Understanding The Trinity ???
- Thread starter musicworld
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Yes I am, Im suggesting he shared in our condition. The word Paul uses in Hebrews 4:17 for all things is the word "pas"
3956. pas pas including all the forms of declension; apparently a primary word; all, any, every, the whole:--all (manner of, means), alway(-s), any (one), X daily, + ever, every (one, way), as many as, + no(-thing), X thoroughly, whatsoever, whole, whosoever.
There is no way to confuse it to mean anything but just what it says.
BTW mankind inherited death, at birth we are condemned to death, that's the fallen part we inherited. By one mans sin all were condemned to death.
- [size="+1"]"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" [/size][size="+1"](Romans 5: 12)[/size]
[size="+1"]but read on
[/size]
[size="+1"]13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.[/size]
[size="+1"]14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one to come.
[/size]
[size="+1"]15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of the one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.[/size]
Im off to bed now but think about how sin is not counted where there is no law. There was only one law until the 10 commandments came. "Don't eat of that tree" or you will surly die.
Death was what mankind got even before mankind knew what sin was.
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Jesus was free of a fallen nature just like Adam was - Paul even calls Him the 2nd Adam. If He did have a Fallen nature He would not have been a perfect sacrifice.
This doctrine is taught by Christadelphians.
This doctrine is taught by Christadelphians.
Anastacia, that Col.1:15 verse is still about Christ coming in the flesh for reconcillation of those who believe on Him, and for reconcillation of His creation.
Heb 1:6-8
6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, He saith, And let all the angels of God worship Him.
7 And of the angels He saith, Who maketh His angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire.
8 But unto the Son He saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Thy kingdom.
(KJV)
Col 1:16-20
16 For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him:
17 And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist.
18 And He is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things He might have the preeminence.
19 For it pleased the Father that in Him should all fulness dwell;
20 And, having made peace through the blood of His cross, by Him to reconcile all things unto Himself; by Him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
(KJV)
John 17:5
5 And now, O Father, glorify Thou Me with Thine own self with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was.
(KJV)
Heb 1:6-8
6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, He saith, And let all the angels of God worship Him.
7 And of the angels He saith, Who maketh His angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire.
8 But unto the Son He saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Thy kingdom.
(KJV)
Col 1:16-20
16 For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him:
17 And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist.
18 And He is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things He might have the preeminence.
19 For it pleased the Father that in Him should all fulness dwell;
20 And, having made peace through the blood of His cross, by Him to reconcile all things unto Himself; by Him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
(KJV)
John 17:5
5 And now, O Father, glorify Thou Me with Thine own self with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was.
(KJV)
Nomad
Post Tenebras Lux
If Jesus was born with a fallen nature he would not have been the perfect sacrifice that God required. Had he been born with innate corruption he would have been unfit to be a propitiatory/expiatory sacrifice. It would have been an abomination to the Lord. This necessity begins in the types and shadows of the OT sacrificial system which prefigured Christ.
Deu 17:1 "You shall not sacrifice to the LORD your God an ox or a sheep in which is a blemish, any defect whatever, for that is an abomination to the LORD your God.
The writer to the Hebrews alludes to this when he says:
Heb 9:13 For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh,
Heb 9:14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.
So then where did he get this perfect flesh? Didn't God promise Abraham that from his seed all nations of the earth shall be blessed?
If Jesus is not from Abraham's seed just who is he?
To the serpent He said I shall put enmity between your seed and hers. Now when God made that promise Eve was in the condition we all find ourselves in today.
So who is Jesus If hes not a decedent of Eve as well?
I gave several verse that would indicate Jesus shared in the same thing we all do.
My view is that God "threw the conception of a virgin" walked in the same flesh as all of us. Mary provided the human flesh that God indwelled.
Unless you believe Mary was preserved from the condition of mankind. But that also presents a problem, it can't be found in scripture.
God took our mortal flesh and in it drove a perfect race, walked a perfect life, what ever you would like to call it.
So you see the definition of who Jesus was on earth is a source of contention. Let alone the trinity.
I simply tell people you believe in a different Jesus than I do. As I posted earlier its the bottom line for false prophets teachings.
1 John 4:2-3
2 John 7
Heb 9:14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.
Not by being born of a different flesh. God took on the flesh of men. John 1:14
Nomad
Post Tenebras Lux
O.k., lets look at Hebrews 1:5 as well as 5:5, Acts 13:33 & Psalm 2:7 first.
