Was Adam sinless before the Fall?

[robbyyoung]

Jesus said lusting after something is sinful and that's what Eve did before she even ate from the tree. Eve came out of Adam so they had the same DNA therefore Adam would have also lusted.

It stands to reason if they lusted after the tree they were not perfect in fact it's likely they lusted after other things.

Hi steve7150,

On the surface, this may be true, however, God doesn't make mention of this imperfection as an impediment for fellowship. Only the action noted, The Garden, brought sufficient judgment. For all we know, God, could have been instructing both Adam and Eve on life, and as Graeme said, they deliberately sinned.

God Bless.

[Paidion]

It stands to reason if they lusted after the tree they were not perfect in fact it's likely they lusted after other things.

Of course they were not perfect; they were immature, as Matt pointed out. To be perfect is to be complete and mature.
There is a vast difference between being perfect and being sinless. While Jesus walked this earth, He was always sinless, but He was not perfect until He suffered.

For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering. (Heb 2:10)

"Sinless" is akin to "flawless."
"Perfect" means "complete."

Consider two houses. One is in the process of being built. Excellent carpenters are at work. There is not a single flaw in any of their work. This house is flawless, but in not complete (not perfect). This may be compared to Jesus whose life was flawless, but not complete until He underwent suffering.

The second house is completed. But the carpenters made many boo-boos. This house is perfect, but not flawless.

[Paidion]

It stands to reason if they lusted after the tree they were not perfect in fact it's likely they lusted after other things.

Of course they were not perfect; they were immature, as Matt pointed out. To be perfect is to be complete and mature.
There is a vast difference between being perfect and being sinless. While Jesus walked this earth, He was always sinless, but He was not perfect until He suffered.

For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering. (Heb 2:10)

"Sinless" is akin to "flawless."
"Perfect" means "complete."

Consider two houses. One is in the process of being built. Excellent carpenters are at work. There is not a single flaw in any of their work. This house is flawless, but is not complete (not perfect). This may be compared to Jesus whose life was flawless, but not complete until He underwent suffering.

The second house is completed. But the carpenters made many boo-boos. This house is perfect, but not flawless.

I see no reason for thinking that Adam and Eve sinned in their hearts prior to eating from the tree. Not to eat from the tree was the only command that God had given them.
They were immature like children, though they had adult bodies. When the serpent tempted Eve, she responded, and thus committed the first sin. When Adam ate also, he committed the second sin.

[jriccitelli]

'Jesus never did sin, and I believe that He would not sin because Jesus is a perfect Spirit, and Spirit is ultimately what we truly are. We by contrast are completely of this earth and our spirit also is created and willing to sin' (Me)
What do you base this notion on? (editor)

Notion? All men are sinners, Jesus is not. And Jesus is from above, and we are not. He is The Spirit.

So then Jesus was not really tested in every way as we ourselves and cannot sympathize with our weaknesses? The only advantage Jesus had, in my opinion, over us as humans, besides possessing perfect flesh... (Editor)

We also will be like Him 'when' we are 'changed' but we will 'never' be Him. Only He is Holy and Eternally so, we have His Word.

We believe His Word on that, therefore we have a great hope, that we could not have in created beings or things.

[mattrose]

But once Adam (humanity) did sin, it became necessary for God's incarnation to include death and resurrection so that Adam (humanity) might be brought into the trinitarian life. It has always been necessary for God to take on flesh in order to invite flesh into trinitarian love, but subsequent to sin entering the world it became necessary for God to take on flesh AND die in order to create a path (via resurrection) for flesh to enter into trinitarian life.

Hi Matt,

This sounds reminiscent of Herbert Armstrongs's view that "elohim" is a "family". Could you elaborate?

I assume you are referring to my phrase "trinitarian life" or "trinitarian love"? Obviously trinitarians think that the term 'God' can refer to all 3 members of the trinity simultaneously (the word 'God' also has the semantic elasticity to refer, individually, to the Father or Son or Spirit). I would feel very comfortable saying that God is a family of sorts (after all, "Father" and "Son" are used often in the Bible). The Bible says that God IS love, which I find to be somewhat nonsensical if there is no relationship within God's very being. God is a loving relationship. That is what trinitarians believe.

