Was Adam sinless before the Fall?

[TheEditor]

Hi JR,

Editor, my typo made a previous post from pg 1 read wrong, I meant to use a small s for human spirit, so it should have read:
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'

I am not certain that "perfect" or "complete" or "good" creations are "willing" to sin as much as imperfect ones are. However, if Jesus were incapable of choice, including the choice to yield to temptation, then his temptation in the wilderness and his passion didn't show an overcomer who won a victory; he did what he would have done anyway. Jesus said "the spirit is willing" but the "flesh is weak". I believe he meant our spirit is willing but our flesh is weak. In this case he may have been referring to dominant mental inclination as opposed to the ethereal we call "spirit". Then again, didn't Solomon have something to say about animals and humans and the common spirit....hmmm....

What else could have overcome sin? Certainly not man. And I don’t believe we can trust Angels or other created beings are to be trusted, as sinless or perfect either. So, on that premise or precedent only God could truly overcome sin, in a way we can be assured of.

These were ‘types’ not the actual sacrifice, just as we have crosses today. But, they foretold, or now represent the Actual Cross of history and the Actual redemption, atonement and sacrifice of the living

My point about the serpent in the desert was to show that a thing needn't possess intrinsic properties to be efficacious if God declares it. I can imagine 2 Israelites being bitten and one dragging himself over to look at the snake and the other saying "Dude, it's a piece of copper"....

Obviously Jesus death was more than a legalistic transaction. If that's all that were needed then God either must enjoy watching suffering, or He allowed it for a greater purpose. If Jesus death had been quick and easy it really wouldn't have "drawn" people or been nearly as compelling, right? That is why in another thread I referred to this particular act as God's "Master Stroke", for in it we have the makings of a concept that can truly draw "men of all sorts"; legalists and literalists, poets and musicians. It needed be all one way or no way. I think your trintarian paradigm is forcing you to make certain statements about the Ransom that are unnecessary.

That is what draws me to love, adore and worship God.

See, the Master Stroke even worked on you JR.

Regards, Brenden.

[jriccitelli]

I am not certain that "perfect" or "complete" or "good" creations are "willing" to sin as much as imperfect ones are.

I am certain, that if someone has a will to sin, then they will sin. That’s my point, I can have complete and total confidence God is without sin, and never will sin. But we have no certainty a created being or thing, will never sin.

If Jesus is not God, then Jesus was a created being, and I do not trust that a creature has not, or will never sin.

Scripture tells us to put our faith in God alone, and not in someone or something else.

I do not believe there are any creatures or beings that are perfect, incapable of sin, or worthy enough to die for the sins of the world. If there are, they are imagined or made up. And for these reasons I am not trusting in any creature for my salvation. I hope you do the same.

[TheEditor]

Hi JR,

I am certain, that if someone has a will to sin, then they will sin. That’s my point, I can have complete and total confidence God is without sin, and never will sin. But we have no certainty a created being or thing, will never sin.

If Jesus is not God, then Jesus was a created being.

Scripture tells us to put our faith in God alone, and not in someone or something else.

I do not believe there are any creatures or beings that are perfect, or worthy enough to die for the sins of the world, if there are, they are imagined or made up. And for these reasons I am not trusting in any creature for my salvation. I hope you do the same.

Then Jesus was not tempted by Satan, it was a meaningless charade. If I have asthma, and a natural revulsion to cigarette smoke, how could I ever be "tempted" to smoke? If someone held a package of Camels under my nose and said "Mmmmm, the beautiful aroma of that "Turkish Blend" is something, isn't it?" and I were the aforementioned asthmatic I would answer "No thanks"--guaranteed. On the other hand, if I had never smoked and someone offered me one, I might think about it. But, I might choose "No thanks", or I might choose "Got a light?"

I can be confident that Jesus would not succumb to temptation because God chose him for the job. That's good enough for me.

Regards, Brenden.

