Jesus Fully God and man, but man is born into sin.

[beforHim]

I asked my college group for questions and topics they'd like to hear answered and/or spoken about. I got this question (paraphrasing):

How could Jesus have between fully God and fully man IF: man is born into sin.

My answer is that man being born into sin is not intrinsic to man. Paris Reedhead said, "We don't know why all men sin, but we know that all men sin." I agree with him, and if this is true, then Jesus would've had no sin until He committed sin, which He didn't.

Pretty much every Christian I know of (who's thought about and studied this stuff)- esp. Calvinists and Catholics- will tell me that man is sinful by nature: to this I object. "But" goes the argument, "if we apply the same criterion to man which I just applied to Jesus- that man doesn't have sin until he sins- then if man dies before sinning, then he didn't need Christ's sacrifice to get to Heaven". That's were the age of accountability comes in, which the OT seems to speak of: before the baby he knows right from wrong, Isaiah 7; also those Israelites under 20 were not held accountable (they were allowed in promised land after 40 year desert hiatus) (of course I don't think there's a cut-off point to the age of accountability).

Anyway, that's my belief. Adam and Eve were without sin until they committed sin, but since they committed sin, we suddenly are sinful without even committing sin. We're held accountable for something we can't help but do- that's just silly. But if this were the case (which I'm in a MAJOR minority here) then what would the answer be- for Jesus to be fully man would necessitate a sin nature, since a sin nature would be intrinsic to man.

PS- I'm speaking on this tonight if I get enough help from here (this is the only place I know to go to get good advice on these types of questions). But I might postpone this questions until later.

[beforHim]

I asked my college group for questions and topics they'd like to hear answered and/or spoken about. I got this question:

If Jesus was completely sinless how could He have been [U]fully[/U ]human since, as humans, we are born into sin.

My answer is that man being born into sin is not intrinsic to man. Paris Reedhead said, "We don't know why all men sin, but we know that all men sin." I agree with him, and if this is true, then Jesus would've had no sin until He committed sin, which He didn't.

Pretty much every Christian I know of (who's thought about and studied this stuff)- esp. Calvinists and Catholics- will tell me that man is sinful by nature: to this I object. "But" goes the argument, "if we apply the same criterion to man which I just applied to Jesus- that man doesn't have sin until he sins- then if man dies before sinning, then he didn't need Christ's sacrifice to get to Heaven". That's were the age of accountability comes in, which the OT seems to speak of: before the baby he knows right from wrong, Isaiah 7; also those Israelites under 20 were not held accountable (they were allowed in promised land after 40 year desert hiatus) (of course I don't think there's a cut-off point to the age of accountability).

Anyway, that's my belief. Adam and Eve were without sin until they committed sin, but since they committed sin, we suddenly are sinful without even committing sin. We're held accountable for something we can't help but do- that's just silly. But if this were the case (which I'm in a MAJOR minority here) then what would the answer be- for Jesus to be fully man would necessitate a sin nature, since a sin nature would be intrinsic to man.

PS- I'm speaking on this tonight if I get enough help from here (this is the only place I know to go to get good advice on these types of questions). But I might postpone this questions until later.

[RBerman]

Sin is not part of what it means to be human. For instance, Adam was human before he sinned. When Calvinists say "man is sinful by nature" they're referring to the current fallen state of unregenerate man. But Calvinists also believe in a future New Earth inhabited by humans who are not sinful, and in fact who never sin.

Google "Fourfold state of man" if you want to avoid discussing a strawman of Calvinism on this topic.

[RonC]

I asked my college group for questions and topics they'd like to hear answered and/or spoken about. I got this question (paraphrasing):

How could Jesus have between fully God and fully man IF: man is born into sin.

My answer is that man being born into sin is not intrinsic to man. Paris Reedhead said, "We don't know why all men sin, but we know that all men sin." I agree with him, and if this is true, then Jesus would've had no sin until He committed sin, which He didn't.

Pretty much every Christian I know of (who's thought about and studied this stuff)- esp. Calvinists and Catholics- will tell me that man is sinful by nature: to this I object. "But" goes the argument, "if we apply the same criterion to man which I just applied to Jesus- that man doesn't have sin until he sins- then if man dies before sinning, then he didn't need Christ's sacrifice to get to Heaven". That's were the age of accountability comes in, which the OT seems to speak of: before the baby he knows right from wrong, Isaiah 7; also those Israelites under 20 were not held accountable (they were allowed in promised land after 40 year desert hiatus) (of course I don't think there's a cut-off point to the age of accountability).

Anyway, that's my belief. Adam and Eve were without sin until they committed sin, but since they committed sin, we suddenly are sinful without even committing sin. We're held accountable for something we can't help but do- that's just silly. But if this were the case (which I'm in a MAJOR minority here) then what would the answer be- for Jesus to be fully man would necessitate a sin nature, since a sin nature would be intrinsic to man.

PS- I'm speaking on this tonight if I get enough help from here (this is the only place I know to go to get good advice on these types of questions). But I might postpone this questions until later.

The Greek term translated as sin means "to miss the mark" or "to stray from the path"... or err. Sin Nature is a misnomer. It simply means that man is not perfect... man will err... Jesus was fully man but also perfectly man... He was tempted but did not stray from the path...

[RBerman]

Why is this thread in the Christianity forum and the Theology forum both?

