• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

GOD CREATED MAN (ADAM) SINFUL

Jesus spent 30 years trying to be Perfected; from his Baptism on, he had to maintain his Perfection until his Death. YEC vs OEC aside, Adam was Good for maybe a day before he Fell. Jesus was Good for 30 years before he was Perfected. In their State of Good Innocence, neither were Sinners..
Adam had the capacity to sin. It was inherent in his nature. Adam could and did sin, thus capable.
When the Devil tempted Adam (through Eve) Adam's decision was based on a man's mind and nature. Adam was subordinate to the Devil in that the Devil could mislead (lie) and trick Adam. (bait and switch)
Jesus, I don't believe Jesus had the capacity to sin. He was not capable. It would be a contradiction in His nature and there isn't any evidence that He sinned or was even tempted to sin. When the Devil tempted Jesus, the effortless answers He gave were as if the Devil were a backward and boring child.

(JMHO)
 
Last edited:
Adam had the capacity to sin. It was inherent in his nature. Adam could and did sin, thus capable.
When the Devil tempted Adam (through Eve) Adam's decision was based on a man's mind and nature. Adam was subordinate to the Devil in that the Devil could mislead (lie) and trick Adam. (bait and switch)
No, God's command was simple and clear, "Thou shalt not eat of it."
Adam had a simple choice to make, obey or disobey. All the rest is window dressing.
I suspect he chose disobedience in order to be with Eve, because he didn't want to part with her.
Jesus, I don't believe Jesus had the capacity to sin. He was not capable. It would be a contradiction in His nature
Jesus had two natures, human and divine, in one person, just as there are three persons in one God.
His human nature was most definitely capable of sin, just as Adam's was.
and there isn't any evidence that He sinned or was even tempted to sin. When the Devil tempted Jesus, the effortless answers He gave were as if the Devil were a backward and boring child.
Satan was offering Jesus an easier way to get his job done.

I'm thinking offering Jesus the kingdom without having to suffer and die for it caught his ear.

And maybe a dive straight down from the Temple with angels breaking his fall would convince all of Jerusalem with one event that he was the Messiah and again, he woudn't have to die because of the claim.
 
No, God's command was simple and clear, "Thou shalt not eat of it."
Adam had a simple choice to make, obey or disobey. All the rest is window dressing.
I suspect he chose disobedience in order to be with Eve, because he didn't want to part with her.

Jesus had two natures, human and divine, in one person, just as there are three persons in one God.
His human nature was most definitely capable of sin, just as Adam's was.

Satan was offering Jesus an easier way to get his job done.

I'm thinking offering Jesus the kingdom without having to suffer and die for it caught his ear.

And maybe a dive straight down from the Temple with angels breaking his fall would convince all of Jerusalem with one event that he was the Messiah and again, he woudn't have to die because of the claim.
Jesus was/ is Impeccable. The Son is Impeccable just the same as the Father.

Question: "Could Jesus have sinned? If He was not capable of sinning, how could He truly be able to 'sympathize with our weaknesses' (Hebrews 4:15)? If He could not sin, what was the point of the temptation?"

Answer:

There are two sides to this interesting question. It is important to remember that this is not a question of whether Jesus sinned. Both sides agree, as the Bible clearly says, that Jesus did not sin (2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Peter 2:22). The question is whether Jesus could have sinned. Those who hold to “impeccability” believe that Jesus could not have sinned. Those who hold to “peccability” believe that Jesus could have sinned, but did not. Which view is correct? The clear teaching of Scripture is that Jesus was impeccable—Jesus could not have sinned. If He could have sinned, He would still be able to sin today because He retains the same essence He did while living on earth. He is the God-Man and will forever remain so, having full deity and full humanity so united in one person as to be indivisible. To believe that Jesus could sin is to believe that God could sin. “For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him” (Colossians 1:19). Colossians 2:9 adds, “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form.”

Although Jesus is fully human, He was not born with the sinful nature that we are born with. He certainly was tempted in the same way we are, in that temptations were put before Him by Satan, yet He remained sinless because God is incapable of sinning. It is against His very nature (Matthew 4:1; Hebrews 2:18, 4:15; James 1:13). Sin is by definition a trespass of the Law. God created the Law, and the Law is by nature what God would or would not do; therefore, sin is anything that God would not do by His very nature.

