was not sinless.

My friend, you really need to stop reading the doctrines of men.

Not because he didn't have as part of his constitution some weird sin gene which was passed on through male spermatozoa which renders him powerless to make correct moral decisions.

Agreed. He was sinless because He was God.

and ministering through the power of the Holy Ghost? Both are true.

They are both true....
Neither requires a "Divine nature" which stands in contradistinction to humanity, human flesh or genuine humanity.

And you are forgetting that He was born of a virgin.

His flesh was created by God in the womb of Mary.

That can only be said of Christ. It was necessary that a man die for another man, but you are imposing into Christ the popular theory of the sin nature while at the same time trying to deny it. You are trying to say that He did not sin because He had the help of the Holy Spirit, when the fact is...He is One with the Spirit. He is Creator God manifest in flesh divinely created by GOd.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

This is true, and that goes back to the point I raised earlier: The Son of God was at no time separated from the Father and Spirit.

That's it!

I know.

All three persons of the Trinity working in perfect concert together in the economy of salvation....
That does not require Christ being impeccable.

That is Christ being impeccable, lol.

And it makes perfect sense of a Messiah who TRULY was tempted like as we are, and in every way, yet without sin.

Okay, you're not allowed to read Hebrews anymore


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Correct. Being God, He had a slight advantage over us.

If you mean possessing an impeccable "Divine Nature".
that isn't a "slight" advantage over us.......it's overwhelming..

I agree.

God is great.

It means he isn't properly a human at all.

He's not, He's God manifest in flesh.

You don't seem to understand there is a difference between Christ the Son of God and all other men.

That does not lessen the fact that He took on human flesh and in so doing took on the disadvantages which is all we are born with.

Right.....the same disadvantages plus an impeccable nature impervious to sin you mean????

Pretty much.

And it goes back to the fact that even in His humanity He was never separated from God, and never ceased being God.

I agree that He ministered through the power of the Holy Spirit, but that does not mean He was fully limited to a fully human existence.

This Reformed Christology is docetic....
It isn't faithful to the Biblical text.

What has that to do with anything I said?

It's built upon Gnosticism and Platonism and wants to create moral distinctions between all things physical and all things spiritual and they cannot meet.

Irrelevant to anything I have said.

It MUST make Christ something other than truly a MAN.

Whereas you seem to making Christ only a man.

I blame that on "Spirit Christology."

It MUST have him possessed of an "otherness" which renders him sinless because it simply cannot be that anything of flesh and blood can be morally upright.

Not sure how you can deny Christ was the sinless Son of God.

I deny that view.

That's great, but again...what has it to do with anything I said?


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

If it is
Spirit Christology" that seeks to separate the Nature of Christ from God, to the point where it denies His Nature,

It isn't.
Docetism wants to speak of "natures".

So does the Bible.

So what's your point, and why are you falsely attributing this to me?

That's a Gnostic distinction of the interplay betwixt two things in Christ I have no need of.

You deny "the interplay" between the two natures of Christ?

I have no need of distinguishing between "Divine Nature" and "Human Nature".

On the contrary, that is precisely what you are doing, and you are denying the Deity of Christ.

None of that is a part of Spirit Christology.

On the contrary, you exchange one heresy for another.

You are placing an emphasis on His humanity to the exclusion of His Deity. He was fully God, and at no time separated from Father and Spirit (because they are One), and fully human.

You can't nullify the reality of either, both are equally true.

It simply isn't necessary at all.

That might be true, lol.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

(If it is
Spirit Christology" that seeks to separate the Nature of Christ from God, to the point where it denies His Nature,) my advice would be to reject it and simply stick with what Scripture teaches. (Systems have a habit of embracing one element (and usually to an extreme) to the exclusion of other elements equally important.)

Agreed:
Scripture has the second person of the Godhead become flesh, dwelling among us, acting as the second Adam, being tempted like as we yet without sin, learning obedience, growing in wisdom and grace etc....
It has nothing of impeccability.

How does being God deny impeccability?

And can you show me anywhere in Scripture where we might think Christ could fail in the very purpose He came for?

Systems have a habit of embracing one element (and usually to an extreme) to the exclusion of other elements equally important.

Agreed.
The classic post-reformation Protestant system is built on Western Roman Catholicism and Augustinianism....which is overly gnostic in it's influence. And seeks to make unnecessary distinctions between the physical world and the perfect "forms" of Platonism....rendering terms like "Divine Nature" and "Human nature" distinctions which absolutely MUST be kept apart and operant in a single individual. There is no need for that.

Simply not relevant to anything I said.

Augustine was simply wrong.
Augustine was a Gnostic, and felt compelled to make such systematic distinctions. They are unnecessary.

Agreed, but what does that have to do with anything I said?

God bless, and thank you for your interaction

My pleasure.




God bless.