[Thoughtful Monk]

I asked my college group for questions and topics they'd like to hear answered and/or spoken about. I got this question (paraphrasing):

How could Jesus have between fully God and fully man IF: man is born into sin.

My answer is that man being born into sin is not intrinsic to man. Paris Reedhead said, "We don't know why all men sin, but we know that all men sin." I agree with him, and if this is true, then Jesus would've had no sin until He committed sin, which He didn't.

Yes. I think that is why the Gospels include the Temptation in the Wilderness. To show that Jesus was exposed to the temptation to sin and He did not.

Pretty much every Christian I know of (who's thought about and studied this stuff)- esp. Calvinists and Catholics- will tell me that man is sinful by nature: to this I object. "But" goes the argument, "if we apply the same criterion to man which I just applied to Jesus- that man doesn't have sin until he sins- then if man dies before sinning, then he didn't need Christ's sacrifice to get to Heaven". That's were the age of accountability comes in, which the OT seems to speak of: before the baby he knows right from wrong, Isaiah 7; also those Israelites under 20 were not held accountable (they were allowed in promised land after 40 year desert hiatus) (of course I don't think there's a cut-off point to the age of accountability).

Anyway, that's my belief. Adam and Eve were without sin until they committed sin, but since they committed sin, we suddenly are sinful without even committing sin. We're held accountable for something we can't help but do- that's just silly. But if this were the case (which I'm in a MAJOR minority here) then what would the answer be- for Jesus to be fully man would necessitate a sin nature, since a sin nature would be intrinsic to man.

PS- I'm speaking on this tonight if I get enough help from here (this is the only place I know to go to get good advice on these types of questions). But I might postpone this questions until later.

Frankly, you're in good company struggling with the questions. My church just finished a study of Church history from after Acts ended until today. One thing that surprised me was how long the early church struggled to understand the nature of the Incarnation until they got to "Fully God and Fully Man in hypostatic union". This is not an easy subject to get one's head around and you should note the Eastern Orthodox answer is different than the Western answer.

I would remind you that the was no male "effort" at his conception. The Holy Spirit did the "work" on Mary after she consented. This is one reason Jesus has to be born of a Virgin - it takes Him out of the descent of sin from Adam.

Hope this helps.

[Arminian]

Everything RB said agrees with the Arminian position as well, minus the "strawman" comment.

[hedrick]

I can understand people saying that man is sinful by nature. That's close enough to the standard view to be understandable. But technically the claim is that we have inherited a corrupted version of human nature. Human nature itself isn't sinful; the sinfulness is a corruption of it.

Part of what God did in Christ was to restore it. That's why Paul calls him a second Adam. Corruption isn't inherent in humanity as it was originally intended to be. And the fact that Christ isn't corrupted is critical to the plan of salvation. Just as from descent from the first Adam we inherit a corrupted nature, by union with Christ through the Holy Spirit we get a restored one.

[Arminian]

Genesis 1:31

[Adze]

All men (including Jesus) have to die to be totally or completely perfected or made perfect.
While on earth, we can be perfected in suffering (commentary in Heb. 5 ), but we are not made perfect until we are absent our flesh.

bodies.Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered;
and when he was made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him,
declared by God high priest according to the order of Melchizedek.

[beforHim]

Thx for all the replies.

I posted in two forums because no one, at first, was answering my thread in this forum,. so I thought 'theology 201' would do better, maybe.

[Diolectic]

I asked my college group for questions and topics they'd like to hear answered and/or spoken about. I got this question (paraphrasing):

How could Jesus have between fully God and fully man IF: man is born into sin.

We aren't

Adam and Eve were without sin until they committed sin, but since they committed sin, we suddenly are sinful without even committing sin. We're held accountable for something we can't help but do- that's just silly.

Not just silly, but obsurd.

But if this were the case (which I'm in a MAJOR minority here)

I'm in the minority also, welcome to the Palagian universe.

then what would the answer be- for Jesus to be fully man would necessitate a sin nature, since a sin nature would be intrinsic to man.

This is where thay make Jesus not fully human.
They say that Jesus does not have the same kind of flesh as we have (sinnful flesh) They say that when Jesus came in the "likeness of sinnfull flesh" it was only a "likeness" not the actual flesh as we have. (This is an answer which some one gave me)
Or
Jesus was not in the "corrupt blood line of Adam" by reason of the virgin birth; as if our nature is inherited by birth & not by the fact that we are human.
Or
Jesus remained sinnless only because He is God and not only because He loved His Father.

Thing is, that if Jesus didn't have the exact same flesh as we have, He would not be 100% human.
If Jesus remained sinnless only because He is God, that would make Him an unjust Standard for us.
Standards ar to be able to be met; we are not God, and if the only way to remain sinnless is to be God, how are we suposed to not sin as we are commanded?\

Fact is, Jesus had no advantage over sin and the world any more than we have.
Jesus prooved that man can live a sinnless life, therefore we have no excuse before God.

[Trusty]

I don't agree with the "original sin"/"fall" stuff. It is utter garbage theological leftovers from that Gnostic hack Augustine.

However, rejecting the original sin/born with sin nature nonsense doesn't make a person a Pelagian either.

[Chappie]

How about Jesus was not fully god and fully human. While in the flesh he was fully human but only positionally god.

[Anoetos]

How about Jesus was not fully god and fully human. While in the flesh he was fully human but only positionally god.

Explain?