How Did the Fall of Adam Affect the Lord Jesus?

[Aaron]

We fall short of the glory of God by nature, but by human nature and not by some mythological "fallen nature".

So Adam was made short of God's glory, but wasn't judged a sinner till the law was given.

Got it.

Where do you guys get this stuff?

Have all sinned? Yes or No?

 

[Aaron]

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.

How Did the Fall of Adam Affect the Lord Jesus?

 

[JonC]

So Adam was made short of God's glory, but wasn't judged a sinner till the law was given.

Got it.

Where do you guys get this stuff?

Have all sinned? Yes or No?

From the Bible. God created Adam and told him not to eat of the tree. Adam disobeyed. He transgressed God's command not to eat of that fruit. He sinned. And through His sin came death which spread to all men because all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

Try reading your Bible. I assure you Adam's transgression is in there... and the fact that we sin is in there as well... unless you are reading a "bible" of your own making.

Let me explain it to you, @Aaron .

God created Adam, but until Adam disobeyed God Adam hadn't sinned. But Adam (as God created Adam) disobeyed God. This was the first (1st) sin committed by man (by a human being). Through this sin death entered the world and spread to all men, because all have sinned. Paul is speaking not of your mythological "sinned in Adam" but that both Jews and Gentiles sin and die regardless of their status under the Law. Adam transgressed God's command , i.e., Adam disobeyed God (Adam did what God said not to do).

The problem comes in when you extract one verse from its context to "prove" your error.

 

[Iconoclast]

From the Bible. God created Adam and told him not to eat of the tree. Adam disobeyed. He transgressed God's command not to eat of that fruit. He sinned. And through His sin came death which spread to all men because all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

Try reading your Bible. I assure you Adam's transgression is in there... and the fact that we sin is in there as well... unless you are reading a "bible" of your own making.

Let me explain it to you, @Aaron .

God created Adam, but until Adam disobeyed God Adam hadn't sinned. But Adam (as God created Adam) disobeyed God. This was the first (1st) sin committed by man (by a human being). Through this sin death entered the world and spread to all men, because all have sinned. Paul is speaking not of your mythological "sinned in Adam" but that both Jews and Gentiles sin and die regardless of their status under the Law. Adam transgressed God's command , i.e., Adam disobeyed God (Adam did what God said not to do).

The problem comes in when you extract one verse from its context to "prove" your error.

So....you are suggesting that all men are not conceived in sin? Would that be a correct statement? If not how do you reconcile your statements which are against the historical position of the believing church?

 

[JamesL]

So....you are suggesting that all men are not conceived in sin? Would that be a correct statement? If not how do you reconcile your statements which are against the historical position of the believing church?

Can you elaborate on what it means to be conceived in sin? And how far back are you counting "historical" ?

 

[JonC]

So....you are suggesting that all men are not conceived in sin? Would that be a correct statement?

It depends on what you mean.

I am suggesting that we are all conceived in sin on the grounds of Psalm 51:

Be gracious to me, O God, according to Your lovingkindness; According to the greatness of Your compassion blot out my transgressions. Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity And cleanse me from my sin. For I know my transgressions, And my sin is ever before me. Against You, You only, I have sinned And done what is evil in Your sight, So that You are justified when You speak And blameless when You judge. Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me. Behold, You desire truth in the innermost being, And in the hidden part You will make me know wisdom. Purify me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. Make me to hear joy and gladness, Let the bones which You have broken rejoice. Hide Your face from my sins And blot out all my iniquities.

We have natures that fall short of the glory of God (we have natures that sin...i.e., sinful natures).

I am,however, suggesting that we do not inherit a nature that has fallen because of Adam's sin. My suggestion is that Adam was created with a human nature and we also have that same human nature. Without God's Spirit in us and relying completely on God rather than our human natures, we sin and fall short of His glory. No passage of Scripture states that Adam was created with a nature that met or exceeded the glory of God.
Also, don't forget that God did not create Adam in the Garden. He created him and then placed him in the Garden.

If not how do you reconcile your statements which are against the historical position of the believing church?

