1. 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?

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Yeshua1, Feb 17, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    33,965
    Likes Received:
    837
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Was He born with exact same nature that we all received as due to the fall, or not?
     
  2. Darrell C

    Darrell C Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    8,735
    Likes Received:
    242
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Not.

    Man's has the nature he has because he is separated from God, and thus cannot accomplish that which is righteous from an eternal perspective.

    Jesus Christ, on the other hand...is God.

    His glory was veiled in human flesh, and He suffered from the effects of the Fall like as we do, seen in His being tired, hungry, thirsty, etc.

    So we cannot say He was "born with the same nature," because the nature of man is a result of separation from God, and at no time was the Son separated from the Father, that is simply an impossibility.

    And just to answer the question that usually comes after this statement, no, not even on the Cross was Christ separated from God, though He quotes David, "My God, my GOd, why hast thou forsaken me?"

    If you look at the Psalm, one thing you will not fail to see is that even in David's initial plea, God never forsook him:


    Psalm 22:24
    King James Version (KJV)

    24 For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard.



    God bless.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    33,965
    Likes Received:
    837
    Faith:
    Baptist
    So you would agree that Jesus was born without that deposition towards sinning, that He did not have those sinful aspects of Him, as we all do?
     
  4. Darrell C

    Darrell C Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    8,735
    Likes Received:
    242
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Here is what I said. I will add some emphasis to accent where I stand:

    So we cannot say He was "born with the same nature," because the nature of man is a result of separation from God, and at no time was the Son separated from the Father, that is simply an impossibility.


    God bless.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. JonC

    JonC Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    12,473
    Likes Received:
    1,017
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes. Jesus had the same nature as we have, but without sin.There exists no biblical text that says we have a nature which is fallen. Instead, we have a human nature and are enslaved to sin and death. Jesus had the same nature that we have, yet He conquered sin and death. He is victorious where Adam was not.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  6. HeirofSalvation

    HeirofSalvation Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2012
    Messages:
    2,216
    Likes Received:
    31
    I find the insights of "Spirit Christology" * to be of value. I have only begun scratching the surface yet, but it helps us avoid the schizophrenic Jesus often portrayed by some Christology:
    Man, but not really....God of course, but in all ways tempted as a man....except not really really really tempted or capable of sinning because he is God after all and not suffering from Original Sin etc.... kind of limitations often found in classical Christology.

    http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0021140015616520

    excerpt:
    ...............Consider the challenges that arise when the Son’s incarnation is understood without any reference to the Spirit—an exclusive Logos Christology. Such an understanding has Jesus revealing God to humanity substantially; he is God in the flesh. And because of this substantial, hypostatic union our salvation can and should be understood as genuinely ontological. The challenge comes when such an exclusive Logos Christology (which defines Jesus’ divinity solely through the Son without any reference to the Spirit) tries to reconcile its ontological understanding with the biblical accounts of Jesus’ activity. Consider some of Jesus’ more obvious supernatural actions. How on earth did Jesus do miracles, control nature, and resist temptation? If he utilized the resources of his divine nature directly, then he has not experienced our condition—he is not fully human. But according to an exclusive Logos Christology, Jesus has (by definition) no other divine resources to draw on.
    An exclusive Logos Christology is thus not capable of providing a comprehensive explanation for how divinity and humanity function within Jesus. Being exclusively a theology ‘from above,’ it understands the God-man in purely ontological terms, but neglects his activity. The core problem is that Jesus’ divinity is fully contained and explained in the hypostatic union between his human and divine nature, with the latter defined only as the Son’s divine nature. But this single divine reality within Jesus proves inadequate to explain how such a hypostatic union is feasible.8 If Jesus’ actions were achieved even partly by directly utilizing the divine resources of his Sonship, then precisely to that degree his humanity is denied. In any simplistically bipolar interaction, Jesus’ divinity overwhelms his humanity with an unavoidably Docetic result. Given this, Christologies that deny or neglect the genuine reality of the Spirit within the person of Jesus can be grouped under a category labelled as Spirit-Docetism. Their error is to deny or neglect the Spirit, but their inevitable result is to minimize Christ’s humanity.


    * Some proponents of certain sorts of "Spirit Christologies" appear largely adoptionistic and are certainly not Orthodox at all.
     
    #6 HeirofSalvation, Feb 19, 2018
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2018
  7. Darrell C

    Darrell C Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    8,735
    Likes Received:
    242
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Here is something to consider: men have a spirit and a body, so when we consider Christ being God manifest in the flesh, we would not say that a spirit was created when God took up residence in human flesh. That would create the schizophrenic concept you speak of, in my view.

    Secondly, God is One, so we would not separate The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in the Incarnation, because that is an impossibility. I look at it like this: the Son of God did not relinquish His Deity or union with God by taking on flesh, however, His glory was veiled by that flesh, much like we might picture a great fisherman having a large quilt thrown over him and being told, "Catch a big one..."

    The display of power we see in Christ during His ministry is no different than displays of power throughout the Old Testament, it is the Spirit of God ministering in and through Christ, just as He has always ministered in and through men for the purpose of empowering them for ministry.

    So He was faced with limitations due to taking on flesh, but, we cannot imply that He had a "sin nature." Man has a nature bent towards sin because He does not have what Christ had, which is union with God. If we limit a possibility for Christ to yield to sin to the flesh only, we still have the same issue, He was never at any time separated from God, and He never at any time ceased to be the God the Son.


    God bless.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    22,799
    Likes Received:
    1,679
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes he was tempted in all ways as we, what it proved is that He was UNABLE to sin.

