A few questions about imputation of Adams sin to mankind

[Theolog]

Does the imputation of Adams sin to mankind cause us or tempt us to sin in any way?

Jesus Christ was like us in every way, does that mean that Christ was imputed Adams sin as we are?

If so was, when was Christ inputed Adams sin.

If He who knew no sin became sin in what sense was Christ sinless?

All positions are accepted and thanks in advance. And any suggestions for books on the subject will be appreciated.

[Bill the Cat]

Today @ 10:13 AM post located here
Theolog:

Does the imputation of Adams sin to mankind cause us or tempt us to sin in any way?

It causes us to sin and be tempted

Jesus Christ was like us in every way, does that mean that Christ was imputed Adams sin as we are?

No, because sin is imputed from the father to the son. As God is the Father of the man Jesus, no sin was imputed

If so was, when was Christ inputed Adams sin.

It was not, IMO

If He who knew no sin became sin in what sense was Christ sinless?

He never sinned, but took our sin upon Himself. He was not guilty of sin, but suffered on our behalf.

[mickiel]

Today @ 03:13 PM post located here
Theolog:



Does the imputation of Adams sin to mankind cause us or tempt us to sin in any way?

Of course it does, thats how it all started. It was passed down through the blood, the genes, the genectic make-up of Adam and Eve included sin. Sin is in us, and will remain there until God removes it. We all have it, that is simply why we all do it, we all have sinned because its inside us all.







Jesus Christ was like us in every way, does that mean that Christ was imputed Adams sin as we are?

He was not like us in every way, he was conceived by the Holy Spirit of God, not the sperm of a man. No sin was passed into him.


If so was, when was Christ inputed Adams sin.


Only on the cross.


If He who knew no sin became sin in what sense was Christ sinless?

In any sense your imagination can muster. He was TREADTED as if he was a sinner. It was impossible for him to sin,only to be tempted. Being tempted by sin is not a sin in itself.



All positions are accepted and thanks in advance. And any suggestions for books on the subject will be appreciated.

[themuzicman]

Today @ 10:13 AM post located here
Theolog:
Does the imputation of Adams sin to mankind cause us or tempt us to sin in any way?

The knowledge of good and evil is passed from generation to generation, and we as mere humans are unable to resist sinning.

Jesus Christ was like us in every way, does that mean that Christ was imputed Adams sin as we are?

No. Jesus was also fully God, which enabled Him to resist sin.

If so was, when was Christ inputed Adams sin.

No.

If He who knew no sin became sin in what sense was Christ sinless?

He did not sin.

"The Openness of God" Pinnock, et al.

Michael

[Mikey]

Regarding whether Jesus was sinless or not, and in what sense, there is no doubt that he is unique in that he is the son of God, and as Bill pointed out, born without the taint of sin. Nevertheless, he was still a man, and was subject to the same temptations that we were (ie. when Satan tempted him in the desert). The difference between us and Jesus is that he never once gave in to temptation, whereas I'm sure we all do several times per day. Because of his infinite capacity (as God) for taking on the sins of the world, combined with his perfectly sinless but still human nature, Jesus was able to be condemned for the sins of the world, and then glorified after the resurrection. So although Jesus was still tempted just as we are, his capacity for resistance was infinitely greater because of his devotion to the Father and therefore he led a sinless life.

[Theo Books]

Sin passing through the sperm? What about federal headship?

[Theo Books]

I'm not comfortable reducing the transmission of Adam's sin and guilt through male sperm. Though Christ was not born of male sperm, I do not believe that is the reason He was born without sin. I think one should consider looking at it federally, that is regarding the surety of a covenant. The eternal Son was in covenant with the Father, which was a distinct and separate covenant (though with overlapping similarities) than the covenant between God (triune) and Adam (Adam being our mediator/surety in the covenant of works).

Federal Headship and representation seems to be the most plausible reason why Christ was not tainted with original sin, which was brought about by the covenant of redemption, which demanded the work of the Holy Spirit in the incarnation.

Also, I think the impeccability of Christ is something we must necessarily uphold. There are different types of temptation, too.

[Theolog]

Where is the idea that sin is genetic taught in scripture?
How is it biblical that only the men pass on sin??

Does anyone on this forum understand imputation?

[Theo Books]

Today @ 04:36 AM post located here
Theolog:

Where is the idea that sin is genetic taught in scripture?
How is it biblical that only the men pass on sin??

Does anyone on this forum understand imputation?

I have a few ideas...