This is a difficult question as it brings up a couple of issues. First, when we read Scripture do we need to reconcile our view with that of the historical position of the believing church? If so, then we would hold to Origen's "Ransom Theory". If so, then there would have never been a Reformation. So to answer this part of the question, my response is that I believe Scripture to be the authority of our doctrine (I don't believe God gave special revelation to either Origen, Tertullian, Augustine, Calvin, or Luther and we just need to pick which one).

But more than that is the fact that there has never been one "historical position". Many here do not believe that Adam's sin is passed down biologically (Augustine). Many do not believe Adam's sin merely injured the image of God in man which is repaired in salvation (Tertullian). Scripture (and the historical positions of the church) affirms that Adam's sin had consequences to all of mankind. This has been debated for centuries (if we sinned "in Adam", "in and with Adam", if Adam is representative of the human race, etc). So your assumption is incorrect. I am not introducing new doctrine, although it may be a doctrine with which you lack familiarity.

 

[JonShaff]

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.

Christ is impeccable. He took on the same flesh you and I have.

We were Born without the Spirit of God. Therefore, we sin and are condemned.

We are born again by the Spirit of God and the Word of God.

Romans 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

Are you a universalist Aaron?

 

[JonC]

Christ is impeccable. He took on the same flesh you and I have.

We were Born without the Spirit of God. Therefore, we sin and are condemned.

We are born again by the Spirit of God and the Word of God.

Romans 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

Are you a universalist Aaron?

The problem is the theology as a whole. It demands that Jesus did not actually become a human being because no man could perfectly obey the Law and therefore impute to us Jesus' perfect Law-keeping. What is ignored are Jesus' claims that His work is not of His own initiative but that of the Father, and what is denied is the work of Christ as a whole and in perfect obedience to the Father from the Incarnation to the Cross.

I don't think that @Aaron is a universalist, but his theories are certainly foreign to the Bible. It is, as I (and others) have noted before, a repackaging of an old heresy to make it more palatable. It is also a denial of Scripture.

 

[JamesL]

....What is ignored are Jesus' claims that His work is not of His own initiative but that of the Father, and what is denied is the work of Christ as a whole and in perfect obedience to the Father from the Incarnation to the Cross....

Amen. From Isaiah 11:

1Then a shoot will spring from the stem of Jesse,
And a branch from his roots will bear fruit.

2The Spirit of the LORD will rest on Him,
The spirit of wisdom and understanding,
The spirit of counsel and strength,
The spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD.

3And He will delight in the fear of the LORD,
And He will not judge by what His eyes see,
Nor make a decision by what His ears hear

 

[Darrell C]

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

Not really. First, we have had only one exchange. Secondly, you are getting way too emotional over the responses. This is a debate forum, and that is what we do: debate. Third, I think it is important that you realize there were a few serious flaws in your response, such as imposing false arguments into the response and then answering them. This is kind of typical when someone has an issue that they think is important and instead of focusing on the topic of the discussion they turn the discussion towards that issue. We all do that at times, but, the point I would have you to understand is that most of your post dealt with nothing I actually said. Another issue is how you are coming across in trying to present "Spirit Christology," and while you may think I was being harsh, I usually address something I see as error directly. I am sure you might want "Well, IMHO, and don't get offended..." but that does not help people. A more direct approach is better to get that issue out in the forefront of my antagonist's thoughts.

If you read the posts you will see I point out a couple statements that are actually diminutive towards Christ, and I am sure you don't have a diminutive view, but, that is what is coming across. There is a hyper aspect of Christ's humanity overshadowing His Deity,

You seem to have it in your head that I am WAY WAY off the track of Orthodoxy,

Not at all. This is just one issue in many issues. I just think you are way way sensitive.

As I said, just trying to help. Our doctrine is made stronger through addressing the opposition we are given. It will either stand, or fail. And if we are faithful to shed ourselves of that which cannot stand up to scrutiny we are are made stronger.

and don't know the difference between the Son of God and Satan

Well you did say that Christ was the "strong man."

and it is up to you to defend the absolute basic essentials of the Faith.

Not really. I deal with the more difficult issues.

Perhaps it's because I have not expressed myself well, and that's quite possibly my fault.

We all do that.

But we are not even able to have a reasonable discussion.

Yes we are, but you are going to have learn not to take things personally on a debate forum.

You have your Theological dander up and see only egregious forms of heresy which must be addressed.

On the contrary, there is no emotion in my response.