[dizerner]

Christ was, uniquely among men, in possession of the Truth. He did not just appear one day as all of us do, from the womb, not knowing where we come from or where we are going. He spoke with absolutely authority because he was the truth. Was he forced to become a human being? Not according to his own testimony. He said no one was in heaven except himself, that he came down from the Father, and tabernacled in flesh. He knew exactly where he was going and why, the one man on earth that knew what everything about his life was about. He said clearly "no one forced me to lay my life down, I lay it down of my own accord." He said "I lay my life down because I love the Father and do his will." Now question: was Jesus tempted not to be incarnated? Was Jesus tempted not to love his Father, but instead "curse God and die?" Was Jesus tempted with all the iniquities we are? I think there's a problem in the word tempt. Because some people think if you don't have a genuine desire for something you can never really be tempted with. But you can still be offered it, right? You, I would assume, have no desire to be a serial killer. Yet the Bible says that you've encountered no temptation but that is common to man. Yet you, I would assume, don't have the burning desire to kill people that a serial killer might have. But the Biblical "tempt" also means simply "to test." Now I can test whether you will actually be a serial killer, even if you have no desire to be one. That doesn't make the testing "a farce," the testing merely shows the quality of character you already have. Again we can test the strength of a bear versus a wolf. If we know the outcome, is the test a farce? No, the test merely shows the qualities of both, and which is stronger.

Remember the words of Christ "unless a stronger comes and binds the strongman, you can't take his good." Does the fact that one is stronger make the whole encounter a farce? No, but until the competition takes place there is no test. I do think Christ had free will, but I don't think Christ had a single desire for evil. In so many ways Scripture tells us Christ had to defeat Satan as a man. If we think Christ had to be able to choose Satan to make a truly free decision, I would agree that he had a real potential to disobey only in the sense of his freedom of will, not in the sense of his character or desire. Christ was not ever worried or stressed by Satan—and that was no farce. Christ's greatest temptation was being unwilling to drink the cup of God's wrath against our sin. Because when he said "Fear God!" he meant it. I'm not downplaying Satan's destructive power. But as God in man, he truly knew the depth of the sacrifice he had to make, and feared that wrath that he himself once knew pre-incarnate and will know again when he comes to judge the world with the "wrath of the Lamb." Christ wasn't just a man that happened to be able to be perfect. Christ was perfect and always affirmed his own worthiness. If you want to define an inevitable outcome as a charade, you can do so—but it still has to happen, to happen. And to me, a charade is something that is not real, that is faked and acted out to be something that underneath is not really so. And I don't see Christ's perfection as a "charade" nor was it ever in doubt. Christ was not just lucky to have done the right thing. Christ was the perfect Savior we all need to trust in, instead of our own works.

[TheEditor]

Hi Dizerner,

I see where you are going here. Fair point. I am a bit confused on a few things you said, and I want to clarify my opinion. First, you wrote:

He said no one was in heaven except himself, that he came down from the Father, and tabernacled in flesh.

I know he said that no 'one ascended to heaven but he that descended', but where does it state what you wrote above?

Jesus tempted not to be incarnated? Was Jesus tempted not to love his Father, but instead "curse God and die?" Was Jesus tempted with all the iniquities we are? I think there's a problem in the word tempt.

I agree. Tempt and test are two different words. They can overlap, but they are distinct. I think we need to ask, is merely having a desire sin? James says that sin is born after desire is fertilized. Jesus apparently desired not to go through the passion, to the point he had to pray until the drops of sweat were like blood. Was this sin? Apparently not.

Though it may sound blasphemous to some, did Jesus experience sexual arousal? He was a man. He had every other biological function of a man. Arousal is something that just happens. Did he "yield to it"? No, otherwise that would be sin. But, If I am reading James correctly, there is an abundance of feelings a person can have that are not "sin". Sin is born as or after desire is fertilized.