[Alukard]

I have serious problems with the idea of the imputation of Adam's sin to posterity. First, the whole argument from similarity in Romans 5 doesn't flow as smoothly as one might think. Second, the idea that there was a covenant of works existant in the Garden of Eden is a tenuous assumption. I think the one view that does warrant some serious consideration is the Augustinian realist view.

As for any books that are worth reading. For a good treatment of the classical Reformed perspective read John Murray's, The Imputation of Adam's Sin. For a more recent treatment of this issue read Henri Blocher's, Original Sin.

[Theo Books]

Today @ 04:58 AM post located here
Alukard:

I have serious problems with the idea of the imputation of Adam's sin to posterity. First, the whole argument from similarity in Romans 5 doesn't flow as smoothly as one might think.

Would you care to elaborate upon this?

Today @ 04:58 AM post located here
Alukard:

Second, the idea that there was a covenant of works existant in the Garden of Eden is a tenuous assumption.

And this? I suppose you do not regard Hosea 6:7 as referencing Adam? If not, what "covenant" has "man in general" transgressed? Does the word "covenant" need to be present for a covenant to exist? [using a King and I voice:] Etc., etc., etc.

Today @ 04:58 AM post located here
Alukard:

I think the one view that does warrant some serious consideration is the Augustinian realist view.

Fill us in.

[Smitten]

Theolog,

I have always thought an important aspect of the virgin birth, aside from fulfilling prophecy and being a miracle, was that Jesus was not born with a sinful, fallen nature like the rest of mankind.

Maybe Mary was a surrogate mother, so to speak. That would avoid the issue of how/if original sin relates to genetics, or if its passed by the male, female, or whatnot.

[Theo Books]

Today @ 05:36 AM post located here
Smitten:

Theolog,

I have always thought an important aspect of the virgin birth, aside from fulfilling prophecy and being a miracle, was that Jesus was not born with a sinful, fallen nature like the rest of mankind.

Maybe Mary was a surrogate mother, so to speak. That would avoid the issue of how/if original sin relates to genetics, or if its passed by the male, female, or whatnot.

By surrogate mother, do you mean a tube through which the divine slid out? I think she was truly the mother of God, our Savior, Christ Jesus. I'm a bit confused, even though I am not "Theolog."

[Kenny]

Today @ 05:36 AM post located here
Smitten:

Theolog,

I have always thought an important aspect of the virgin birth, aside from fulfilling prophecy and being a miracle, was that Jesus was not born with a sinful, fallen nature like the rest of mankind.

Maybe Mary was a surrogate mother, so to speak. That would avoid the issue of how/if original sin relates to genetics, or if its passed by the male, female, or whatnot.

If you hold that Mary was merely a surrogate mother, meaning that Mary wasn't actually the biological mother of Christ, you are stepping outside the bounds of Christian orthodoxy. Christ was, in fact, fully human, a genuine member of the human race, a descendent of Adam and Eve as we are. But, I don't know if that's what you meant.

However, having a sinful disposition is not part of being fully human -- in fact, it is a degredation of our true humanity. So it was not necessary to have a sin nature for Christ to be human. And, in fact, He did not.

In Christ,
Kenny

[Kenny]

Yesterday @ 03:13 PM post located here
Theolog:

Does the imputation of Adams sin to mankind cause us or tempt us to sin in any way?

The standard Reformed view is that we inherit the guilt of Adam’s sin and that this results in our being separated from and rebellious towards God – which of course leads to further sin on our part. It’s sort of a vicious cycle. Other Christian views (such as Eastern Orthodoxy) believe that we only inherit a sinful dispossession from Adam, but not the actual guilt of Adam’s sin. I hold the Reformed view.

Jesus Christ was like us in every way, does that mean that Christ was imputed Adams sin as we are?

Nope, at least not at birth and not in the same way as us (see below). The passage to which you are referring qualifies the above statement. It says that Christ was like us in every way except without sin. Being sinful is a universal (with the exception of Christ) but not an essential characteristic of humanity.

If so was, when was Christ inputed Adams sin.

In a sense, you could say that He was imputed with it on the cross, but not in the same sense that we were at birth. He was not imputed with it in the sense that Christ actually became a sinner in His person, so that is different from the way Adam's sin was imputed to us. However, Christ did identify Himself with sinful humanity on the cross and entered into solidarity with us such that the guilt of our sin (and thus, Adam’s sin) was imputed to Him. Christ became “guilty by association,” so to speak, in order to bear the punishment for our sin, though Christ Himself remained sinless and faithful to the will of God in His individual person.

If He who knew no sin became sin in what sense was Christ sinless?

He was sinless in the sense that He never sinned. He became sin in the sense that He entered into solidarity with sinners and bore the guilt of their sin upon Himself.

In Christ,
Kenny