Human nature and onology

[themuzicman]

Q1: Did Adam's ontological nature change when he sinned?

Q2: If so, who had the power to change God's Word as revealed in the creation of Adam? Did God change His Word in this respect?

Q3: If so, then did God the Son take a pre-fall or post-fall nature to Himself?

Q4: If pre-fall, then can one being be an atoning sacrifice for different ontological being?

Q5: If post-fall, then why didn't Jesus sin? Doesn't a fallen nature mean that you sin?

Michael

[infide]

Q1: Did Adam's ontological nature change when he sinned?

Q2: If so, who had the power to change God's Word as revealed in the creation of Adam? Did God change His Word in this respect?

Q3: If so, then did God the Son take a pre-fall or post-fall nature to Himself?

Q4: If pre-fall, then can one being be an atoning sacrifice for different ontological being?

Q5: If post-fall, then why didn't Jesus sin? Doesn't a fallen nature mean that you sin?

Michael

These are really great questions. This might be some of the reasons why i started the "original sin" thread.

One possible theory I've been thinking through, perhaps humans were created specifically to be in connection to God's grace. So, being expelled from the garden (or eating the fruit), brought about a seperation from God which leaves humans grace deficient, and so therefore incomplete, self-focused and sin-inclined. This way, humans arent chaged in their nature, per se (Adam and Ever were already created anyway, so its hard to see how their natures would be changed, unless God is going to recreate them...), but nonetheless humans are born inclined to sin and in the end account, all do in fact sin. So humans are still humans, but a relational change towards God is necessary for their restoration -- which we call salvation (specifically justification/indwelling).

So then, Jesus was born human just like all of us (though also divine, obviously), but with that relational restoration. So perhaps He had the ability to sin, but just always chose not to (through reliance on God's Spirit?).

i havent thought about it all that much.

[Ormly]

One possible theory I've been thinking through, perhaps humans were created specifically to be in connection to God's grace.


Before the fall, they had no need of God's grace. Think about it.

Great topic............More coming

[Jaltus]

Q1: Did Adam's ontological nature change when he sinned?

Ontology and nature are not the same thing. Ontology is what defines you as you, whereas nature tends to be your proclivities as you. I think you might be confusing terms here.

My answer in that respect would be no, Adam's ontological being did not change, but his spiritual nature did.

Q2: If so, who had the power to change God's Word as revealed in the creation of Adam? Did God change His Word in this respect?

Adam changed his spiritual nature by sinning and God allowed it.

Q3: If so, then did God the Son take a pre-fall or post-fall nature to Himself?

Post-fall, but He was able to combat that sin nature.

Q4: If pre-fall, then can one being be an atoning sacrifice for different ontological being?

N/A

Q5: If post-fall, then why didn't Jesus sin? Doesn't a fallen nature mean that you sin?

Michael

A fallen nature means you are inclined to sin. In a prefall nature, there was no understanding of good and evil. What changed in the fall was not just the sin nature, but also the ability to discern. Thus, oftren when people sin they know they are sinning. Jesus knew what sin was (so He was like post-fall man), but He did the right thing.


Before the fall, they had no need of God's grace. Think about it.


I disagree, but only because I think you are being too restrictive about what "grace" means. Here you mean grace to be salvific grace, but I think God's grace was extended to mankind through the act of creation and His sustaining of creation. Therefore, grace was active immediately.

[Ormly]

Ontology and nature are not the same thing. Ontology is what defines you as you, whereas nature tends to be your proclivities as you. I think you might be confusing terms here.

My answer in that respect would be no, Adam's ontological being did not change, but his spiritual nature did.
How do you suppose it was changed?


Adam changed his spiritual nature by sinning and God allowed it.


I would rather think God had no choice. His holiness demanded it.

Post-fall, but He was able to combat that sin nature.



What sinful nature? [if ths is referring to Jesus]


A fallen nature means you are inclined to sin.

I don't belive that is necessarily so. Fallen nature should refer to man's incapability of coming into the presence of a holy God; a nature not equal to the task. That's all. Thank God we have a advocate who can and does in our behalf.

In a prefall nature, there was no understanding of good and evil. What changed in the fall was not just the sin nature, but also the ability to discern. Thus, oftren when people sin they know they are sinning. Jesus knew what sin was (so He was like post-fall man), but He did the right thing.


How about viewing it as Adam's nature didn't change but access to it was granted for Satan's strong influence to further seduce it that would further seek its own end.

I disagree, but only because I think you are being too restrictive about what "grace" means. Here you mean grace to be salvific grace, but I think God's grace was extended to mankind through the act of creation and His sustaining of creation. Therefore, grace was active immediately.

I would say you are confusing agape with grace. Agape being what I am calling a dimension of God that is Himself that Adam enjoyed. Grace is the means by which man is given to regain agape or the restoration of it that Adam is responsible for losing. There is not need for grace in agape. Agape is kingdom living; God experiencing. God is Agape. We are one IN Him. In His presence is fullness of Joy. The agape Joy is our strength. It is in this life of striving to get into the kingdom that we need grace. We need grace to overcome; to deny our soulishness in life.

Why do suppose we have so many dour-defeated Christians?

[infide]

Before the fall, they had no need of God's grace. Think about it.

Great topic............More coming

I completely disagree. In Him we live and move and have our being. All of Creation, including us and our faculties are upheld by God. Everything, even creation itself, is an unmerited favor from God. Granted, all of these things continue to be given by God - but perhaps they had the indwelling presence of God's Spirit and without this grace man is left incomplete.

[infide]

does man have a "spiritual nature"? I think such a thing would have to be uniquely part of human nature. that is, man's body doesnt have a seperate nature from his spirit/soul - it is all human nature. that substance that makes man, man.