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

I am sure you do, but that doesn't change the fact that this is not what you are presenting in your statements. That is one of the things I can help you with, if nothing else, but to get your attention and cause you to give what you say more consideration before committing it to a public venue.

It's clear from some of your responses to my statements that I am being misunderstood.

Come on, HoS. If you think I misrepresented something you said, then show me, and I will apologize if that is the case.

I am thankful for your desire to defend Orthodox Christology and the true Divinity of Christ...............
As I do, and always have:

That is something we must all do, and it is better if we have a consistent Theology. The world is watching, you know.

But, we are not communicating here, and I don't think we'll be able to even if we try.

That is up to you. We have had only one exchange, and I would encourage you to pocket your emotion and give some consideration to what was said.

God bless you and have a great day

You too HoS. This is a little rushed because my plans have changed and I am heading out.

Look, I am sincere in that I am not trying to offend you, just help you. We can strengthen our understandings by being challenged by our brethren, and that is just normal for debate, It doesn't have to hold animosity or break down to emotional response, but, you have understand that people are going to challenge you from time to time, and you need to be ready. You need to be ready to examine your positions in light of Scripture, and if there is something that doesn't remain strong, let it go. And I again caution you against embracing systems of thought that can, as I said, make you go to an extreme to the exclusion of other critical elements. This is why Calvinists and Arminians have been going at it for centuries, and its not good for the Body.


God bless.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Darrell, I'm sorry, but, I really don't think we can communicate....at least on this issue right now.
For some reason, it's like one of us is ESL or something. Perhaps we just have incredibly different rhetorical methods.
Each of us thinks that the other grossly misunderstands us.
Here's why we think that:
We clearly do.
For example:

Not really. First, we have had only one exchange. Secondly, you are getting way too emotional over the responses.

I am not emotionally invested in this, nor have your posts elicited any particularly potent emotions out of me..
Nor do I think I've expressed myself in an emotional way.....

This is a debate forum, and that is what we do: debate.

Absolutely, and that requires communication, which is sending and receiving. We are failing in that and it's clear to me.

Third, I think it is important that you realize there were a few serious flaws in your response, such as imposing false arguments into the response and then answering them.

That may be true.....
But, I don't see them Darrel, and frankly on those few places where you've suggested that, I feel as though I was misunderstood by you. We aren't communicating. I respect that you are willing to try.

We all do that at times, but, the point I would have you to understand is that most of your post dealt with nothing I actually said

I don't doubt you. But, what I'm saying is that I am genuinely trying to and quite thought I very much addressed what you "really said". I don't think we're pulling it off.

Another issue is how you are coming across in trying to present "Spirit Christology," and while you may think I was being harsh,

I said that I have found some observations from it useful or helpful.
I also provided in the VERY POST I first mentioned it what I considered to be a serious warning that it can be grossly abused (I used an asterisk) to imply or to support Adoptionism.
You then acted as though I was enamored with and willing to defend a novel Theological toy that I wanted to push upon the world.....It was a frankly absurd leap I.M.O. on your part which tells me....we aren't communicating.
I think if you were to poll those reading this thread if they think I were enamored with "Spirit Christology" as a system, there would be a negligible percentage of people who would think that, because frankly, I only ever ran across it a year ago, and have only begun to read into it......
and of course, I applied a warning label to it the very first time I mentioned it....(thinking specifically of an article by a man named Roger Haight)

If you read the posts you will see I point out a couple statements that are actually diminutive towards Christ, and I am sure you don't have a diminutive view, but, that is what is coming across. There is a hyper aspect of Christ's humanity overshadowing His Deity,

I'm sure you see that. I disagree that I have expressed that.
That's why I have no faith in our ability to communicate on this issue at this time.....we've already (quite inadvertently I'm sure) "poisoned the well" on one another.

Not at all. This is just one issue in many issues. I just think you are way way sensitive.

I have not been particularly emotionally effected either positively or negatively by our exchange, nor do I think most others would think I have been....I'm trying to be as dry as I can....it's just evidence that we aren't communicating.

Well you did say that Christ was the "strong man."

Oh, I did....and you were quite correct to point out that error, but here's what I think:
Once you saw that admittedly grievous misstype you assumed a level of ignorance and probably inability to distinguish between Christ and Satan and you took me essentially for a fool from then on effectively clouding your view of my arguments from then on:
After all, if you would have done that....It would have made me react much as you did.