    That is why the temptation in the wilderness is recorded - Satan was allowed to put Him to the test to give US that assurance lest we go through eternity wondering what would have happened had He yielded.

    Arguments we make against each other (now and in past forums).

    Jesus could sin - You have blasphemed God.
    Jesus could not sin - You have blasphemed God.

    Take your pick.
     
  9. HeirofSalvation

    HeirofSalvation Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2012
    Messages:
    2,216
    Likes Received:
    31
    That he was "UNABLE" to sin is nowhere clearly taught or "proved".
    You can believe that, but, I would argue then his "temptation" is not in any meaningful sense like ours.
    I think there are a few reasons....
    Who (according to the gospels) "drove him into the wilderness to be tempted of Satan?"
    Who was with him and how might that be important?
    Why did he fast?
    Do you think the temptation in the wilderness was all that Jesus suffered?
    Why would we not know what would have happened had he yielded?
    I think neither is blasphemous and have been believed by good Christian men and women.
    I believe even the late R.C. Sproul surprisingly was at least non-committal.
    I think that to believe he COULD not sin is docetic and unnecessary, and not Biblical, but it's hardly "blasphemous".
    Nah, neither is blasphemous.

    God bless.
     
  10. JonShaff

    JonShaff Fellow Servant
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2015
    Messages:
    2,589
    Likes Received:
    335
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Christ is impeccable

    Does this apply?

    James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempts he any man:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Darrell C

    Darrell C Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    8,735
    Likes Received:
    242
    Faith:
    Baptist
    How is stating Christ, the Eternal Son of God, could not have sinned (because that would have gone against His nature as God)...blasphemy?


    God bless.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Darrell C

    Darrell C Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    8,735
    Likes Received:
    242
    Faith:
    Baptist
    This is a good question.

    I view His suffering to include His great sorrow over the condition of man. We might compare it to a parent viewing a wayward child, who, though they still love them, know that they cannot step in and control matters, even though they could easily put to rest the issue causing the grief.

    In regards to Christ asking that "the cup pass," I view this not to speak of Christ desiring not to go to the Cross, but that it would take place that the suffering He held for mankind's condition could be remedied.


    God bless.
     
  13. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    22,799
    Likes Received:
    1,679
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You could sift through the past forums to verify what I am repeating but you yourself have said it; in the proverbial nutshell to say God can sin is blasphemy.
    The converse made by the opponents is to say that if He is/was unable to sin is to deny His humanity which is also blasphemy.

    Again, take your pick.
     
  14. Darrell C

    Darrell C Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    8,735
    Likes Received:
    242
    Faith:
    Baptist
    It's not a valid "pick," lol.

    You are giving validity to the statement that if one says Christ could not sin then we deny His humanity.

    Scripture distinguishes between Christ and all other men, no reason why we should not do the same.

    So I would have to say past conversations sound like people "agreed to disagree," and I am just horrible at that, in case you haven't noticed.

    ;)


    God bless.
     
  15. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    33,965
    Likes Received:
    837
    Faith:
    Baptist
    So we were not affected by the fall, as in being now found spiritually dead, and having a sin nature?
    Why did Jesus even have the Virgin Birth than, if not needed in order to bypass the Fall?
     
  16. HeirofSalvation

    HeirofSalvation Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2012
    Messages:
    2,216
    Likes Received:
    31
    According to the only evidence the Scriptures give, it was to be a sign...whereby the faithful could recognize their Messiah.
    Isa. 7: 14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
    The idea that it was to escape Christ's possessing a "sin nature" somehow passed down through a male's physical seed is nowhere even remotely attested by Scripture.
    It is wholly of Gnostic / Neo-Platonic influences mildly working their way into (Western) Christian thought.

    All the Scriptures have to say about it is that it was a sign.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. HeirofSalvation

    HeirofSalvation Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2012
    Messages:
    2,216
    Likes Received:
    31
    What I meant by the question was whether the "Temptation" attested in the wilderness was the only time Christ suffered temptation...(which I cannot relate to in any way and were unique to Christ) in lieu of living daily with the same temptations and struggles that we do.
    Satan has never offered me the kingdoms of the world or asked me to throw myself off the temple mount etc...or anyone else I know.

    I think Christ was tempted like as we are, if he was impeccable, than he was in no sense tempted like us.
    Hence, why I think the observations of Spirit Christology are promising. Rather than appealing to an impeccability due to Christ's "Divine nature" winning out over his "human nature"....The Holy Spirit of God was intimately and thoroughly involved in the economy of Salvation along with the Father and the Son throughout his ministry. It was through his "Divine Nature" that he could remain without sin....the same way that we can gain victory over sin, through the power of the Holy Spirit with whom Christ remained in loving perfect communion throughout his life.

    How did Christ claim to have cast out Devils?
    Through cutting his "Divine Nature" loose, wielding a power that he simply possessed.... or through the Spirit?
     
  18. JonShaff

    JonShaff Fellow Servant
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2015
    Messages:
    2,589
    Likes Received:
    335
    Faith:
    Baptist
    (This may have already been said) But the Virgin birth also purposed to reveal Christ as the one possessing the Birthright as God is His father, not man. Christ is the Heir to all things which causes us to be "co-heirs" as well. That is the main point (imo) of Christ's virgin birth.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  19. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    33,965
    Likes Received:
    837
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Jesus, being found as being very God, would not have been able to sin....
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    33,965
    Likes Received:
    837
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Also was required in order to have Jesus born without being conceived in sin, as all born after Adam were affected by having born as sinners!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...