To be tempted is not, in and of itself, sinful. A person could tempt you with something you have no desire to do, such as committing murder or participating in sexual perversions. You probably have no desire whatsoever to take part in these actions, but you were still tempted because someone placed the possibility before you. There are at least two definitions for the word “tempted”:

1) To have a sinful proposition suggested to you by someone or something outside yourself or by your own sin nature.

2) To consider actually participating in a sinful act and the possible pleasures and consequences of such an act to the degree that the act is already taking place in your mind.

The first definition does not describe a sinful act/thought; the second does. When you dwell upon a sinful act and consider how you might be able to bring it to pass, you have crossed the line of sin. Jesus was tempted in the fashion of definition one except that He was never tempted by a sin nature because it did not exist within Him. Satan proposed certain sinful acts to Jesus, but He had no inner desire to participate in the sin. Therefore, He was tempted like we are but remained sinless.

Those who hold to peccability believe that, if Jesus could not have sinned, He could not have truly experienced temptation, and therefore could not truly empathize with our struggles and temptations against sin. We have to remember that one does not have to experience something in order to understand it. God knows everything about everything. While God has never had the desire to sin, and has most definitely never sinned, God knows and understands what sin is. God knows and understands what it is like to be tempted. Jesus can empathize with our temptations because He knows, not because He has “experienced” all the same things we have.

Jesus knows what it is like to be tempted, but He does not know what it is like to sin. This does not prevent Him from assisting us. We are tempted with sins that are common to man (1 Corinthians 10:13). These sins generally can be boiled down to three different types: “the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life” (1 John 2:16 NKJV). Examine the temptation and sin of Eve, as well as the temptation of Jesus, and you will find that the temptations for each came from these three categories. Jesus was tempted in every way and in every area that we are, but remained perfectly holy. Although our corrupt natures will have the inner desire to participate in some sins, we have the ability, through Christ, to overcome sin because we are no longer slaves to sin but rather slaves of God (Romans 6, especially verses 2 and 16-22).got ?

hope this helps !!!
 
Jesus was/ is Impeccable. The Son is Impeccable just the same as the Father.

Question: "Could Jesus have sinned? If He was not capable of sinning, how could He truly be able to 'sympathize with our weaknesses' (Hebrews 4:15)? If He could not sin, what was the point of the temptation?"
Answer:
There are two sides to this interesting question. It is important to remember that this is not a question of whether Jesus sinned. Both sides agree, as the Bible clearly says, that Jesus did not sin (2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Peter 2:22). The question is whether Jesus could have sinned. Those who hold to “impeccability” believe that Jesus could not have sinned. Those who hold to “peccability” believe that Jesus could have sinned, but did not. Which view is correct? The clear teaching of Scripture is that Jesus was impeccable—Jesus could not have sinned. If He could have sinned, He would still be able to sin today because He retains the same essence He did while living on earth.

Nope. . .after the resurrection, we cannot sin (1 Co 15;42-49), and the same goes for Jesus after his resurrection.

Jesus could not have atoned for us if he had not passed the same test that Adam failed, a trial of his obedience, which included the possibility of failure under the burden.
Adam failed his trial, Jesus passed his trial, being perfectly obedient to the Law and the Scriptures, even to the fulfilling of all the prophecies** (Jn 19:28, Lk 24:44-47).

** Mt 2:15, 17< 23, 4:14, 8:17,12:17, 21:4, 26:54, 56, 27:9, Lk 4:21, 21:22, Jn 1:18, 19:24, 28, 36)He is the God-Man and will forever remain so, having full deity and full humanity so united in one person as to be indivisible.
Jesus had two natures, which were divisible, though he was just one person, just as the persons of the Trinity are "divisible" though they are one God.
To believe that Jesus could sin is to believe that God could sin. “For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him” (Colossians 1:19). Colossians 2:9 adds, “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form.”

Although Jesus is fully human, He was not born with the sinful nature that we are born with.
He was born with the same human nature that Adam was born with in the Garden, sinless but corruptible, which is why he is called the Last Adam, in contrast to the First Adam.
His divine nature could not sin, just as his divine nature could not die.
 
Last edited:
Nope. . .like us in the resurrection, he is now fixed in his eternal state.