Heb 1:5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son, today I have begotten you"? Or again, "I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son"?
Heb 5:5 So also Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest, but was appointed by him who said to him, "You are my Son, today I have begotten you";
The issue before us is the meaning of the phrase 'today I have begotten you.' Paul tells us that it refers to Christ's resurrection.
Act 13:32 And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers,
Act 13:33 this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second Psalm, "'You are my Son, today I have begotten you.'
We know what it doesn't mean. It doesn't mean that Jesus became that Son at his resurrection as he was declared to be the Son of God by the Father more than once before the resurrection.
Luk 1:31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.
Luk 1:32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David,
Luk 1:33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end."
Mat 3:16 And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him;
Mat 3:17 and behold, a voice from heaven said, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased."
Mat 17:5 He was still speaking when, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him."
So what does 'today I begotten you'' mean? The phrase is an allusion to Psalm 2.
Psa 2:6 "As for me, I have set my King on Zion, my holy hill."
Psa 2:7 I will tell of the decree: The LORD said to me, "You are my Son; today I have begotten you."
Psalm 2 is a messianic Psalm and one that speaks of the coronation of a King of God's choosing. The immediate context is most likely the coronation of King David as he prefigured Christ in his office as king. The idiomatic expression "You are my Son; today I have begotten you' is to be understood in a figurative sense. It's God's decree and public declaration that he has anointed and installed his King. The picture presented here is that of a coronation ceremony. John Calvin sums this up nicely.
_____________________________________
Let's look briefly at the standard definition of the Trinity. God is one being or essential nature subsisting in three co-eternal, co-equal persons. Wayne Grudem lays it out this way in his Systematic Theology:
1. God is three persons
2. Each person is fully God.
3. There is one God.
We know from Scripture that the second person of the Trinity is eternal. Notice John 1:1 for example. Each occurrence of the verb 'was' is in the imperfect tense. The imperfect tense indicates continuing action in the past. The Word was existing in the 'beginning.' He existed before the universe was created in eternity past. The Word was with God in the beginning and the Word was God in the beginning. John 17:5 below supports this as well.
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.
The Biblical data points to the second person of the Trinity as an eternal person who already existed with the first person in eternity past and relates to him as a son relates to a father. More than this would be speculation without Biblical support in my opinion.
Nomad
Post Tenebras Lux
The problem of original sin is not a problem in the least when you keep in mind that Jesus was conceived in Mary's womb by the Holy Spirit. This insured that he was made flesh like those he came to save, but without sin.
If you insist on your view there's still the problem of corruption that is inherent in a fallen nature and how this would render Jesus unfit as a sacrifice. The idea that Jesus had a fallen nature also contradicts what the writer to the Hebrews says of Christ and his sacrifice.
Heb 9:14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.
Since you really didn't engage my argument I'll quote it again in full below.
I did engage your reply but you have not provided the evidence asked for to support your position.
From the above I gather you believe men are born with an inherant sin. I'll ask another question wheres the proof?
And wheres the proof Jesus did not share our condition. All the texts says everywhere is Jesus did not sin, it says nothing about being born without our human nature. The condition that was passed on was death not sin. Jesus over came death, by not sinning. He did it in our flesh. God said the day you eat of it you shall surly die. By one mans sin all mankind was sentenced to death, that's the inherited part.
1] So you have yet to prove sin is inherent.
2] Jesus had a different flesh than us.
3] And if he did just how did it come about?
Jesus was a two nature man 100% man and in that man dwelled 100% God. The word became flesh.
Like I said just how is it Jesus is the seed of the woman Eve and Abraham If he was not born of the flesh of Eve and Abraham? Its rather plain IMO he was born of Marys flesh. Who was a descendant of all of the above including David. Its you that contend the nature of man is incompatible. So just where are the verse?
From scripture please.
Nomad
Post Tenebras Lux
Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned. . .
Notice the phrase 'because all sinned.' The verb 'sinned' there is in the aorist tense. The aorist tense indicates completed action. It doesn't say that death spread to all men because all will eventually sin. No, Paul is telling us very clearly that death spread to all men because all sinned -- past tense. All sinned in Adam. This is called inherited guilt and like it's cousin the fallen nature, which is called inherited corruption, it's plain to see in the passage in question.
If you want to deny this, and I suspect you will do just that, you will also have to contend with the following:
Rom 5:18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.
Rom 5:19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.
Eph 2:1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins
Eph 2:2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience--
Eph 2:3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.
