How Did the Fall of Adam Affect the Lord Jesus?

[Darrell C]

I am not extreme.

How?

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

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.

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

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

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

Again, a simple mistype.

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

I'm not going to get involved in a long discussion where you seek to justify the errors of "Spirit Christology," or simple errors like making Christ assume the role of Satan.

You need to recognize that you are going to an extreme in regards to Christ's humanity, and that is the result of your fascination with Spirit Christology.

If you want to create false arguments and then address them, great, but start a thread. If you address my posts please address what I have said, not what you want to think I believe.

The bottom line is that Christ was God manifest in the flesh, fully God, fully human, and that He was sinless is just a fact known to God before the world was formed. The Redemptive Plan demanded a sinless man, and the only way that could take place was for God to assume humanity and to die in the stead of the sinner.

Please consider some of the points raised in the previous posts. And don't get upset with me, I'm just trying to help you, it isn't a witch hunt.


God bless.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

O.K. Darrell:
Here's the deal, we are obviously talking quite passed one another.

You seem to have it in your head that I am WAY WAY off the track of Orthodoxy, and don't know the difference between the Son of God and Satan..... and it is up to you to defend the absolute basic essentials of the Faith.

Perhaps it's because I have not expressed myself well, and that's quite possibly my fault.
But we are not even able to have a reasonable discussion.
You have your Theological dander up and see only egregious forms of heresy which must be addressed.

I affirm the same fundamental confessional Chalcedonian Christology that any Christian does which affirms that Christ was Truly God and Truly man.

It's clear from some of your responses to my statements that I am being misunderstood.
I am thankful for your desire to defend Orthodox Christology and the true Divinity of Christ...............
As I do, and always have:

But, we are not communicating here, and I don't think we'll be able to even if we try.
God bless you and have a great day

 

[HeirofSalvation]

I'm not going to get involved in a long discussion where you seek to justify the errors of "Spirit Christology," or simple errors like making Christ assume the role of Satan.

I explained that was a miss-type and I'm aware that the "strong-man" is Satan....I'd been up for 24 hours...I have now explained this twice. Please accept my wish to not be falsely accused by you any more.

 

[JonC]

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!....

Absolutely. It is a thinly veiled Docetism. I can't believe that so few seem to find it objectionable that some pretend to affirm Scripture by saying Jesus was 100% man and 100% God, shared in our nature, the Word made flesh, etc.....and then turn around and add "but his humanness was different from our humanness". It's heresy thinly disguised within a veil of orthodoxy.

 

[Yeshua1]

Please don't get offended, but I am going to have to choose God's Word over what you've attributed to as Calvinistic-Reformed tradition. Either you or God are wrong, and I just have to side with God.

There is no need for that distinction, as reformed hteology in this area is of the scriptures themselves!

 

[Yeshua1]

Absolutely. It is a thinly veiled Docetism. I can't believe that so few seem to find it objectionable that some pretend to affirm Scripture by saying Jesus was 100% man and 100% God, shared in our nature, the Word made flesh, etc.....and then turn around and add "but his humanness was different from our humanness". It's heresy thinly disguised within a veil of orthodoxy.

You deny that Adam spiritual died when he fell though, correct?
And so you would not see the sin nature as being passed unto us after the Fall, correct?
We are all born into sin, so if Jesus was the same nature as all of us, was he a sinner?

 

[JonC]

There is no need for that distinction, as reformed hteology in this area is of the scriptures themselves!

we tried that already....don't you remember all of those requests for Scripture? You had none.

You deny that Adam spiritual died when he fell though, correct?
And so you would not see the sin nature as being passed unto us after the Fall, correct?
We are all born into sin, so if Jesus was the same nature as all of us, was he a sinner?

What verse says that Adam "spiritually died"?

For that matter, what verse says that Adam was "spiritually alive" to begin with?

What verse says a "sin nature" that was different from Adams human nature when he decided to sin was passed on to us?

What verse says it is our nature itself that constitutes sin?

 

[Yeshua1]

He was born of a virgin so that he would have no earthly father, and therefore he would have no earthly benefactor. God Alone is his benefactor. He is the heir of God, he is not the heir of any man

He is more that the heir of God, for he is God!

 

[Yeshua1]

You have absolutely no scripture to support that goofy notion

We were all dead in our sin and transgressions, all of us apart and enemies of God, correct?

 

[Yeshua1]

we tried that already....don't you remember all of those requests for Scripture? You had none.

What verse says that Adam "spiritually died"?

For that matter, what verse says that Adam was "spiritually alive" to begin with?

What verse says a "sin nature" that was different from Adams human nature when he decided to sin was passed on to us?

What verse says it is our nature itself that constitutes sin?

Adam was created in a state of innocence, and fully obeyed the Lord, bent towards God, when he sinned, His natural bent moved off God and now upon Himself! That is the ultimate sin nature...

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

Jesus could and did die in His physical body!

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Absolutely. It is a thinly veiled Docetism. I can't believe that so few seem to find it objectionable that some pretend to affirm Scripture by saying Jesus was 100% man and 100% God, shared in our nature, the Word made flesh, etc.....and then turn around and add "but his humanness was different from our humanness". It's heresy thinly disguised within a veil of orthodoxy.

