Or, by that same logic, would not have been able to be tempted in any way whatsoever...let alone like as we are, in direct contradiction to the Scriptures.
Your argument proves too much.
-
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
Your argument proves too much.
Jesus expereinced temptation as same as us, but there was NOTHING in Him that could respond to sin!
I think He was probably tempted often, and every man is tempted through the course of life.
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?
He was, we are told that.
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.
Why can we not view Christ as sinless, and ministering through the power of the Holy Ghost? Both are true.
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 is an impossibility.
Correct. Being God, He had a slight advantage over us. 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.
And the intrinsic link between Christ and God is the reason why those who claimed He did so through the power of Beelzebub blasphemed the Spirit.
While one could speak against the Man, one cannot speak against the God.
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.
God bless.
Thank you for your thought-provoking post... 
He is (in that view) simply a being which is "wholly other"....and not like us in any sense which matters.
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...
I don't think that's right.
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...
Frankly, I don't see it as particularly relevant to what we face.
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...
I don't think it really corresponds to us a whole lot...but that's a whole different discussion.
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.
But, I can't see that that is a statement which holds any deep meaning for you.
To say he was "tempted like as we are"....is a VERY powerful statement.
Any system which makes Christ something wholly other than us, not made of flesh like us....doesn't really do that Scriptural passage justice.
If he's impeccable, that's a very real problem.
But the observations of "Sprit Christology" are valuable tools...
It isn't a "System".
One can I.M.O. take it as far as one wants and no farther.
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.
2.) The 2nd person of the Trinity became ACTUAL FLESH...
He condescended and became a man....the second Adam.
He had no particular tools we don't have, other than the ministry of the third person of the Trinity who was with him throughout his ministry to show us sinless perfection.
Therefore, as the Scriptures teach he:
"Learned obedience"
"Grew in knowledge and wisdom"
"Was driven by the Holy Spirit"
"Waxed greater in knowledge"
etc...
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.
Adam wasn't "impeccable".
And he didn't have some "Sin Nature" he had to deal with.
Neither did Jesus.
because he never sinned.
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.
They are both true....
Neither requires a "Divine nature" which stands in contradistinction to humanity, human flesh or genuine humanity.
All three persons of the Trinity working in perfect concert together in the economy of salvation....
That does not require Christ being impeccable.
And it makes perfect sense of a Messiah who TRULY was tempted like as we are, and in every way, yet without sin.
that isn't a "slight" advantage over us.......it's overwhelming..
It means he isn't properly a human at all.
This Reformed Christology is docetic....
It isn't faithful to the Biblical text.
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. It MUST make Christ something other than truly a MAN.
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.
I deny that view.
Docetism wants to speak of "natures".
That's a Gnostic distinction of the interplay betwixt two things in Christ I have no need of.
I have no need of distinguishing between "Divine Nature" and "Human Nature".
None of that is a part of Spirit Christology.
It simply isn't necessary at all.
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.
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.
Augustine was simply wrong.
Augustine was a Gnostic, and felt compelled to make such systematic distinctions. They are unnecessary.
God bless, and thank you for your interaction
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.
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...
I don't think that's 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...
Frankly, I don't see it as particularly relevant to what we face.
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...
I don't think it really corresponds to us a whole lot...but that's a whole different discussion.
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.
Yes, and I've no doubt you accept that is true by faith....
But, I can't see that that is a statement which holds any deep meaning for you.
To say he was "tempted like as we are"....is a VERY powerful statement.
Any system which makes Christ something wholly other than us, not made of flesh like us....doesn't really do that Scriptural passage justice.
If he's impeccable, that's a very real problem.
I agree
But the observations of "Sprit Christology" are valuable tools...
It isn't a "System".
One can I.M.O. take it as far as one wants and no farther.
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.
2.) The 2nd person of the Trinity became ACTUAL FLESH...
He condescended and became a man....the second Adam.
He had no particular tools we don't have, other than the ministry of the third person of the Trinity who was with him throughout his ministry to show us sinless perfection.
Therefore, as the Scriptures teach he:
"Learned obedience"
"Grew in knowledge and wisdom"
"Was driven by the Holy Spirit"
"Waxed greater in knowledge"
etc...
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.
Adam wasn't "impeccable".
And he didn't have some "Sin Nature" he had to deal with.
Neither did Jesus.
He was sinless...............
because he never sinned.
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.
.
They are both true....
Neither requires a "Divine nature" which stands in contradistinction to humanity, human flesh or genuine humanity.
That's it!
All three persons of the Trinity working in perfect concert together in the economy of salvation....
That does not require Christ being impeccable.
And it makes perfect sense of a Messiah who TRULY was tempted like as we are, and in every way, yet without sin.
If you mean possessing an impeccable "Divine Nature".
that isn't a "slight" advantage over us.......it's overwhelming..
It means he isn't properly a human at all.
Right.....the same disadvantages plus an impeccable nature impervious to sin you mean????
This Reformed Christology is docetic....
It isn't faithful to the Biblical text.
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. It MUST make Christ something other than truly a MAN.
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.
I deny that view.
It isn't.
Docetism wants to speak of "natures".
That's a Gnostic distinction of the interplay betwixt two things in Christ I have no need of.
I have no need of distinguishing between "Divine Nature" and "Human Nature".
None of that is a part of Spirit Christology.
It simply isn't necessary at all.
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.
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.
Augustine was simply wrong.
Augustine was a Gnostic, and felt compelled to make such systematic distinctions. They are unnecessary.
God bless, and thank you for your interaction
Last edited:
The big difference between jesus and us is that we have a sin nature that wants to do sin against God, Jesus had no such nature in Him!
