Why does it follow that we "must" have inherited anything from Adam?
Why assume something had to occur before Adam could sin?
Maybe, we simply have the capacity to make choices, just like Adam, and like him.....we all sin?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
How Did the Fall of Adam Affect the Lord Jesus?
- Thread starter Yeshua1
- Start date
- Status
Why assume something had to occur before Adam could sin?
Maybe, we simply have the capacity to make choices, just like Adam, and like him.....we all sin?
I believe Adam sinned just as we sin (I believe James is applicable to Adam's sin as well as to ours). Are you suggesting "the Fall" occurred prior to Adam's sin? If so, to which verse are you referring?
Correct. It was in his heart before it was in his act, just as Christ affirmed. But Adam was not created with an evil heart.
He was created good, but not incorruptible. [Christ (the same yesterday, today and forever) is incorruptible.]
So again, What corrupted Adam?
You are misapplying what the passage in Genesis actually states. The first Chapter tells us that all of Creation was good. This was prior to the “Fall” (prior to Adam’s sin and prior to God subjecting Creation to “futility”).
The reason that you believe the verse is speaking to Adam’s nature is because you misunderstand sin to be something within the nature of man rather than an act of the will.
The reason we disagree is that I view a consistency in Scripture where you view a dichotomy between pre-fallen Adam and post-fallen Adam. This is not present in Scripture. Jesus teaches us that the fruit bears witness of the tree. Adam’s transgression of God’s command reveals human nature when compared to God. If Adam indeed had a "perfect nature" and if our nature dictates whether or not we will sin, then Adam would not have sinned. Adam, like us, had a human nature. And this is the only way Scripture (which is our authority) deals with nature - "flesh" and "spirit". Adam sinned and fell short of the glory of God because he was human. We sin and fall short of the glory of God because we are human. Adam, just like us, needed a spiritual birth.
Adam's "nature" did not change (it was not corrupted). Adam was tempted when he was carried away and enticed by his own lust. When lust had conceived it gave birth to sin, and when sin was accomplished it brought forth death.
So you disagree with Jesus, that a good tree CAN bring forth evil fruit.
Adam was corrupted by a lie. Once corruption set in, he could do no other than eat of the fruit. As Jesus said, a corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit.
No, I don't disagree with Jesus at all. If we play that game I'd ask you if you disagree with God (what you reject is James 1:14).
I disagree with you that Adam was created with a nature equal to God (anything else would fall short).
Your misunderstanding is that you believe sin to be an issue of nature rather than will. When placed in the Garden Adam was going to fail because he had a human nature. I believe this was intended by God (I don't think Adam's sin took God off guard). The command and the consequences of disobedience demonstrate man in relation to God. Scripture is consistent.
One problem here is that some seem to draw a partial verse out and apply it to Adam’s nature itself.
On the 6th day God said “It is good”. Adam’s sin had repercussions. Inherited sin is not among those consequences. Inherited nature, however, is. We have a human nature just as Adam had a human nature.
That which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of spirit is spirit. We must be born of the Spirit just as Adam needed to be born of the Spirit.
On the 6th day God said “It is good”. Adam’s sin had repercussions. Inherited sin is not among those consequences. Inherited nature, however, is. We have a human nature just as Adam had a human nature.
That which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of spirit is spirit. We must be born of the Spirit just as Adam needed to be born of the Spirit.
LOL. So the angels fall short of God's glory.
I'm not sure where you get the idea I ever said Adam was created with a nature equal to God, but to be made lower than God, or even a little lower than the angels is not what is meant by falling short. *shakes head*
Let me ask you this: Is it possible, that any one descendant of Adam could NOT sin?
Why?
I don't believe that Adam was created equal to God. I believe that men were created as human beings with a human nature. They are created, as you say, "a little lower than the angles".
Is it possible that a descendant of Adam could not sin? Yes, of course it is. It is not a matter of nature but a matter of will. Is it possible that a descent of Adam would not sin? No, of course not. Men sin and fall short of the glory of God. We have Adam's nature. The exception being Christ who took upon Himself human nature yet remained obedient to the Father in all things.
But the fiction of Adam falling before the Fall and that fallen nature being passed on to us as sin is more akin to Marvel than Scripture.
It is actually an important aspect of the discussion.
What separates Christ the Man from all other men, including Adam, is that at no time was He separated from God.