If you insist contrary to the Scriptures that Christ had a fallen nature then Christ was born condemned for Adam's sin, (Rom. 5:18), made a sinner through Adam's sin, (Rom. 5:19), and stood a child of wrath by nature like the rest of mankind, (Eph. 2:3). Again, that would render Jesus unfit to be our sacrifice. I certainly don't envy your position.
I noticed you left out the next verse. Romans 5:13 That sin is not imputed when there is no law.
When the law was given then came an exception to the blanket effect of Adams sin. Without the law Jesus would not have been able to overcome the sin of Adam. The law did two things it brought a provision to Adams sin, that Jesus met by fulfilling the old covenant, and it also made all men accountable for there own sin, no longer were men condemned because of one mans transgression. We are all held accountable for our own.
[sup]Romans 5:13[/sup] (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. [sup]14[/sup] Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. [sup]15[/sup] But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.
True Christ would have been condemned to Adams sin If the law had not brought the provision. By not understand the full context of scripture some error in the theoligy that Jesus did not share our human nature 100% in all things as it is translated into English.
I do think I have made my case as to why Jesus walked in our flesh and the law provided an exception to the sin of Adam threw the old covenant, that death reigned to all men from Adam to Moses apart from the law. Jesus walked in our likeness in every aspect as I posted earlier.
Heb 2:14
Heb 2:17-18
Heb 5:7
Phil 2:7-8
Heb 4:15-16
John 1:14
Luke 22:27-28
Hebrews 2:17
[sup]17[/sup]Wherefore in all things 3956 it behoved him to be made like 3666 unto his brethren 80, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
3956. pas pas including all the forms of declension; apparently a primary word; all, any, every, the whole:--all (manner of, means), alway(-s), any (one), X daily, + ever, every (one, way), as many as, + no(-thing), X thoroughly, whatsoever, whole, whosoever.
3666. homoioo hom-oy-o'-o from 3664; to assimilate, i.e. compare; passively, to become similar:--be (make) like, (in the) liken(-ess), resemble.
80. adephos ad-el-fos' from 1 (as a connective particle) and delphus (the womb); a brother (literally or figuratively) near or remote (much like 1):--brother.
What you teach has been taught from the beginning. As I pointed out in 1 John 4:2-3 and 2 John 7
We can see where John also uses the word antichrist, they went out from us, but they were not of us.
We can see before John gives the definition of antichrist, he is already warning about them. Those same teachings are still well grounded in the christian faith today. Where is it do you suppose these false teachers be made manifest..................or manifest themselves?
Nomad
Post Tenebras Lux
The Law may have made men accountable for their own sins in the sense that now they sin in the likeness of Adam's transgression in breaking direct commands, but those not saved by Christ are still condemned for Adam's sin. Paul writing about 1500 years after the institution of the Mosaic Law said the following:
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
The problem still remains. If Christ inherited a fallen nature he would be corrupt and a child of wrath by nature as I pointed out in my last post. This would have made him unfit to fulfill the Law or die as a sacrifice. Remember, a blemished sacrifice is an abomination to the Lord, but the writer to the Hebrews tells us that Christ offered himself without blemish to God. This isn't possible for one who inherits a fallen corrupt nature.
I came to my own conclusion based largely on personal revelation. But I did google a couple of key words and phrases and found this. Such things have been looked at before, by people with command of the English language much greater than mine. They seem to address many of the contentions that we share and perhaps touch on some not considered. In parting each must work out his own salvation. Its been a good debate I believe we would probably share a similar view on other topics. Most often these discussions seldom bring resolve, in that I will let the thread progress in an other direction.
---------------------------<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<-------------------------------------------------------->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>---------------------------------------
Did Christ Have a Fallen Human Nature?
Donald Macleod
The doctrine that Jesus Christ had a true human nature is probably the single most important article of the Christian faith. Indeed, the Apostle John insists that the denial of it is the mark of Antichrist (1 John 4:3). Yet denials there have been, in abundance. In John's own day, the Docetists denied that Christ had a true body. Later, the Apollinarians denied that he had a human spirit and later still Eutychus claimed that he was neither God nor man, but a mixture of both. Less drastically, some later Christian traditions, while not denying the Lord's humanity, spoke in a way which compromised it. Mediaeval Catholicism saw Christ almost exclusively as a remote divine emperor. Lutheranism, because of its insistence on the corporal presence of Christ in the Sacrament, had to formulate the doctrine that His body was ubiquitous, which is hardly consistent with its being a body at all.