[Paidion]

It may be because of the Father's capacity to love that He begat His Son before all ages, the first of His acts—in order to have someone to love.
Then perhaps the Two of Them wanted more beings to love, and the angels were created, and then a man and woman with the ability to reproduce themselves.

[mattrose]

It may be because of the Father's capacity to love that He begat His Son before all ages, the first of His acts—in order to have someone to love.
Then perhaps the Two of Them wanted more beings to love, and the angels were created, and then a man and woman with the ability to reproduce themselves.

No doubt, how one thinks about this issue is somewhat instinctual.

For me, if there was ever a moment (chronologically speaking, or just logically speaking) when God was love without anyone to love... then God was incomplete.... creation was necessary. A theology of love, I feel, is much more strongly supported by binitarianism or trinitarianism.

[Homer]

Furthermore, God and Adam, more than likely, had many encounters and conversations. Unfortunately, we do not have the details of all that transpired, but it must have been awesome to walk and commune with God, face-to-face.

This sentiment has appeared twice in this thread. Not wishing to side track the thread as we can discuss this elsewhere, but who did Adam walk with seeing that the scriptures inform us God is invisible and no one has seen Him?

Again, I find this self evident, though others have suggested that you can't be sinless without being God. But I believe the first Adam was sinless without being God.

I believe in an "age of accountability". Wouldn't this mean that all the millions of infants who have died lived a sinless life? Many Christians believe aborted babies are people and will be resurrected. Surely they are sinless without being God.

[Singalphile]

It's not my question. I think it's self evident and I only brought it up as a rhetorical question in another thread, buti guess it does require contextual understanding of the terms. If Jesus is the second Adam in the context of a suitable our perfect sacrifice, then I suppose the context would be the same; i.e. That Jesus and Adam were sinless in the same way by not having any sin in them.

Again, I find this self evident, though others have suggested that you can't be sinless without being God. But I believe the first Adam was sinless without being God.

I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek with my questions. I had read all of that other thread where the question was raised. I agree with you.

I do have a question that has bothered me for a long time, which is indirectly related to this topic

Why do we call this event the "Fall"? A fall has a strong element of 'accidental' - no one deliberately and intentionally falls off a cliff. God spelled out for Adam in Gen 3:17 that this event was not accidental in any way and holds him accountable for his sin (read deliberate disobedience).

To me, the term is neither accurate nor biblical.

I don't know. I also don't care for the phrases "the fall" and "fallen nature" simply because the Biblical authors never used any sort of phrase like that (to my knowledge). I worry that it adds an unnecessary layer of theology over Christianity, which has to be defined and then lead to another 1,000 denominations. OTOH, as a convenient way to refer to "what happened in Genesis 3", I suppose it's fine.

I believe in an "age of accountability". Wouldn't this mean that all the millions of infants who have died lived a sinless life? Many Christians believe aborted babies are people and will be resurrected. Surely they are sinless without being God.

Good point.

[TheEditor]

Jesus never did sin, and I believe that He would not sin because Jesus is a perfect Spirit, and Spirit is ultimately what we truly are. We by contrast are completely of this earth and our spirit also is created and willing to sin' (Me)
What do you base this notion on? (editor)

Notion? All men are sinners, Jesus is not. And Jesus is from above, and we are not. He is The Spirit.

The "notion" in question was not that all men are sinners. The notion in question was the last part of your statement, "He would not sin because Jesus is a perfect Spirit," as opposed to "and Spirit is ultimately what we truly are", and more specifically "we by contrast are completely of this earth and our spirit also is created and willing to sin'"

So then Jesus was not really tested in every way as we ourselves and cannot sympathize with our weaknesses? The only advantage Jesus had, in my opinion, over us as humans, besides possessing perfect flesh... (Editor)

We also will be like Him 'when' we are 'changed' but we will 'never' be Him. Only He is Holy and Eternally so, we have His Word.

Does this address my question?

We believe His Word on that, therefore we have a great hope, that we could not have in created beings or things.

Were Moses and the copper serpent he erected "created things"? Did they not typify Jesus work? Is the arrangement of Jesus' Ransom that of God the Father and therefore does it not work because He declares it and accepts it? Then how can you say the above?

Regards, Brenden.