Jesus could not have atoned for us if he had not passed the same test that Adam failed, a trial of his obedience, which included the possibility of failure under the burden.
Adam failed his trial, Jesus passed his trial, being perfectly obedient to the Law and the Scriptures, including the fulfilling of all the prophecies** (Jn 19:28, Lk 24:44-47).

** Mt 2:15, 17< 23, 4:14, 8:17,12:17, 21:4, 26:54, 56, 27:9, Lk 4:21, 21:22, Jn 1:18, 19:24, 28, 36)

He was born with he nature that Adam was born, which is why he is called the Last Adam, in contrast to the First Adam.
No Adam was Always going to fail for he was only a human , a man and not God. Christ is God and His Person is Divine. He is a Divine Person who has a human nature . The nature is not the person otherwise you have the Nestorian heresy of Jesus being 2 persons .

hope this helps !!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: QVQ
No, God's command was simple and clear, "Thou shalt not eat of it."
Adam had a simple choice to make, obey or disobey. All the rest is window dressing.
I suspect he chose disobedience in order to be with Eve, because he didn't want to part with her.
If Adam chose to disobey in order to be with Eve, then his act was from Love? A selfless act of human devotion? That would not be a sin, would it?

Civic made a good answer to this in Post #168. I would merely be repeating it.
 
No Adam was Always going to fail for he was only a human , a man and not God.
And we are always going to fail without the Grace of God, Christ and the Holy Spirit to protect and guide us.
There but for the Grace of God go I.
 
Correction of post #169, bottom of first response should be (below):
Jesus was/ is Impeccable. The Son is Impeccable just the same as the Father.

Question: "Could Jesus have sinned? If He was not capable of sinning, how could He truly be able to 'sympathize with our weaknesses' (Hebrews 4:15)? If He could not sin, what was the point of the temptation?"

Answer:

There are two sides to this interesting question. It is important to remember that this is not a question of whether Jesus sinned. Both sides agree, as the Bible clearly says, that Jesus did not sin (2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Peter 2:22). The question is whether Jesus could have sinned. Those who hold to “impeccability” believe that Jesus could not have sinned. Those who hold to “peccability” believe that Jesus could have sinned, but did not. Which view is correct? The clear teaching of Scripture is that Jesus was impeccable—Jesus could not have sinned. If He could have sinned, He would still be able to sin today because He retains the same essence He did while living on earth.
** Mt 2:15, 17, 23, 4:14, 8:17,12:17, 21:4, 26:54, 56, 27:9, Lk 4:21, 21:22, Jn 1:18, 19:24, 28, 36
He is the God-Man and will forever remain so, having full deity and full humanity so united in one person as to be indivisible.
Jesus had two natures, which were divisible, though he was just one person, just as the persons of the Trinity are "divisible" though they are one God.
 
Last edited:
If Adam chose to disobey in order to be with Eve, then his act was from Love? A selfless act of human devotion? That would not be a sin, would it?
To love the creature more than the Creator is sin, big time.
Civic made a good answer to this in Post #168. I would merely be repeating it.
To which I responded in post #169, with formatting correction in post #173.
 
Jesus had two natures, which were divisible, though he was just one person, just as the persons of the Trinity are "divisible" though they are one God.
Adam did not have two natures. Adam had one nature. He was not divided into good man and sin man. Adam was capable of sin, therefore that was a component of his nature. God told him not to. That means Adam very well could.

If a man believes in Thou shalt not kill. He lives his entire life and he never has the occasion to kill anyone. However, if he is sent to war or he is attacked and must kill to defend himself then that man can kill, he is capable. It is his nature. It is not the nature of a bunny rabbit. A bunny rabbit is hardly capable of killing. It is not in bunny rabbit nature. So sin is a natural capacity, being capable of disobeying God, given the circumstances.

So, I can see that Christ could have 2 natures, one human one divine however for Jesus to sin would have been an act against His divine nature. That Jesus could do as man nature what was totally against His divine nature....don't get that part. If Jesus as man had assented to the temptation of the devil, then Jesus was not divine.

Are you arguing that Adam was divine and through his disobedience lost his divinity and through the resurrection we are to receive the divine substance? Adam was holy man and sin man?

So if Adam was by nature good man/.bad man, Adam (man) would have two natures, one good man one sinful man and then Jesus would have had three natures, mans divided and God...
 