It would be arrogant to claim that Reformed theology got it exactly right. But men like Calvin, Owen and Hugh Martin did strive to do justice to the biblical vision of 'the man Christ Jesus' and even the so-called Protestant Scholastics betray no reservations as to the manhood of our Lord. Calvinist theologians - and preachers - have testified, firmly and unambiguously, that Christ took a flesh-and-blood body, possessing the same anatomy and physiology as our own, and linked, through his mother, to the genetic stream of the race. They accepted fully that our Lord experienced such ordinary human emotions as joy, sorrow, fear, amazement and almost-despair. They highlighted his need for companionship, his discriminating friendships (closer to some than to others) and his pained sensitiveness to all the misery around him. They acquiesced unquestioningly in the clear teaching of Scripture that he was temptable and, on some matters, ignorant.
It is arguable, then, that more than any other tradition Reformed theology has sought to be faithful to the claim that Christ is of one and the same substance with us according to his manhood, just as he is of one and the same substance with the Father according to his godhead. Yet the insistence that 'He was in every sense a member of the human race' has its own dangers. As C. F. D. Moule has pointed out, 'According to New Testament writers, the humanity of Jesus is both continuous with and discontinuous from that of the rest of mankind." The discontinuity is particularly evident at two points. Christ's humanness, unlike ours, was originated supernaturally, in a virgin conception; and Christ's humanness, unlike ours, was sinless.
For the moment, we shall concentrate on the second point. Christ's sinlessness clearly means two things.
First, he was not guilty of any actual sin. Never for a moment does he betray any consciousness of having transgressed in word, in emotion, in desire, in ambition or in action. He never, for all his sense of the holy, prays for forgiveness. Nor can we adduce any utterance or incident from his life at which we can point and say, 'There, surely, is a sin!' From within the gospel records he still stands, challenging us, 'Which of you can convict me of sin' (John 8:46). Stated negatively, there is no transgression, no lawlessness, no want of conformity, anywhere in the life of the Saviour. Positively, his whole life is an acted righteousness as he goes out to meet the will of God in an almost aggressive obedience.
Secondly, there was in Christ no inherent sin. This again is something on which Scripture is adamant. He was a lamb without blemish and without spot (1 Pet. 1 :19), holy, harmless, undefiled and separate from sinners (Heb. 7:26). In stating this we have to avoid compromising his participation in our nature, and the need for careful formulation is clearly seen in such a passage as Romans 8:3, 'God sent forth his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh.' We cannot say, 'the likeness of flesh', because that would make his humanness ghost-like a mere seeming. We cannot say 'sinful flesh' because that would compromise his integrity. We can say that Christ was 'made sin' (2 Cor. 5:21) but we cannot say that he was made sinful. There is no moral or structural defect for Satan to exploit. There is no lust. There is no egotism. There is no proclivity to sin. There is no corruption of nature. There is no want of original righteousness. There is no fallenness.
The same fallen nature as ours?
But this last statement must give us pause. It has become a virtual truism of recent scholarship that 'Christ's human nature was indeed the same fallen human nature as ours'. For the most part, those who hold this view are careful to deny that he was sinful. But they regard it as not only true, but vital, that his humanness was fallen. Otherwise, he could feel no sympathy with us. More fundamentally still, if he did not take fallen human nature, then he did not redeem it.
The credit, if such it is, for the current respectability of this doctrine must go to two men, Edward Irving and Karl Barth.
Irving, an enigmatic and ultimately a tragic figure, was deposed from the ministry of the Church of Scotland in 1833. He never abandoned his own belief in the sinlessness of Christ, but the way he stated it was, to say the least, awkward: Christ's human nature had the grace of sinlessness and incorruption. He did not have his sinlessness from himself. He had it only from the indwelling of the Spirit: 'It was manhood fallen which he took up into his divine person, in order to prove the grace and the might of Godhead in redeeming it.' The Lord's humanity was indeed without guilt, but only because it was 'held like a fortress in immaculate purity by the Godhead within'.
Barth, too, held to the doctrine of the sinlessness of the Lord: 'Christ was not a sinful man. He did nothing that Adam did.' But he serves himself heir to all that Irving had said of the fallenness of the Saviour's humanity. 'There must,' he says, 'be no weakening or obscuring of the saving truth that the nature which God assumed in Christ is identical with our nature as we see it in the light of the Fall. If it were otherwise, how could Christ be really like us? What concern would we have with Him? We stand before God characterised by the Fall. God's Son not only assumed our nature but he entered the concrete form of our nature, under which we stand before God as men damned and lost.'