My main objection is that some seem to paint a picture of Jesus that he could do nothing but not sin. I believe not sinning came natural to Jesus, unlike us. But something coming natural, and always doing that which comes natural are two different things. He must have experienced the desires common to all men, but he chose the right course. He proved faithful.

Christ was not ever worried or stressed by Satan—and that was no farce.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Jesus did have angels minister to him after his encounter with Satan, so there must have been a reason for that.

feared that wrath that he himself once knew pre-incarnate and will know again when he comes to judge the world with the "wrath of the Lamb."

Not sure what you mean. He feared the wrath of his Father? Or the wrath of God? His own wrath?

Christ was not just lucky to have done the right thing.

If this is what you walk away from my comments with, then I failed to make my point.

Regards, Brenden.

[Paidion]

Brenden, I agree with you that to be tempted to sin is not in itself sin.

As the writer to the Hebrews affirmed:
For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. (Hebrews 4:15)

I also agree that if Jesus could not have sinned, then He would never have been tempted. Thus Satan's temptation of Him was pointless. I am sure Satan knew He was the Son of God. Even knowing this, Satan must have believed, that He could be persuaded to command that stones turn into bread, or throw Himself down from the pinnacle and the angels would catch Him, or fall down and worship Satan. For if he hadn't believed that, he would not have bothered to tempt Him to do these things.

I think the arguments against the possibility of Jesus sinning, are based on the idea that Jesus was a God-man while He walked this earth. This is not true. Jesus was FULLY HUMAN, while on earth. He emptied Himself of the divine attributes He had possessed in His pre-incarnate state.

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. (Philippians 2:5-8 RSV)

The only thing that Jesus retained of His former existence after becoming man, was His identity.

So in His pre-incarnate state, Jesus was fully divine, just as divine as His Father. But after being born as a human being, He was fully human, and as such subject to human tempation.

The first man was tempted, and yielded to temptation.
The second man was tempted, but never yielded at any time.

[Homer]

Which scenario would lead us to admire Jesus more:

1. Jesus experienced no desire to do anything sinful and could not possibly have sinned.

2. Jesus experienced desire to do things that are sinful but always overcame those desires and did His Father's will.

[steve7150]

Which scenario would lead us to admire Jesus more:

1. Jesus experienced no desire to do anything sinful and could not possibly have sinned.

2. Jesus experienced desire to do things that are sinful but always overcame those desires and did His Father's will.






Doesn't seem like much of a question Homer? Obviously #2

[jriccitelli]

Then Jesus was not tempted by Satan... (Editor)

Your implying that I said that. I take offense that you suggest I said Jesus was not tempted, I affirm Jesus was tempted:
'Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted'

You then go on to affirm what I do believe by your argument, as if i disagree. That was either disingenuous, or a plain misunderstanding.

Jesus was tempted - but He did not sin. How plain is that?

I said Jesus did not have a will to sin. I believe Only God has such a will not to sin, so that He cannot sin. Even that does not confirm He 'could not' sin. God all powerful can do whatever He wants, if He willed, therefore God could sin, but He wills not to. That is what God promises us, and this is who God says He is: He is the One who will not sin. The will not to sin is in and of God alone. God said He will not sin, and I believe HIS WORD on this.

Jesus said He was blameless and without sin, Jesus said so with confidence. WHO but God could say that? Even in the end the Angels proclaim 'none' were found worthy except the Lamb of God.

God goes through chapter after chapter, Prophet after prophet, Law after law, to demonstrate, demand and establish that there are no other gods beings or entitys that are like Him / None and no-others that we should consider or put faith in / None good but God alone. Only to contradict Himself and His Word and present a creature He had made, that He had kept secret and denied existed, just to undermine all God has said is true?
That's 'not' good enough for me.

[darinhouston]

Aren't we still putting our faith in Yahweh when we accept his provision of a savior regardless of what form that comes in? Such as the snake on the pole as mentioned above? Those saved weren't putting their faith in the serpent, they were putting their faith in God even though it was the serpent that was the object of their faith in action.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk