How Did the Fall of Adam Affect the Lord Jesus?

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?

 

How Did the Fall of Adam Affect the Lord Jesus?

 

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" ?

 

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?

 

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

 

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,

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.

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

Not really. I deal with the more difficult issues.

We all do that.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

 

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:

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.....

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

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

 

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?

 

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