Fallen and sinful
It is very doubtful, however, whether the idea that Christ took a fallen human nature can be held meaningfully in any form which is not heretical. There is no practicable distinction between fallen and sinful. 'Beyond a doubt,' wrote A. B. Bruce, 'the theory requires that original sin should be ascribed to Christ; for original sin is a vice of fallen human nature, and the doctrine that our Lord's human nature was fallen, means if it means anything, that it was tainted with original sin.'
The truth of Bruce's claim will appear at once if we recall the teaching of the Shorter Catechism: the Fall brought mankind into an estate of sin and misery (Answer 17). To be fallen means not only to be in a state of misery, but to be in a state of sin. And in what does that sinfulness consist? 'The guilt of Adam's first sin, the want of original righteousness and the corruption of (our) whole nature' (Answer 18).
This is really the crux of the matter. A fallen nature means a corrupt nature - indeed, one which is wholly corrupt. Is that what Christ had - a nature which lacked original righteousness and was totally depraved?
Both Irving and Barth strenuously protest their belief in the sinlessness of Christ and we must respect that. But there can be no doubt that as they work out what they mean by a fallen nature they use language which is totally inconsistent with his inherent perfection. As Irving saw it, the flesh which Christ took was one in which 'all sins, infirmities and diseases nestled'. Throughout his life, he had to battle heroically against temptations which sprang, not from the devil, but from his own nature - that 'fragment of the perilous stuff' which he had assumed. The Lord, Irving insists, committed no sinful act. But the possibility of sinning was there and he would have sinned but for the Holy Spirit keeping his flesh under control. He was holy only 'in spite of the law of the flesh working in him as in other men'. What can this mean but that something in him resisted the Spirit - something so powerful that it required the might of the Godhead to keep it in check?
Exactly the same kind of language appears in Barth: fallen equals corrupt. The flesh which Christ took was 'the concrete form of human nature marked by Adam's fall'. That was not a nature which was good in itself. It was a vitiated nature. 'Why does Scripture always speak contemptuously of the flesh unless corrupt nature is meant?' Barth quotes a seventeenth century source to the effect that 'it was not fitting that a human nature liable (obnoxia) to sin should be united to the Son of God', and comments: 'Not fitting? If that is true, then precisely in the critical definition of our nature, Christ is not a man like us, and so he has not really come to us and represented us.' When we move from Barth's treatment of the Incarnation to his treatment of the Fall of Man, the language only confirms our suspicions. Here, 'the essence of the Fall' is synonymous with 'the situation of man in the state of corruption' and Christ becoming flesh means precisely that he participated in our corrupted being.
Discontinuity
In Irving and Barth the link between fallen and corrupt is not due to any lack of care. The corruptness of the human nature assumed by Christ is precisely what they want to express and the word fallen is the ideal word for the purpose. This fact alone is surely sufficient to make its use in evangelical theology thoroughly improper.
There are, however, several other considerations which have a bearing on the question.
First, the plea for total continuity between Christ's humanity and ours is misplaced. The Virgin Birth (which Barth himself defends and expounds so eloquently) is an immediate and unmistakeable reminder of discontinuity. So is the Resurrection: 'The Virgin Birth at the opening and the empty tomb at the close of Jesus' life bear witness that this life is a fact marked off from all the rest of human life.’ Christ is the new beginning, the One from outside - outside Adam, outside the Fall, outside guilt, outside corruption. He is God's man, who does not share in the sin of the first man nor in his loss of righteousness nor in the corruption of his nature. So long, indeed, as Christ is without actual sin, Barth cannot have unqualified continuity between him and us. All the rhetoric with which he turns on the unfallenness could be turned equally effectively against the sinlessness. How can he understand if he never sinned? What does he know of shame and sorrow and frustration and failure? What could have been the use to Paul of a Saviour who knew nothing of the anguish behind the words. 'To will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not' (Rom. 7:18)?
The answer is, of course, much use because the basis of his being 'touched with the feeling of our infirmities' is not that he was either fallen or sinful, but that he shared our nature, our deprivations and our temptations.