Mankind before the fall had a nature bent towards obeying God, after the fall, our nature is to rebel against God!Thank you for your thought-provoking post...
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.
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...
I don't think that's 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...
Frankly, I don't see it as particularly relevant to what we face.
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...
I don't think it really corresponds to us a whole lot...but that's a whole different discussion.
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.
Yes, and I've no doubt you accept that is true by faith....
But, I can't see that that is a statement which holds any deep meaning for you.
To say he was "tempted like as we are"....is a VERY powerful statement.
Any system which makes Christ something wholly other than us, not made of flesh like us....doesn't really do that Scriptural passage justice.
If he's impeccable, that's a very real problem.
I agree
But the observations of "Sprit Christology" are valuable tools...
It isn't a "System".
One can I.M.O. take it as far as one wants and no farther.
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.
2.) The 2nd person of the Trinity became ACTUAL FLESH...
He condescended and became a man....the second Adam.
He had no particular tools we don't have, other than the ministry of the third person of the Trinity who was with him throughout his ministry to show us sinless perfection.
Therefore, as the Scriptures teach he:
"Learned obedience"
"Grew in knowledge and wisdom"
"Was driven by the Holy Spirit"
"Waxed greater in knowledge"
etc...
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.
Adam wasn't "impeccable".
And he didn't have some "Sin Nature" he had to deal with.
Neither did Jesus.
He was sinless...............
because he never sinned.
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.
.
They are both true....
Neither requires a "Divine nature" which stands in contradistinction to humanity, human flesh or genuine humanity.
That's it!
All three persons of the Trinity working in perfect concert together in the economy of salvation....
That does not require Christ being impeccable.
And it makes perfect sense of a Messiah who TRULY was tempted like as we are, and in every way, yet without sin.
If you mean possessing an impeccable "Divine Nature".
that isn't a "slight" advantage over us.......it's overwhelming..
It means he isn't properly a human at all.
Right.....the same disadvantages plus an impeccable nature impervious to sin you mean????
This Reformed Christology is docetic....
It isn't faithful to the Biblical text.
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. It MUST make Christ something other than truly a MAN.
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.
I deny that view.
It isn't.
Docetism wants to speak of "natures".
That's a Gnostic distinction of the interplay betwixt two things in Christ I have no need of.
I have no need of distinguishing between "Divine Nature" and "Human Nature".
None of that is a part of Spirit Christology.
It simply isn't necessary at all.
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.
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.
Augustine was simply wrong.
Augustine was a Gnostic, and felt compelled to make such systematic distinctions. They are unnecessary.
God bless, and thank you for your interaction
Dude, you have zilch Scripture for that.
I know the theory....
It's a bunk theory.
Provide Scripture.
You mean that we have natures that love God and want to obey him before we were saved?
Again, Y1, this shows your misunderstanding of basic concepts. We are not tempted by sin. We do not respond to sin.
James 1:12-16
Blessed is a man who perseveres under trial; for once he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him. Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death. Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren.
We are doing those things due to all of us having a sin nature that well readily want to doing sin when the opportunity arises...
We are already infected with the sin virus, and only the blood of Jesus can cure it!
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.
No.
I mean speaking of "natures" that are impelled to do anything.......
is pure speculative Gnostic Philosophy.
You will never, in the Scripture, find teaching about anyone doing anything in "Divine Nature" over against his "Human Nature".
That is a category that exists only in Gnostic Augustinianism, and is found nowhere in Scripture.
It's pure non-Biblical Philosophy.
It has nothing to do with the Word of God.
It's vain Philosophy.................
but you don't know it, because you don't study Philosophy, so you have no idea how much it poisons your assumptions.
We're told explicitly that it is impossible for God to lie. It is, therefore, impossible for Jesus to lie. Shrouded in flesh or not, He was, is, and will be immutable and incorruptible. He is the Truth, and the Life.
If, as James said, to offend in one point of the law is to be guilty of all, then the impossibility of offending in one point is the impossibility of being guilty of any.
We're also told that God cannot deny Himself. Jesus, therefore, cannot be unfaithful.
If, as James said, to offend in one point of the law is to be guilty of all, then the impossibility of offending in one point is the impossibility of being guilty of any.
We're also told that God cannot deny Himself. Jesus, therefore, cannot be unfaithful.
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
As to His nature: No where is Adam described as a partaker of the divine nature. Adam was corruptible, and was corrupted, and we in him.
Jesus is incorruptible.
Speculate till the cows come home about the nature of temptation, but let's have no more of this changing the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man.
Jesus is incorruptible.
Speculate till the cows come home about the nature of temptation, but let's have no more of this changing the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man.
You have absolutely no scripture to support that goofy notion
Lol.
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
One more time.
. . . ALL have sinned.
Okay, one more time.
. . .ALL. Are you asserting the child in the womb is innocent? God doesn't say all WILL sin, but all have sinned.
How did that child in the womb sin, not having yet been born? By one man.
Good grief....
That's talking about our outer man. Physical death.
And according to one Greek scholar it's best rendered "all have come to feel the effects of sin" - i.e. physical death.
That's why verses 9 and 10 say having been justified by his death, we shall be saved by His life - his life after he died. His bodily Resurrection will save us from the grave. He was the first fruits of Resurrection
That's also why Paul said that men were dying even before the law. The law only pronounced physical death.
That's why there is a synonymous ring in 1 Corinthians 15:20-22
20But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. 21For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive
Which is why verses 18 and 19 have a universal ring to them. Every person ever born will die physically because of Adam, and every person ever born will be raised physically because of Christ.
Your proof text is nothing but a reach.
"All have sinned."
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
- Status