Question on Jesus’ impeccability

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ask Mr. Religion

Flatly Unflappable
Adam did not have a glorified state body though, as we will have one for all eternity.
Huh?

Adam will have one when we have one, David. What are you really trying to say by this comment?
idunno.gif
 

JOwen

Puritan Board Junior
. You could say that if he wasn't able to sin was he really human, but he was fully, and you can't impose your concept of what it is to be human on the incarnation.

Amen. Sin was added to our human nature in the fall by disobedience. Sin is not a part of intrinsic humanity. In fact, the more we sin, the less human we become according to God's original creation. The God-Man in His incarnation was actually more human in that He was born in original righteousness (Heb. 4:15).
.
 

TylerRay

Puritan Board Graduate
And we will be even better off than Adam was, for while he had a sinless state for a time, we will be glorified and sinless state, as he was still flesh and blood?

Now quite sure what this means.

If you assume Adam was not a regenerated believer, then yes, we will be better off as believers.

I assume Adam was regenerated, hence he (and we) will be the same when we come into our glory at the Lord's second coming.

Adam did not have a glorified state body though, as we will have one for all eternity.
Huh?

Adam will have one when we have one, David. What are you really trying to say by this comment?
idunno.gif
Patrick,

I think David is contrasting Adam's estate before the fall with the believer's estate in glory.
 

earl40

Puritan Board Professor
Huh?

Adam will have one when we have one, David. What are you really trying to say by this comment?
idunno.gif

I think David asked a good question in that many correctly assumed Adam would have not died if he did not sin. Of course the answer is he would not have died, but I believe the more precise question is...What would have happened if Adam passed his probation and what would be different in his state? The ability to sin would have passed.

Of course I am speaking of the four fold "state" of man. :)
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
I think David asked a good question in that many correctly assumed Adam would have not died if he did not sin. Of course the answer is he would not have died, but I believe the more precise question is...What would have happened if Adam passed his probation and what would be different in his state? The ability to sin would have passed.

Of course I am speaking of the four fold "state" of man. :)
Would Adam and Eve than passed unto their descendants perfect humanity, and the ability to not sin?
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
Would Adam and Eve than passed unto their descendants perfect humanity, and the ability to not sin?

Hard to say, since any answer is speculative. One thinks, however, that had they eaten of Tree of Life, and were confirmed in their probationary innocence, they would have been "perfect."

Question of reproduction is more difficult, as very few theologians in the church said they would have reproduced sexually without the Fall.
 

earl40

Puritan Board Professor
Hard to say, since any answer is speculative. One thinks, however, that had they eaten of Tree of Life, and were confirmed in their probationary innocence, they would have been "perfect."

Question of reproduction is more difficult, as very few theologians in the church said they would have reproduced sexually without the Fall.

Though the command to multiply came before the fall. :)
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
Though the command to multiply came before the fall. :)

That's true, but many fathers said the reproducing would be in a passion-less, non sexual way. Even Turretin denied that they had sex before the Fall.

I'm not endorsing the above view, but it was the standard view for a very long time.
 

Bill The Baptist

Puritan Board Graduate
That's true, but many fathers said the reproducing would be in a passion-less, non sexual way. Even Turretin denied that they had sex before the Fall.

I'm not endorsing the above view, but it was the standard view for a very long time.

Yet more evidence that the fathers should be devoured heartily, but with at least one grain of salt.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
Yet more evidence that the fathers should be devoured heartily, but with at least one grain of salt.

While some of the Fathers were simply afraid of sexual intercourse, some did recognize a principle involved: the sexual act, particularly as it results in procreation, passes on mortality and, in the Augustinian tradition, a sin nature. That's certainly true post-fall. It's an open question pre-fall.
 

Bill The Baptist

Puritan Board Graduate
While some of the Fathers were simply afraid of sexual intercourse, some did recognize a principle involved: the sexual act, particularly as it results in procreation, passes on mortality and, in the Augustinian tradition, a sin nature. That's certainly true post-fall. It's an open question pre-fall.

True, but since the command to be fruitful and multiply was given prior to the fall, and since Adam and Eve presumably would have been immortal had they not fallen, then wouldn’t it follow that any child they might have conceived pre-fall would also have been immortal, and thus the sexual act would also have passed on immortality?
 

timfost

Puritan Board Senior
I've been chewing on this subject for some time now. I know that Christ has two natures. Separating the natures from the person leads to all kinds of theological errors. But not distinguishing the natures can also lead to errors (ubiquitarianism, for example).

Is it outrageous to think that in His human nature He was peccable and the divine nature impeccable? It has been pointed out to me that Christ is not a nature but a person. I certainly agree, though we affirm that Christ died on the cross, though the divine nature cannot die.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
True, but since the command to be fruitful and multiply was given prior to the fall, and since Adam and Eve presumably would have been immortal had they not fallen, then wouldn’t it follow that any child they might have conceived pre-fall would also have been immortal, and thus the sexual act would also have passed on immortality?

Yes, but most of the early Christian tradition would have rejected the view that pre-fall reproduction would have been male organ/female organ reproduction. Read Augustine's City of God section where he talks about that. It's actually hilarious
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
I've been chewing on this subject for some time now. I know that Christ has two natures. Separating the natures from the person leads to all kinds of theological errors. But not distinguishing the natures can also lead to errors (ubiquitarianism, for example).

Is it outrageous to think that in His human nature He was peccable and the divine nature impeccable? It has been pointed out to me that Christ is not a nature but a person. I certainly agree, though we affirm that Christ died on the cross, though the divine nature cannot die.

Yes. His human nature is peccable, his divine not. But he is also a divine Person, which overrides the human peccability.
 

earl40

Puritan Board Professor
Yes. His human nature is peccable, his divine not. But he is also a divine Person, which overrides the human peccability.

So back to the 4 fold state of man. :) So in your opinion the human nature of Jesus was born with the moral ability to sin? I understand natures do not sin but only people do. Now in saying such Our Lord was God and man, and He was able to be localized and omnipresent according to His 2 natures. In other words, the distinction (without separation) of the natures should be recognized and such being so one ought to think of Our Lord Jesus not being able to sin in both natures. His nature did not fall with the rest of humanity. The logical conclusion if one thinks His human nature is peccable must (or should) think Jesus was born with a fallen human nature.
 

Bill The Baptist

Puritan Board Graduate
Yes, but most of the early Christian tradition would have rejected the view that pre-fall reproduction would have been male organ/female organ reproduction. Read Augustine's City of God section where he talks about that. It's actually hilarious

Yeah, I understood what you meant. I just wanted to take the opportunity to show how much smarter I am than the fathers o_O
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
So back to the 4 fold state of man. :) So in your opinion the human nature of Jesus was born with the moral ability to sin? I understand natures do not sin but only people do. Now in saying such Our Lord was God and man, and He was able to be localized and omnipresent according to His 2 natures. In other words, the distinction (without separation) of the natures should be recognized and such being so one ought to think of Our Lord Jesus not being able to sin in both natures. His nature did not fall with the rest of humanity. The logical conclusion if one thinks His human nature is peccable must (or should) think Jesus was born with a fallen human nature.

I spoke too fast without thinking. No, his human nature is not peccable. But your final conclusion doesn't necessarily follow. Adam was born peccable but not fallen.
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
Jesus being in His very nature God could not sin, as He was/is always God . To say that in His humanity he was still able to sin would bedividing Him almost into 2 separate persons it would seem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top