Adam enjoyed fellowship with God, which may or may not be likened to our fellowship with Him when we are redeemed, immersed into God in eternal union, and thus born again. I lean to the to the position that Adam was not in eternal union with God, but rather that he was more likely filled with the Spirit as was the norm in the Old Testament.
When Adam sinned, which was a willful violation of the direct command of God, he lost that communion with God and access to the Tree of Life, thus death entered the world, and consequently all of his offspring are born in that state.
Christ's conception and birth, on the other hand, was not due to procreation, but the flesh He took upon Himself was created in the womb of Mary, and again, the one thing that distinguishes Him from all other men is that He never shed His Deity, and was thus never separated from God.
That is man's condition, and the reason he sins. I think Martin put it best:
And the reason is because we are conceived and born separated from God. "Not sinning" requires the intevention of God.
Yes. That too is an important element of the discussion, because no man has life except he eat of Christ's flesh and drink His blood, which is to say...believes on Him in His capacity as Risen Savior. The True Bread He gave was His flesh, or in other words, His offering of Himself in our stead, taking upon Himself our penalty for sin, which is death.
Not spiritual death, because Christ did not die spiritually to achieve Atonement. He died physically.
Dead because of Adam's sin.
Agreed, He did not shed His Divine Nature. What He did was veil that Nature in flesh, thus taking on the limitations imposed by the flesh.
God bless.
Last edited:
I don't think Scripture will bear that out. It is clear he was judged a sinner by his actions and suffered the consequences of his sin, losing communion with God and access to the Tree of Life, thus death entered the world and was passed on to his descendants.
I think we do well to understand Paul's statement in a temporal context, because eternal life and judgment was not carried out under the Law, but physical death was.
Romans 5:13-14
King James Version (KJV)
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
Apart from law, death continued to occur, but under Law, death sentences were carried out in the physical sense.
God bless.
I agree we are born without the Spirit of God, but, I would disagree with the concept we are condemned after we sin. We are born in a state of condemnation because we are born separated from God, and that separation ends through Atonement, Eternal Redemption, eternal union with God, and the subsequent regeneration which occurs as a result of the prior.
A babe that dies in the womb, though never having sinned, does not receive a declaration of righteousness because they did not get the chance to sin. They are justified through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, even as the Old Testament Saint was. In both cases this is retroactive to their physical lives. Why I would say they are justified by Christ through the grace of God is that God judges according to the sin of the individual, and is consistent in His judgment, so it is logical He would bestow grace to those who had no capacity to personally commit sin.
God bless.
Not sure I understand your intent in this statement. Could you clarify what you mean by the imputation of "Jesus' perfect Law-keeping?"
But that would be from a temporal perspective. From the Eternal perspective He is in fact the One that determined His Work. He is the Creator, after all.
God bless.
What sin would you charge the newborn with?
Or the babe in the womb?
We see one instance where we see one filled with the Spirit from the time of birth:
Luke 1:15
King James Version (KJV)
15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.
Why is it not enough to know we are conceived and born separated from God, not having the life of God, and thus condemned? Meaning, there is no hope of our not falling short of the glory of God and sinning because we do not have the One Who can keep us from sinning in our lives?
I think it is better viewed as we have inherited Adam's condition. We might use being born in poverty as an example. Like those born in poverty were not born into wealth and thus escape the effects of poverty, we are not born in close direct communion with God having access to the Tree of Life, which would not mean we would escape the potential for sin (as Adam did not), but, hopefully you see what I mean.
God bless.
Last edited:
I too see a dichotomy in regards to the conditions of man's existence, though I know you refer to the "nature." I would agree that Adam and ourselves have a similar nature, both capable of sin. The great distinction between he and us, though, is that from Day Six (and Day One, lol (for Adam)) Adam was in direct relationship with God.
That is not the case for those who are born to sinful parents, who will receive the example they give, rather than receiving direct command from God Himself, face to face.
God bless.
A few have determined to teach that salvation was accomplished through Jesus's perfect keeping of the Mosaic Law and the "righteousness of God" attributed to our account is this lawkeeping. It's a view not worth the time to consider.
Yes, in terms of the Godhead. But not in terms of the Son of Man.
Yes, the relationship was broken (and Adam cast out of the Garden where he had been placed). Do you find any significance in Scripture teaching that Adam was not created in the Garden but was placed there and given charge of Creation?
Agreed.
That was the point, lol.
A clear distinction between what is relevant to His Incarnation and His Deity makes a difference in how we understand certain passages.
God bless.
- Status