Fallenness a disadvantage
Then there is a second - and vital consideration: To be fallen would be a distinct disadvantage in a Saviour. This is something which becomes totally clear from Barth's own treatment of the Fall of Man. It is Barth himself who quotes Ephesians 2:3, 'We were children of wrath' and goes on to define our fallen nature as one inclined to hate God and our neighbour. If that is the nature which Christ took then he, too, was a child of wrath and in no position to save others. When one recalls how emphatically Barth stresses the incapacity of fallen man it is difficult to see how Christ could overcome the disadvantage of having a fallen nature: 'With the Formula of Concord we can call fallen man a stock and a stone in order to describe his whole incapacity to help and save himself.' Did Christ then take upon himself this whole incapacity? Again, Barth tells us that the corruption from which God's word of forgiveness calls us 'consists in the fact that man is God's debtor. He is a debtor who cannot pay.'
The cumulative effect of this is overwhelming. Christ took a nature which made him a child of wrath, rendered him incapable of helping himself and turned him into a debtor who could not pay. How can his power to save be salvaged from such wreckage?
A fallen person
Thirdly, it is impossible to speak of Christ having a fallen human nature and yet refrain from describing him as a fallen person. 'If a fallen nature exists at all,' wrote the elder Marcus Dods, 'it can exist only as the nature of a fallen person.' A nature is an abstraction. It neither acts nor suffers nor falls. Only persons can fall or be fallen. This is certainly the way theology has traditionally spoken. The Shorter Catechism, for example, does not say that our nature fell. It says that our first parents fell (Answer 13). The Westminster Confession is equally careful: 'By this sin they fell from their original righteousness' (ch. VI:II). It was they, not their nature, which became dead in sin and 'wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body'.
To say that Adam had a fallen nature is to say that Adam was fallen. The same logic must apply to Christ. If he had a nature that was fallen, then he himself was fallen. The principle of the communion of attributes is sufficient to establish this: whatever is true of either nature is true of the person. If the human nature was fallen, the person was fallen.
The implications of this are totally unacceptable to reverent thought. When did Christ fall? In Adam? Or in his own experience? It seems unnecessary to press these points. Christ was one person, one self, one agent, bearing the name, the Son of God. To say that the Son of God was fallen is impossible, especially when by fallen we mean 'wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body'.
Fallenness not part of humanness
Two other considerations deserve a brief mention.
First, fallenness is no part of the definition of humanness. The underlying motive of Barth's exposition is to maximise the identity between Christ and ourselves. As he sees it, the denial of fallenness jeopardises this: 'precisely at the critical definition of our nature Christ is not a man like us.' The answer to that, surely, is that to be fallen is not part of what defines our nature. If it were, then the newly created Adam was not a man. Indeed, on these terms God did not create a man at all. What he created only became a man by falling. The same conclusion would apply at the other end of human destiny. Glorified man would not be human certainly not in 'the concrete form of our nature marked by Adam's fall'.
Finally, those who argue that Christ had a fallen human nature misconceive the reason for his sufferings. The Lord suffered in every dimension of his existence; physically, socially, emotionally and spiritually. Furthermore, the agony which this involved brought him to the very limits of his human endurance. Even though upheld by the Spirit he is at last close to being overwhelmed.
But the reason for his suffering was not that he was fallen. It was, instead, that he was the Vicar of the fallen. He was their Representative and Substitute. He was under their curse, sharing their low estate. His liability to the anathema is not personal. It is contractual. As to himself, he has no debts. He is meeting the debts of others. His manhood has become the place of judgment - the very Gehenna to which all the world's guilt is gathered. He is the Holocaust consumed by God's anger against sin. But the sin is not his own. It is never, in any sense, inherent. He is the atonement for the fallenness of others.
It is superficial to imagine that this unfallenness protected him from the highest levels of pain. On the contrary, it made him uniquely vulnerable. A Nazi could have walked unmoved through Belsen. Bonhoeffer could not. He would have been moved to the depths of his being by the misery and the criminality. In the same way Christ moved among men with an exquisite, unfallen sensitiveness to the pain, the squalor, the oppression and the degradation around him. He had to live amid the manifestations of sin, see it, hear it, feel it, everywhere; suffer for it, bear it - at last, take his very name from it (2 Cor. 5:21). And how could he bear the loss of God? To the fallen, that is a familiar and not altogether unwelcome experience. To Christ, living eternally with God and towards God, it was an unspeakable horror. In prospect, it filled him with overwhelming fear. In actuality, it rendered him desolate. The Far Country was infinitely more harrowing for the Only Begotten than for the Prodigal.
That, we said, was the final consideration. But the most important thing of all remains unsaid. Surely if he was fallen, Christ could not have been tempted. That, unfortunately, cannot be dealt with in a few sentences. But we will discuss it in the next chapter.