[Ormly]

does man have a "spiritual nature"? I think such a thing would have to be uniquely part of human nature. that is, man's body doesnt have a seperate nature from his spirit/soul - it is all human nature. that substance that makes man, man.

Well, since he was created body, soul and spirit, what should we conclude-- They are indeed separate, correct? But I wouldn't call it a "spiritual nature" since that would place upon it a different connotation..

[themuzicman]

Ontology and nature are not the same thing. Ontology is what defines you as you, whereas nature tends to be your proclivities as you. I think you might be confusing terms here.

My answer in that respect would be no, Adam's ontological being did not change, but his spiritual nature did.

If this isn't an ontological change, then what kind of change is it? Epistimological? Metaphysical? Ethical?

Michael

[Ormly]

I completely disagree. In Him we live and move and have our being. All of Creation, including us and our faculties are upheld by God. Everything, even creation itself, is an unmerited favor from God. Granted, all of these things continue to be given by God - but perhaps they had the indwelling presence of God's Spirit and without this grace man is left incomplete.

Sorry, there was no indwelling, or need for it, before Adam's transgression. Adam was on his own to reveal where his alligience lay. Adam [perfect innocent human nature] was to be tested. It had to be tested.

There was no need to make a declaration of where we have "our" being or how we were upheld. Man was perfectly upheld by his own nature which was in agape; perfect union with God. There was no other Spiritual habition available; no sin, no need for unmerited favor, no need for permission to enter God's presence, ergo, no need for grace. Then came the test and Adam violated the one thing that quaranteed him freedom, i.e., agape. Now when you read the verse: "whom the Son sets free is free indeed, it should be more clear now as to what happens if, as you rightly state, we have our being in Him and grasp the profoundness of such a verse. Jesus was God's to grace to man in the fullest sence of the word. Grace began when Adam sinned.

note: Please don't confuse innocence with perfection.

[Zxcv Bnm]

Q1: Did Adam's ontological nature change when he sinned?I think so--if a person's relationships are part of his ontological description. Adam went from being a human with a perfect relationship with his creator, to a human with a broken relationship with his creator.Q2: If so, who had the power to change God's Word as revealed in the creation of Adam? Did God change His Word in this respect?(I don't understand Q2, since I don't believe God's Word changes, so I may not be answering what you're asking)....God delegated certain responsibilities to Adam, one of which included a response of obediance to God. Adam was "responsible" for the broken relationship, though it was God who hid His face as a result.Q3: If so, then did God the Son take a pre-fall or post-fall nature to Himself?Pre-fall (I think this is why he was called the second Adam)--with a "crucial" qualification. Jesus knew no sin (2 Cor 5:21) until the cross: when he became sin for us, his Father forsook him (Mat 27:46).Q4: If pre-fall, then can one being be an atoning sacrifice for different ontological being?Perhaps this is why "God made him to be sin, for us" (2 Cor 5:21).Q5: If post-fall, then why didn't Jesus sin? Doesn't a fallen nature mean that you sin?I'm not aware of the ramifications of God making the sinless to "be sin", but his "broken" relationship with his Father was because of "our" sin (Isaiah 53:5; Romans 4:25), and not his own. Though I could use a lot more study in this area, I'm not thinking that Jesus had to have sinful tendencies in order to be sin for us while on the cross.

[Ormly]

I think so--if a person's relationships are part of his ontological description. Adam went from being a human with a perfect relationship with his creator, to a human with a broken relationship with his creator.(I don't understand Q2, since I don't believe God's Word changes, so I may not be answering what you're asking)....God delegated certain responsibilities to Adam, one of which included a response of obediance to God. Adam was "responsible" for the broken relationship, though it was God who hid His face as a result.Pre-fall (I think this is why he was called the second Adam)--with a "crucial" qualification. Jesus knew no sin (2 Cor 5:21) until the cross: when he became sin for us, his Father forsook him (Mat 27:46).Perhaps this is why "God made him to be sin, for us" (2 Cor 5:21).I'm not aware of the ramifications of God making the sinless to "be sin", but his "broken" relationship with his Father was because of "our" sin (Isaiah 53:5; Romans 4:25), and not his own. Though I could use a lot more study in this area, I'm not thinking that Jesus had to have sinful tendencies in order to be sin for us while on the cross.

Good post, Zx and greetings.


But He was tempted as Adam was tempted. There had to be a reason[s] for the temptation[s], don't you think?

As was the case that He took upon Him our sin and paid the price for our reconcilation to the Father, He also took upon Himself our nature; the capability to sin or to obey. This would reveal the human demonstration of His alligience to the Father, as a human, that the Father desired of Adam. That is one reason He is called the second Adam. Adam failed in his alligience, Jesus didn't. In this we can see that His divine nature, though the strength of His human nature, was subservient to His human one. His human will was more powerful than His divine will. In this we can see that He willed His human will to obey the divine simply for what the divine was. We never read of the man Jesus ever saying: I'm from above and it sure will feel good to get back home. His love for the Father was such that whatever He did was a joy to do. He lived in JOY [agape vision] that we can have now but not without our alligience being pure; unadulterated.

Satan wanted to get to the Son of God within Him; to get Jesus, the man, to sin. By His love to the Father Jesus protected the Son of God within Him, as we must. If we don't learn how to submit our will[s] to the Father, we will lose the battle. In His presence is fullness of JOY [agape vision]. "Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he. Proverbs 29:18 (KJV) John 13.17.

Re-read the account of His wilderness experience. Begin when He is baptised with the Holy Ghost and ask why He had to be [at all] before beginning His journey that He not fail or stay the course.

Ormly