It is...
I think there's a Psychology to it as well.
Subconsciously, many are petrified of erring on the side of minimizing Christ's Divinity, and rightly so.
Many are probably subconsciously willing to purchase Christ's Divinity at the expense of his humanity because they don't particularly fear erring on that level. It is thought of like scales in a laboratory...
The more human he is, the less Divine
The more Divine he is, the less he can truly be human.
Thus, most default to denying humanity.......
I mean that's not REALLY, REALLY a heresy right?? It feels, safer somehow.

Many gloss over John's severe warning, which is clearly a warning against the growing influence of Gnosticism:
1Jo 4:1
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
1Jo 4:2
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
1Jo 4:3
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Denying Christ's real humanity makes his sacrificial death of no account:
God didn't pay the price for man's sin.
Man must pay the price for man's sin.
Adam owes the debt, man does, not God.
Hence the God-man.

Whatever our view, the Scriptures insist we do not purchase either one at the expense of the other.
Which is why I don't particularly care for thinking in terms of "natures" one Divine, one human, all subsisting in one being. While not itself heretical, it's just unnecessary and confusing.
It is a uniquely Westernized set of categories that aren't really assumed in Scripture.
We've over-thought the issue.
We don't have to think in terms of these two distinct and contradictory "natures" in perpetual competition struggling at any given moment for dominance:

What happens is, whenever Christ is tired, hungry, chilled, hot, bored or sick......(or praying that the cup would pass from him because he doesn't want to be tortured to death) it's his "human nature" in play...

But, whenever it comes to anything of moral significance, (like actually being obedient unto death in accordance with the Father's will) his Divine Side steps in and takes control pushing his humanity aside. I don't buy it.

 

[JonC]

Adam was created in a state of innocence, and fully obeyed the Lord, bent towards God, when he sinned, His natural bent moved off God and now upon Himself! That is the ultimate sin nature...

You misunderstood. I was asking you to defend your ideas through Scripture, not repetition.

 

[JonC]

Jesus could and did die in His physical body!

I think you missed his point....like....really bad missed his point.

 

[JamesL]

He is more that the heir of God, for he is God!

What does that have to do with this discussion? Nothing

 

[JamesL]

We were all dead in our sin and transgressions, all of us apart and enemies of God, correct?

Dead in our sin and transgression? Yes

Dead in Adams sin and transgression? No

 

[JamesL]

Adam was created in a state of innocence, and fully obeyed the Lord, bent towards God, when he sinned, His natural bent moved off God and now upon Himself! That is the ultimate sin nature...

A nature is not a bent or disposition.

Is Jesus's divine nature simply a bent or disposition toward Divine things? Or is his divine nature the essence of his being?

 

[JamesL]

It is...
I think there's a Psychology to it as well.
Subconsciously, many are petrified of erring on the side of minimizing Christ's Divinity, and rightly so.
Many are probably subconsciously willing to purchase Christ's Divinity at the expense of his humanity because they don't particularly fear erring on that level. It is thought of like scales in a laboratory...
The more human he is, the less Divine
The more Divine he is, the less he can truly be human.
Thus, most default to denying humanity.......
I mean that's not REALLY, REALLY a heresy right?? It feels, safer somehow.

Many gloss over John's severe warning, which is clearly a warning against the growing influence of Gnosticism:
1Jo 4:1
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
1Jo 4:2
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
1Jo 4:3
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Denying Christ's real humanity makes his sacrificial death of no account:
God didn't pay the price for man's sin.
Man must pay the price for man's sin.
Adam owes the debt, man does, not God.
Hence the God-man.

Whatever our view, the Scriptures insist we do not purchase either one at the expense of the other.
Which is why I don't particularly care for thinking in terms of "natures" one Divine, one human, all subsisting in one being. While not itself heretical, it's just unnecessary and confusing.
It is a uniquely Westernized set of categories that aren't really assumed in Scripture.
We've over-thought the issue.
We don't have to think in terms of these two distinct and contradictory "natures" in perpetual competition struggling at any given moment for dominance:

What happens is, whenever Christ is tired, hungry, chilled, hot, bored or sick......(or praying that the cup would pass from him because he doesn't want to be tortured to death) it's his "human nature" in play...

But, whenever it comes to anything of moral significance, (like actually being obedient unto death in accordance with the Father's will) his Divine Side steps in and takes control pushing his humanity aside. I don't buy it.

I like this post.
I've said before that scripture tells us plainly that in the incarnation - everything that God is, clothed Himself in everything that we are. Without static. A true hypostasis

 

[Aaron]

ahhh...i'm seeing this more clearly. This doctrine of "Original Sin" necessitates that Christ was made into something that we were not, . . . blah, blah, blah.

Were you made a miracle worker? Could a woman be healed by touching the hem of your garment? Do the winds and waves obey you? Can you raise the dead?

He most certainly was born something you are not. (And am I glad. We would certainly be dying in our sins.)

His body was made for Him for the suffering of death, (though death could not hold him and was raised by the power of an endless life) and to be touched with the feeling of our physical weaknesses, not our moral weaknesses.

Jesus is incorruptible. He could not, cannot and can never sin.

 

[Aaron]

I like this post.
I've said before that scripture tells us plainly that in the incarnation - everything that God is, clothed Himself in everything that we are. Without static. A true hypostasis

Like it or not, He was not corruptible, and was without sin. So, it wasn't EVERYTHING you are as you think of it.