Yes we are, but you are going to have learn not to take things personally on a debate forum.

See, I'm not taking anything personally Darrell.
I'm not particularly offended, I'm trying to say (rather dryly in fact) that we aren't communicating successfully.

On the contrary, there is no emotion in my response.

Yeah, see....a miscommunication.
When I said "get your 'Theological dander up' " what I meant was something more like, your heresy detector started screaming at you and you were ready to defend the faith against grievous error...your "Theological Dander" ...."Theological" was my intended emphasis......not your emotional state.

You misunderstood me. No doubt my failure to express well.
We seem to be doing that.

That is one of the things I can help you with, if nothing else, but to get your attention and cause you to give what you say more consideration before committing it to a public venue.

Yeah, see, I don't think you can help me.
Neither of us is particularly inarticulate, and yet I think you and I are having a uniquely difficult time communicating right now. It is not as though every one else on the thread has found my posts outrageous.

Come on, HoS. If you think I misrepresented something you said,

I don't think you intentionally misrepresented anything, I think you misunderstood and I've little hope you will in the immediate future.

That is up to you. We have had only one exchange, and I would encourage you to pocket your emotion

Again...you seriously think I'm deeply emotionally invested here...I'm not, and don't think anyone else would think I am.

and give some consideration to what was said.

I'm likely to misinterpret everything you're saying.

Look, I am sincere in that I am not trying to offend you, just help you. We can strengthen our understandings by being challenged by our brethren, and that is just normal for debate, It doesn't have to hold animosity or break down to emotional response,

Again with the emotion thing!
Dude, I'm telling you you must be the only one who thinks I am deeply emotional about this. I'm totally not, and I'm not particularly offended. WOW.

And I again caution you against embracing systems of thought that can, as I said, make you go to an extreme to the exclusion of other critical elements.

Yeah....I haven't "embraced a system". I think you are the only one here who thinks I am enamored with this Spirit Christology, which I have only a surface level engagement with.

We're not communicating dude....I'm o.k. with that.
I'm sure we can in the future, and I'm quite sure, that I have clearly misunderstood you because I think that you've made some outrageous claims.
I'm assuming that I'm misunderstanding them, and therefore have not addressed them....that's o.k. to admit that.

God bless my friend.

 

[Iconoclast]

JonC
Will answer in more detail when I can get to a keyboard

two or three basic things right off the bat.

Number one we are not born in original righteousness as Adam was.
We are not born a blank slate that is a false

number two
to go around and pick out from origien and to tertullian and all of these other people areas in which they differ from the majority of the people is not a healthy way to come to doctrinal truth
Those documents were considered and rejected throughout church history it's not as if no one else is ever seen them or considered them they've been considered and rejected.
The fact that people have ideas does not make them all valid.

 

[JonC]

JonC

Will answer in more detail when I can get to a keyboard


two or three basic things right off the bat.


Number one we are not born in original righteousness as Adam was.

We are not born a blank slate that is a false


number two

to go around and pick out from origien and to tertullian and all of these other people areas in which they differ from the majority of the people is not a healthy way to come to doctrinal truth

Those documents were considered and rejected throughout church history it's not as if no one else is ever seen them or considered them they've been considered and rejected.

The fact that people have ideas does not make them all valid.

Sure, brother. I look forward to it.

Regarding us being born “in original righteousness as Adam was”, the most that we can say in terms of Scripture is that Adam sinned after he was created. The idea that Adam had two natures ("pre-Fall" and "post-Fall) is completely absent from the Bible.

I’m not looking to discuss the differing views of the ECF’s. The only reason I brought up other various beliefs is that you seemed to confuse what I was saying about Adam's sin to be a new interpretation. Perhaps I jumped to an unwarranted conclusion and didn't give you enough credit (if so, you have my apology). The reason I did so was that it appeared to me you didn't recognize my view as among the historic positions of the believing church.

Another interesting note is that we can't imagine the Doctrine of Original Sin (as inherited sin) as being implied in Scripture because it is foreign to Judaism (the Jews saw Adam's sin as affecting mankind, but not in terms of an inherited sin).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I'm sorry to crash into the middle of this thread. I've been busy and haven't has time to read it before.

