What Happened To mankind in the fall of Adam ?

[JonC]

@Aaron hit the nail squarely on the head. Jesus was "flesh" like we are "flesh". He shared in our human nature, yet in that nature he did not sin.

The problem with @Yeshua1 's misunderstanding here is that it negates the purpose of the Incarnation. Jesus became human (like we are human) in order to redeem us. Had Jesus come in some other nature (i.e., a type of human nature that hypothetically existed only with Adam and Eve, but was then lost), impervious to physical weakness, sickness and death (except he be killed) then we would have no hope as he wouldn't have been our representative. The Incarnation itself becomes meaningless.

Jesus was not more than us in his human nature, nor was he less than God in his divinity. We may not be able to understand this as the "math" doesn't add up, but it is something that we can accept because it is what Scripture teaches.

 

[HankD]

I think we can all agree that we are, seemingly, born Spiritually "Life-less" (or dead, however you want to say it.) That's why our Lord said, "You must be born-again (born from above)." Our spirit-man is unregenerate--we are attracted to that which is contrary to the Nature and Characteristics of God.

I find it interesting, however, that Paul says in Romans 7:9 that he was "alive once" before the law. How does this square up with being born "Spiritually life-less"?

Exactly, what kind of "life" was he talking about? Underline the pronoun "I". The life of self.

Matthew 10:39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.

 

[Darrell C]

I think we can all agree that we are, seemingly, born Spiritually "Life-less" (or dead, however you want to say it.) That's why our Lord said, "You must be born-again (born from above)." Our spirit-man is unregenerate--we are attracted to that which is contrary to the Nature and Characteristi

It is more likely that the Lord stated "Ye must be born from above." That Nicodemus likely misinterpreted the Lord's use of anōthen doesn't change anything (Example, "That man is lying," responded to with "No, he is standing up!"). He goes on to say one must be born of the Spirit, which would correlate to being "born from above," which would correlate to being Born of God, which is dealt with in Chapter One.

Being born again refers to the second birth. When we are born the first time, it is not with a sin nature, the sin nature is the inevitable result of what we are born without: the life Christ came to give.

We, unlike Jesus Christ, were born separated from God, that is why we sin. But to charge the babe in the womb with sin simply because he/she is born of Adam makes little sense (And I am not saying you say this in this post). It suggests God unjustly credits sin to those who cannot possibly have sinned, when we are told God will judge men according to their works and words.

Christ came to remedy man's condition, which is separation from God. A "sin nature" is not the result of the Fall, because it's pretty obvious that sin was already something man was capable of. And we note that it occurred when Adam and Eve were apart from God's physical presence in the Garden, and the result was a separation without end in a physical sense (they were thrust out of the Garden). Physical reunion will ultimately be fulfilled in the Eternal State, when we will dwell with God as Adam did before he disobeyed the Word of God.


God bless.

 

[Yeshua1]

I'm not trying to be mean, but are you reading anything i'm writing? This is a very difficult dialogue.

In Romans Chapter 7, Paul is addressing his struggle as a Jew, trying to Mature through obedience to the Law even though he was unregenerate. He is describing his helpless state prior to being born again...

Romans 7:1
Or do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to those who know the law

Paul then proceeds to describe his efforts as an unregenerate Jew.

Nope, was showing to us that unless we avail ourselves of the empowerment of the Holy Spirit, even the saved will be weak in the flesh!

 

[Yeshua1]

Hebrews 2:14, 17; 4:15. 'Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same........Therefore in all things He had to be made like His brethren..........yet without sin.'

The idea that the Lord Jesus did not partake of human flesh is the error of Melchiorism, named after Melchior Hoffmann, an early Anabaptist, who taught that Christ was born of 'celestial flesh.'

I am not saying that jesus did not a physical flesh body as we all have, but that he did have the sin nature that we have! he was born without having that....

 

[JonShaff]

Nope, was showing to us that unless we avail ourselves of the empowerment of the Holy Spirit, even the saved will be weak in the flesh!

I agree with that, to some extent...but the empowerment of the Holy Spirit is expounded in Chapter 8, not 7.

Side note...all too often we get hung up on this idea of a "Constant struggle in the flesh" when, if we remove the chapter break, chapter 8 tells us it doesn't have to be so...we have the Victory in Christ by the Holy Spirit of the Living GOD--Who lives in us--Christ in us, the hope of glory!

 

[Yeshua1]

He did partake of human flesh or we could not be saved. We just did not get sin through being human,

we were all born with a sin nature, Jesus was not.....

 

[Yeshua1]

Jesus most often identified with the title "Son of man". IMHO, it would be foolish to believe this was just a bookmark to Daniel. So we have to ask, why? Was Jesus really a "son of man"? Did Jesus truly come in the likeness of sinful flesh? Was he really human? All of this and yet without sin?

Or is there a third nature, one that Scripture simply omits but teaches by implication? Is there a human nature that only three people (Adam, Eve, and Jesus) possessed? Was the biblical teaching that Jesus shared in our circumstances, our natures, our temptations so that he can truly empathize with us simply an exaggeration? Was Jesus "more human than human"?

On this board it has been claimed that had Jesus not been killed by the Jews he would have lived forever. He never caught a cold, had a stomach ache, ran a fever. Can this Jesus really identify with us who are subject to death and prone to illness?