Endnotes
C.F.D. Moule, 'The Manhood of Jesus in the New Testament' in S.W. Sykes and J. P. Clayton (eds.), Christ, Faith and History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1972), p. 103
Cited in H. R. Mackintosh, The Doctrine of the Person of Jesus Christ (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2nd edition 1913), p.277. For a fuller, first-hand account of Irving's views see The Collected Writings of Edward Irving (London,1865), Vol. V, pp.114-257.
Cited in Mackintosh as above, p.277
K. Barth, Church Dogmatics 1.2 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark,1956), p.152.
Barth, as above, p.153.
A. B. Bruce, The Humiliation of Christ (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1876), p.271
Barth, Church Dogmatics 1.2, p.182.
Barth, Church Dogmatics IV. 1 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1956), pp.481, 484
<a name="fn9"> M. Dods, The Incarnation of the Eternal Word (London, 1831), p.279.
The Author
-
Donald Macleod
Principal of The Free Church of Scotland, Edinburgh, Scotland
Veteran, How can you say Colossians 1:15 is about Christ coming in the flesh? Reread and consider....[sup]15[/sup] The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
If this scripture is about Jesus being firstborn from the dead...then why say "firstborn over all creation" then in the very next scripture goes on to tell us "For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him." So, how do you go from saying "firstborn over all creation" means it is after he came to earth; then you believe the passage goes back to in the beginning before Jesus came to earth, when all things were created? Wouldn't your reasoning go against the flow and order of the whole passage?
Let's take a look at the whole passage here...
[sup]15[/sup] The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. Is this not about in the beginning?[sup]
[sup][/sup]
16[/sup] For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. Is this still not about in the beginning?
[sup]17[/sup] He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And this, too, about how it is from the beginning?
[sup]18[/sup] And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. Now it is about Jesus in the flesh, and dying for us, and being raised from the dead. You see how it is in order?
[sup]19[/sup] For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, [sup]20[/sup] and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
Now too, in Hebrews 1:6 is about bringing the "first begotten" into the world. If Jesus wasn't the firstborn (first begotten) before all creation was created, then how do we understand bringing the "first begotten" into the world?
Do you believe Jesus was with God before he came to earth....with God as an extension of God, as God in another form, from the beginning? Jesus says God loved him when he was in heaven, before he came to earth. Wasn't Jesus with God from the beginning...as Jesus?
I want to thank you very much for going over these scriptures with me.
It's important to keep the Col.1:15 verse in context, for the verses that follow go further into detail of how that is meant. I think you intend to do that, but somehow isolating that "firstborn of every creature" phrase in your mind seems to be causing you to treat that in the sense that Christ Himself was created before the world was, when that's not what is meant.
Verse 16 immediately declares that by Christ all things were created. There's nothing in that to suggest Christ Himself was created, but instead just the opposite. That verse is showing that anything that was... created, was created only by Christ. It's absolute.
Verse 17 then builds upon that specific detail, declaring that Christ was 'before' all things. That's applying eternal without begininng without end existence to Christ, even prior to ANYTHING that was created. It's impossible to apply in that any idea that Christ Himself was created, since the verse says He was "before all things", meaning prior to all things that were created. That's a direct reference to The Godhead apart from His creation, and even apart from His act of creating.
Verses 18-20 then explains in greater detail how that "firstborn of every creature" is meant, for it's about Christ being preeminent in all things, His Church and to include the whole creation, reconciling all things to Himself, whether they be things in earth or in heaven.
And how did our Lord fulfill that reconciliation that is to come with His future Kingdom? By His death and resurrection.
But don't just stop with the idea of Christ reconcilling us to Himself, for His death and resurrection was especially to defeat the power of death and the devil, thereby not only reconcilling those who believe to Him from bondage to death, but even the 'original formation' of the whole creation, literally...
Rom 8:21-23
21 Because the creature (ktisis-original formation) itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.
(KJV)
The coming redemption of our body by Christ is not ONLY about OUR Salvation through Him, but also the redemption of the whole creation, all things in earth and in heaven. That's the depth apostle Paul is going to in that Colossians 1 Scripture. If you study the Old Testament prophets, there's to be some major changes with the creation starting with Christ's return, and then in full for the new heavens and a new earth timing.
Once again, Christ's preeminence with The Father in the beginning is about Christ's existence eternally, no beginning and no end. That's the meaning of the Alpha and Omega expression our Lord used in Revelation. It's an expression for eternality, completeness.