Regarding us being born “in original righteousness as Adam was”, the most that we can say in terms of Scripture is that Adam sinned after he was created. The idea that Adam had two natures ("pre-Fall" and "post-Fall) is completely absent from the Bible.

Ecclesiastes 7:29. 'Truly, this only have I found: that God made man [or 'Adam'] upright, but they have sought out many schemes.'
Romans 5:12. 'Therefore just as through one man sin entered the world........' This can only have been after Adam was created, because at the end of the sixth day, God pronounced Creation 'very good' (Genesis 1:31), and this included Adam.

 

[JonC]

I'm sorry to crash into the middle of this thread. I've been busy and haven't has time to read it before.
Ecclesiastes 7:29. 'Truly, this only have I found: that God made man [or 'Adam'] upright, but they have sought out many schemes.'
Romans 5:12. 'Therefore just as through one man sin entered the world........' This can only have been after Adam was created, because at the end of the sixth day, God pronounced Creation 'very good' (Genesis 1:31), and this included Adam.

No apologies needed - you are certainly welcome to "crash the party". We can use all the support we can get.

Amen. God has indeed made men upright but they have sought our many schemes. This is my point (as I'm sure you are aware, the passage is not referring to Adam singular). And I don't think that anyone has argued against the teaching that sin and death entered the world through Adam's act. No one has argued that Adam was created and then he sinned, either. The Hebrew religion did not believe that men inherited Adam's sin, so it is probably best not to pretend Scripture implies such. These are good passages, and they prove my point. Thanks for bringing them up.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

No apologies needed - you are certainly welcome to "crash the party". We can use all the support we can get.

Amen. God has indeed made men upright but they have sought our many schemes.

Which 'men' are you referring to? He certainly did not make me upright; nor, I think, you (Psalm 51:5).

This is my point (as I'm sure you are aware, the passage is not referring to Adam singular).

I am aware of no such thing. It can only be referring to Adam.

And I don't think that anyone has argued against the teaching that sin and death entered the world through Adam's act. No one has argued that Adam was created and then he sinned, either. The Hebrew religion did not believe that men inherited Adam's sin, so it is probably best not to pretend Scripture implies such.

I am not concerned with what the Hebrew religion may or may not have believed; I am interested in what the Scripture teaches, and it clearly teaches that mankind is fallen in Adam.

These are good passages, and they prove my point. Thanks for bringing them up.

 

[JonC]

Which 'men' are you referring to? He certainly did not make me upright; nor, I think, you (Psalm 51:5).

I am aware of no such thing. It can only be referring to Adam.

I am not concerned with what the Hebrew religion may or may not have believed; I am interested in what the Scripture teaches, and it clearly teaches that mankind is fallen in Adam.

God "knits" us, forms us, in our mother's womb. God does not knit sin into us, for He is not the Author of evil. We, like Adam, choose to disobey. This is sin.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

God "knits" us, forms us, in our mother's womb. God does not knit sin into us, for He is not the Author of evil.

No indeed. Yet we are still sinners from our mothers' wombs. Since God is not the Author of evil, we must have inherited in some way the fallen nature of Adam. Thank you for proving my point.

We, like Adam, choose to disobey. This is sin.

Indeed, but there is a difference. Adam came straight from the hands of God, who pronounced His creation very good, and you will note that it was better after the creation of Adam than before (Genesis 1:25, 31). Yet God did not pronounce it perfect. Adam was sinless yet 'peccable'-- 'Posse peccare'- capable of sin. But we have inherited Adam's fallen nature and in our natural state are 'non posse non peccare'-- not able not to sin. That is why we are 'by nature, children of wrath' (Ephesians 2:3). Adam was not a child of wrath by nature, nor could he have been in a 'very good' creation.

 

[Aaron]

God created Adam, but until Adam disobeyed God Adam hadn't sinned. But Adam (as God created Adam) disobeyed God.

Here's your first error . . .

Adam was created good, and a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit (just taking Christ at His word here).

Before Adam could sin, corruption set in. He was not created corrupt, he became corrupt. What was the corrupting influence?

 

[Aaron]

Christ is impeccable. He took on the same flesh you and I have.

My point exactly. You should be as clear in your previous posts.