I believe that Scripture goes to great lengths to affirm the first statement - that Jesus was truly human (as we are human). The second idea (that there is a third nature men may possess yet is unmentioned in Scripture) seems to be dependent on theological conclusions and not remotely close to Scripture itself. There are far too many assumptions made regarding the nature of sin (passed down genetically, physical, a result of nature and not the will) to be taken seriously. Scripture tells us why our hearts are wicked - why we sin. It is not because of our nature...not even because of our desires. It is because we feed our desires when faced with temptation. We turn to ourselves rather than to God. But what has been proposed as a "sin nature" here (to demonstrate Jesus did not come "in the flesh" as we are "flesh" is nothing short of an old heresy repackaged.

Jesus self identified as the Son of man of Daniel, as the Messianic figure that was said to be coming, and not using that to see Himself as being son of man as referring to his humanity.

 

[Yeshua1]

This is false. Jesus, according to the flesh, decended from Adam through Mary.

The thinking that sin is tied to material things and comes through the male half of conception is a superstition.

We all get our life from Adam. Jesus doesn't. Jesus is eternal. His body could have been made "in the family way" and Christ would still be incorruptible and sinless.

He was conceived of/by the Holy Spirit in Mary, correct?

 

[Yeshua1]

@Aaron hit the nail squarely on the head. Jesus was "flesh" like we are "flesh". He shared in our human nature, yet in that nature he did not sin.

The problem with @Yeshua1 's misunderstanding here is that it negates the purpose of the Incarnation. Jesus became human (like we are human) in order to redeem us. Had Jesus come in some other nature (i.e., a type of human nature that hypothetically existed only with Adam and Eve, but was then lost), impervious to physical weakness, sickness and death (except he be killed) then we would have no hope as he wouldn't have been our representative. The Incarnation itself becomes meaningless.

Jesus was not more than us in his human nature, nor was he less than God in his divinity. We may not be able to understand this as the "math" doesn't add up, but it is something that we can accept because it is what Scripture teaches.

We are sinners, born with a sin nature, due to the fall of Adam, while Jesus had no sin nature in His humanity, as His Virgin Birth bypassed the effects of the fall!

 

[Yeshua1]

He was born in the same flesh as you and me. I'm not sure what that has to do with "sin nature".

Jesus was as much a human being as we are, except that he had no sin nature, as we all have!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I am not saying that jesus did not a physical flesh body as we all have, but that he did have the sin nature that we have! he was born without having that....

Where exactly do you find this term 'sin nature' in the Bible?
That we are all sinners from birth is undoubtedly true, and it is equally true that the Lord Jesus was not a sinner at any time.
What I read is that as to His human nature He was made in all things just as we are, yet without sin. That is enough for me; anything else is speculation.

 

[JonC]

We are sinners, born with a sin nature, due to the fall of Adam, while Jesus had no sin nature in His humanity, as His Virgin Birth bypassed the effects of the fall!

You keep repeating the same statement. Think about why you have proved unable to evidence your claim through Scripture. Think about why the Church denounced your position (that Jesus did not truly have the type of nature common to man) as heresy.

I believe the issue here is one of adopting a theology superficiality, ignoring the biblical basis from which it came, and building theory upon theory out of it.

This is common with post-postmodern thought. We see this in our culture. The younger generation appreciates older music (my kind of music) but as neo culture. For those my age, the music grew out of cultural experience. For the younger crowd their cultural environment is influenced by the music (the substance is different).

 

[Yeshua1]

Where exactly do you find this term 'sin nature' in the Bible?
That we are all sinners from birth is undoubtedly true, and it is equally true that the Lord Jesus was not a sinner at any time.
What I read is that as to His human nature He was made in all things just as we are, yet without sin. That is enough for me; anything else is speculation.

Jesus was not born with a sin nature, but all of us were....

 

[Yeshua1]

You keep repeating the same statement. Think about why you have proved unable to evidence your claim through Scripture. Think about why the Church denounced your position (that Jesus did not truly have the type of nature common to man) as heresy.

I believe the issue here is one of adopting a theology superficiality, ignoring the biblical basis from which it came, and building theory upon theory out of it.

This is common with post-postmodern thought. We see this in our culture. The younger generation appreciates older music (my kind of music) but as neo culture. For those my age, the music grew out of cultural experience. For the younger crowd their cultural environment is influenced by the music (the substance is different).

Do we have a sin nature in us when born?

 

[glad4mercy]

I wish you would quote scripture so i can at least identify with what you are talking about.

A better term would be fallen nature. Romans 7 and other passages teach that due to the Fall, we have a law of sin in our flesh that brings us into captivity until we are freed by the Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus


Man indeed is fallen, but if Christ sets you free you are free indeed

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Jesus was not born with a sin nature, but all of us were....

I don't know what a sin nature is; I don't find the term in Scripture. If you mean that Jesus was not born a sinner, but all of us were, then I agree with you.

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't know what a sin nature is; I don't find the term in Scripture. If you mean that Jesus was not born a sinner, but all of us were, then I agree with you.

The sin aspect of our nature as being humans who are not willing to agree with God, to submit to Him, our own self will so to speak!

 

[JonC]

Do we have a sin nature in us when born?

No. We are responsible for our sin - can't blame it on God making us with a sin nature. We have a human nature and we choose to sin. Jesus has a human nature and did not sin. I am not exactly sure where you are getting this idea that Jesus was born with a different kind of human nature.

 

[Yeshua1]

No. We are responsible for our sin - can't blame it on God making us with a sin nature. We have a human nature and we choose to sin. Jesus has a human nature and did not sin. I am not exactly sure where you are getting this idea that Jesus was born with a different kind of human nature.

We are born as sinners, and we continue to sin, as all fs are accountable to God.Is not a belief in humans having sin natures one of the orthodox truths of Christianity?
Jesus did not see, as God cannot sin....