Not in orthodox Christianity.
Define Orthodox or tell me what an Orthodox view would be. (a question)
Unless you are saying that the act of sin corrupted Adam, but that is one nature, before and after the fall.
Like fruit that is rotted. It is still a fruit, by nature and definition. That is not two fruits.
 
Not in orthodox Christianity.
Not in scripture either. He had a human nature. Only Christ had 2 natures and is Unique and One of a kind being both fully God and fully man lacking nothing in either nature.
 
Define Orthodox or tell me what an Orthodox view would be. (a question)
Unless you are saying that the act of sin corrupted Adam, but that is one nature, before and after the fall.
Like fruit that is rotted. It is still a fruit, by nature and definition. That is not two fruits.
Orthodox would be according to the councils of Christendom for the first 1500 years.

Adam has one nature--human, created righteous, but capable of corruption, which happened when he rebelled, he corrupted his nature.
Now man is born with a fallen (corrupted) nature, not in the righteous (without sin) state that it was at creation.
 
Orthodox would be according to the councils of Christendom for the first 1500 years.

Adam has one nature--human, created righteous, but capable of corruption, which happened when he rebelled, he corrupted his nature.
Now man is born with a fallen (corrupted) nature, not in the righteous (without sin) state that it was at creation.
That is what I said.
Absolutely agree.

I agree that Christ has a human nature and God Nature. I don't think Jesus could sin as it would violate His nature.

To each question Christ answered Satan with the authority of God. The answers are in some sense commandments. What commandment could Adam have given in answer to Satan?

Matthew 4 : 3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
4But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

(when I asked "Orthodox" I meant if it was the Orthodox Church or according to the councils of Christendom. Thanks for the clarification)
 
I can't edit the previous post but I did catch that reference by civic about the Nestorian Heresy

Nestorianism is the Christian doctrine that Jesus existed as two persons, the man Jesus and the divine Son of God, or Logos, rather than as a unified person. This doctrine is identified with Nestorius (386–451)

I am not certain what the Nestorian Heresy was exactly. That may be referring to Jesus being of two substance, human and divine.

I am going to do some research but I don't believe Jesus could sin.
 
That is what I said.
Absolutely agree.

I agree that Christ has a human nature and God Nature. I don't think Jesus could sin as it would violate His nature.

To each question Christ answered Satan with the authority of God. The answers are in some sense commandments. What commandment could Adam have given in answer to Satan?

Matthew 4 : 3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
4But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

(when I asked "Orthodox" I meant if it was the Orthodox Church or according to the councils of Christendom. Thanks for the clarification)
You know, I think I read that Jesus instead of Adam.

Of course, Adam had only one nature.

Sorry about that!
 
  • Like
Reactions: QVQ
I can't edit the previous post but I did catch that reference by civic about the Nestorian Heresy

Nestorianism is the Christian doctrine that Jesus existed as two persons, the man Jesus and the divine Son of God, or Logos, rather than as a unified person. This doctrine is identified with Nestorius (386–451)

I am not certain what the Nestorian Heresy was exactly. That may be referring to Jesus being of two substance, human and divine.

I am going to do some research but I don't believe Jesus could sin.
One person, two natures. . .One God, three persons.
 
One person, two natures. . .One God, three persons
The Council of Chalcedon
according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; (ἐν δύο φύσεσιν ἀσυγχύτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀχωρίστως – in duabus naturis inconfuse, immutabiliter, indivise, inseparabiliter)the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person (prosopon) and one Subsistence (hypostasis), not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten God (μονογενῆ Θεόν), the Word,

That seems to mean that the 2 natures are in fact one person, one subsistence (hypostasis)
So one person one nature in Christ...but then if Christ could sin, then God could sin.
Except God cannot because He is not hypostatically man except in Christ.
Only man and devil have the capacity for sin.
 
One person, two natures. . .One God, three persons.

The Council of Chalcedon
according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; (ἐν δύο φύσεσιν ἀσυγχύτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀχωρίστως – in duabus naturis inconfuse, immutabiliter, indivise, inseparabiliter)the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person (prosopon) and one Subsistence (hypostasis), not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten God (μονογενῆ Θεόν), the Word,

That seems to mean that the 2 natures are in fact one person, one subsistence (hypostasis)
No, the two natures in one person, not one nature.
 
  • Like
Reactions: QVQ
Back
Top