And our Lord's Name of 'Jesus'? If you do a word study, His Name Jesus literally means 'Yah is Salvation'. It is the name Yehoshua in the Hebrew, which means once again, 'Yah is Salvation'. Even with Christ's Name Jesus, we cannot separate it from The Father's Name YaHaVeH.
Did Christ Jesus have a body before He was born through Mary's womb? Yes, just as He is the "express Image" of The Father per Hebrews 1. It was that Image Pattern which the angels and flesh man was created from. The angelic body is the "image of the heavenly" which apostle Paul was talking about in 1 Cor.15 that is of the first resurrection unto eternal Life through Christ Jesus.
Yes, I know. Col.1:15 is a declared statement with the details given next in the 16-20 verses involving the creation too. It has to be taken as a whole, not by separating that "firstborn of every creature" phrase.
In Romans 8:22 the Greek word 'ktisis' is rendered as "creation" in the KJV. It's the same Greek word rendered "creature" throughout the KJV NT (except ktisma in a couple of places). Dr. James Strong defined ktisis as 'original formation', which is even more accurate concerning Paul's subject there.
I'll cut to the chase on that, so to speak. Assign it how you please. Romans 8:19-24 is about God's creation that He placed in bondage to corruption for this present world. It's a pointer back to the creation once existing in a different state, which is why Paul reveals the whole creation (ktisis) groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now, also with us waiting in hope for the adoption. Compare it with prophecy about the future new heavens and a new earth.
22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.
(KJV)
Rev 1:8
8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, Which is, and Which was, and Which is to come, the Almighty.
(KJV)
Rev 22:12-13
12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with Me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
(KJV)
Alpha is the first letter of the Greek alphabet, and Omega is the last. It's a symbolic expression for completeness. So who was first Author? The LORD. And who's the Finisher (Heb.12:2)? The LORD. It's symbolic for eternality.
You NEVER heard me say that Jesus wasn't with The Father before being born in the flesh through Mary's womb. Yeshua, Messiah, Iesous, Jesus Christ is Immanuel (GOD with us) when He was born in the flesh. He was fully God in OT times, and He was fully God while born in the flesh, and He is fully God after His Resurrection. Christ as the Heavenly Pattern always has existed. He simply came in the same flesh as ours to suffer death for us on the cross to defeat the devil and the power of death, and thereby offer us Salvation. In the Book of Isaiah when He says He is The Saviour, and there is no one else, that is Christ saying that.
The Image likeness of God is that of the image of Man. Even the Archangel Gabriel's name means 'man of God'. That's from Genesis 1:26-27 when God said let Us create man in Our Own Image. The image of man is from the Heavenly Image of God, and it does not require a flesh and blood body.
Matt 22:30
30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
(KJV)
Mark 12:25
25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.
(KJV)
If I could offer some food for thought on this subject.
Whom do you suppose this is in Gen 18. Surly it is the LORD having His feet washed and eating with Abraham. The description leaves little to doubt that God had a fully functional body.
</h5>I would also like to point out that this is the time between Noah and Moses. Yet God is still dealing with man. As a matter of fact God is walking around on the earth in a body prior to the giving of the law. Hear we see just how close the relationship is with Abraham, teaching or rather indwelling Abraham in a similar fashion we do today in the Spirit, "For I have known him", .........."that they keep the way of the LORD.
An other thought, perhaps some have watched ancient aliens, its run on the history channel several times. Gen 18 should give every christian pause in reflecting on history.
Just somethings to think about, I would like to say more but I feel sometimes its better to not go into detail but to simply let the LORD lead, He is the good shepherd.
Whom do you suppose this is in Gen 18. Surly it is the LORD having His feet washed and eating with Abraham. The description leaves little to doubt that God had a fully functional body.
</h5>I would also like to point out that this is the time between Noah and Moses. Yet God is still dealing with man. As a matter of fact God is walking around on the earth in a body prior to the giving of the law. Hear we see just how close the relationship is with Abraham, teaching or rather indwelling Abraham in a similar fashion we do today in the Spirit, "For I have known him", .........."that they keep the way of the LORD.
An other thought, perhaps some have watched ancient aliens, its run on the history channel several times. Gen 18 should give every christian pause in reflecting on history.
Just somethings to think about, I would like to say more but I feel sometimes its better to not go into detail but to simply let the LORD lead, He is the good shepherd.
Similar threads
