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!
Darn, SG running out of time, rabbit trail questions aside,
When you make a false assertion don't expect an answer.
Sorry, but I can't help it if sticking to the question and defining terms messes up your guy's debate style...
Ah, but nary a word of Scripture jives with the notion that there is a "fallen" human nature (as opposed to an "un-fallen" one). The assumption is that human nature in its present state constitutes sin itself, but it is not exactly a biblical teaching if you know what I mean.
Ah, but nary a word of Scripture jives with the notion that there is a "fallen" human nature (as opposed to an "un-fallen" one). The assumption is that human nature in its present state constitutes sin itself, but it is not exactly a biblical teaching if you know what I mean.
Ah, but nary a word of Scripture jives with the notion that there is a "fallen" human nature (as opposed to an "un-fallen" one). The assumption is that human nature in its present state constitutes sin itself, but it is not exactly a biblical teaching if you know what I mean.
Your question does not even make logical sense dude, did the “Adam” (humanity) before the fall need representation before he even sinned and was sent back to ground that he came from? Did that Adam need to now put forth his hand and take from the tree of life? Jesus came to save those who were lost, to provide the way, was pre-fallen Adam lost? Your question dodges the subject and is merely an attempt to avoid defining the true human nature of Jesus Christ, as well as a blatant fallacious effort to avoid all the evidence I have given to support the orthodox and scriptural definitions to support that true nature Christ came in, and is indeed a doubly fallacious effort to produce a rabbit trail tactic while trying to reason toward a conclusion that amounts to a heretical view of Jesus Christ nature being a mere illusion of true humanity and sadly discounts the work of Christ to overcome sin in that nature.
I‘ve asked you to refute my (and the orthodox/scriptural) definition of humanity or define yours according to the baseless and unsupported conclusion you need to create about the nature of Christ to be pre-fallen “Adam” (humanity) in order to protect your systematic theology presuppositions, but your only focus is to desperately try to fabricate and come up with a definition of “Adam” that was before even the need of redemption.
Jesus was before Adam (humanity) period. He came through the Holy Spirit in real time in the flesh and blood form of true humanity that needed redemption as the seed of Abraham to fulfill the promise in faith. In faith and perfect obedience to the Father He overcame the death of Adam (humanity) in the true human nature but your conclusion would have Him in a meaningless quest to save some pre-fallen Adam with a nature that had not yet died and was rather now subject to a nature with acquired attributes that could not avoid but to sin and remain lost.
It seems merely another illusion you carry is that you have some kind of gotcha question above…
You have more problems than I can count with your efforts. To start with…
…nevermind, if you ain’t got the point yet there is no sense in spending my time repeating myself, I'm going to go wash my Jeep.
The first man, Adam, became a living being. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. The first man, Adam, was from the earth, a man of dust. The second man is from heaven. As was Adam, the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust. And as is Christ, the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.
So Adam predates Christ? Christ is not eternal?
Absolutely. They certainly did sin. But if the nature of things is correct (that flesh yields flesh, spirit yields spirit) and the fruits evidence the nature (for example see Matthew 7, Galatians 5, James 1, etc.) then the Fall (Adam's sin through which death entered the world) demonstrated that Adam was also created short of the glory of God. He yielded to his nature rather than God's will.
My personal belief (what I believe Scripture says of man) is that man, while created in God's image, was also created less than God. When we rely on our own righteousness (as Adam did in the Garden) we sin. We simply fall short of the glory of God. We can do what is right in our own eyes and still be wrong in terms of God's standard. When we take our eyes off of God to look upon ourselves then we sin. Not because we have a fallen human nature but because our created nature is less than God.
The prohibition on murder is based on man being created in God's image in Genesis 9:6. 1 Corinthians 11:7 also reaches back to this principle in regards to the family structure (as man, i.e., male, being created in God's image). James 3:9 also reaches back to the Imageo Dei when James condemns cursing man because we are made in God's image.
