Depravity? Nay!

[Wordkeeper]

- Christ had no sinful nature. Adam was not created with a sinful nature - but he sure found a great way to "acquire one" -- all he had to do was 'sin'

How could he sin without a sinful nature?

 

[SeventyOne]

How could he sin without a sinful nature?

An act of sin doesn't require a sinful nature, but rather we see it is a result of the sinful act, both at the fall of man and the devil and his angels.

 

[Wordkeeper]

An act of sin doesn't require a sinful nature, but rather we see it is a result of the sinful act, both at the fall of man and the devil and his angels.

How can a sinful act emanate from a nature that is not sinful?

 

[SeventyOne]

How can a sinful act emanate from a nature that is not sinful?

You're questioning what I've already answered. I gave you several instances in the post you quoted and you can read about them in detail in the scriptures.

Lucifer was perfect until pride was found within him. Eve was deceived and ate, but Adam was not deceived but he ate at the request of his wife. The fallen angels 'left' their first estate.

It happened because they willfully chose to sin. It didn't just pop-up out of their nature.

 

[Wordkeeper]

You're questioning what I've already answered. I gave you several instances in the post you quoted and you can read about them in detail in the scriptures.

Lucifer was perfect until pride was found within him. Eve was deceived and ate, but Adam was not deceived but he ate at the request of his wife. The fallen angels 'left' their first estate.

It happened because they willfully chose to sin. It didn't just pop-up out of their nature.

I'm just questioning the consistency.

First, the claim that the sin nature is passed on through birth. This is a deviation from the fact that Adam was created sinful, just like the rest of creation. God gave Adam the mandate to subdue it, just like a rancher gives his son instruction to subdue a horse, render it useful for work. This includes Adam's own natural body. All of creation is untamed, even today, as a result of Adam's ignoring God's warning. It waits for the full revelation of the power of the sons of God. Apparently we will be like Christ, even the waves and the wind will be subject to our wishes. For now it's just demons and spirits.

Second, the claim that a sinful act emanated from a sinless Adam. This is a deviation from the fact that Adam did not know good from evil, thus his act was not sinful. A person is not held accountable if he is not mature or mentally competent. You can't prosecute minors or the insane under the Penal Code. Where there is no law (the mental state of a person unable to differentiate good from evil) there is no transgression.

Jewish teachings give the age of minority to be until 20. You could function as an adult (and be held accountable for the acts performed as adults) after that. Kohenim, priests, reach spiritual maturity after 30. They could function as priests after that. That's why Jesus protested to Mary that his time had not yet come.

These are the reasons why the parents of the man born blind refused to give opinions about his views. He was now responsible for his own views, which could be used to throw him out of the synagogue.

 

[SeventyOne]

I'm just questioning the consistency.

First, the claim that the sin nature is passed on through birth. This is a deviation from the fact that Adam was created sinful, just like the rest of creation. God gave Adam the mandate to subdue it, just like a rancher gives his son instruction to subdue a horse, render it useful for work. This includes Adam's own natural body. All of creation is untamed, even today, as a result of Adam's ignoring God's warning. It waits for the full revelation of the power of the sons of God. Apparently we will be like Christ, even the waves and the wind will be subject to our wishes. For now it's just demons and spirits.

There is no 'fact' Adam was created sinful.

Second, the claim that a sinful act emanated from a sinless Adam. This is a deviation from the fact that Adam did not know good from evil, thus his act was not sinful. A person is not held accountable if he is not mature or mentally competent. You can't prosecute minors or the insane under the Penal Code. Where there is no law (the mental state of a person unable to differentiate good from evil) there is no transgression.

What exactly makes you think Adam was a minor or mentally incompetent? He was created with full capacity to communicate with God and his wife, He was able to differentiate and name the animals, and he was able to distinguish the lies of the serpent, because scripture tells us while she was deceived, he was not, meaning he also inherently knew the difference between right and wrong.

Jewish teachings give the age of minority to be until 20. You could function as an adult (and be held accountable for the acts performed as adults) after that. Kohenim, priests, reach spiritual maturity after 30. They could function as priests after that. That's why Jesus protested to Mary that his time had not yet come.

These are the reasons why the parents of the man born blind refused to give opinions about his views. He was now responsible for his own views, which could be used to throw him out of the synagogue.

None of this has anything to do with the fall of man, neither does any of your points address all three falls we are shown in scripture. Besides Adam was not a Jew. That distinction didn't come about until the lifetime of Jacob.

 

[Wordkeeper]

There is no 'fact' Adam was created sinful.

Here are humans not following the eternal law to love God with all their beings, without any extra input from God, proving they were created like animals, needing subduing. They did have fellowship with God, so subduing, putting to death the deeds of the body through the Holy Spirit, was possible and ordered by God:

Genesis 3
6When the woman saw that the tree produced fruit that was good for food, was attractive to the eye, and was desirable for making one wise, she took some of its fruit and ate it. She also gave some of it to her husband who was with her, and he ate it.

What exactly makes you think Adam was a minor or mentally incompetent? He was created with full capacity to communicate with God and his wife, He was able to differentiate and name the animals, and he was able to distinguish the lies of the serpent, because scripture tells us while she was deceived, he was not, meaning he also inherently knew the difference between right and wrong.

It isn't rocket science to understand from the text that humans didn't know good from evil because they had not chosen to have that facility. Minors have some ability, but are not competent. They can't enter contract, they are not prosecutable under penal law, all meaning they are not fully able. Today we know that minors have physiological development of the brain to complete, without which they often adopt risky behavior. Girls reach maturity quicker than boys, stop doing stupid things, showing puberty is the tipping point.

None of this has anything to do with the fall of man, neither does any of your points address all three falls we are shown in scripture. Besides Adam was not a Jew. That distinction didn't come about until the lifetime of Jacob.

We are made in the image of God, so these are universal truths, whether Jew or Gentile. As seen in the understanding of the concept of an age of accountability in all cultures and domains, in judging spiritual or secular infraction.

 

[Rick Otto]

No, it's my claim that YOUR PERSONAL INTERPRETATION, which is only about 500 years old, is wrong. Romans 3 does not say that man is naturally sinful as he was created. If he is, then God created sin and is therefore a sinner. God created hate. God created murder. God created rape. Therefore, God is a hateful homicidal rapist. Sorry, but if God hadn't created evil, then He wouldn't be responsible for it, which means that evil came from something outside God.

just like being human and being sinful are two different things, being guilty of evil and being responsible for evil are two different things.

 

[SeventyOne]

Here are humans not following the eternal law to love God with all their beings, without any extra input from God, proving they were created like animals, needing subduing. They did have fellowship with God, so subduing, putting to death the deeds of the body through the Holy Spirit, was possible and ordered by God:

Genesis 3
6When the woman saw that the tree produced fruit that was good for food, was attractive to the eye, and was desirable for making one wise, she took some of its fruit and ate it. She also gave some of it to her husband who was with her, and he ate it.

That doesn't make any sense to your point Adam was created sinful. You're adding something to the text based on preconceived notions, and you're still not addressing the 3 falls I mentioned, rather just distorting one of them and ignoring the other two.

It isn't rocket science to understand from the text that humans didn't know good from evil because they had not chosen to have that facility. Minors have some ability, but are not competent. They can't enter contract, they are not prosecutable under penal law, all meaning they are not fully able. Today we know that minors have physiological development of the brain to complete, without which they often adopt risky behavior. Girls reach maturity quicker than boys, stop doing stupid things, showing puberty is the tipping point.

Here you go back to someone being a minor, then imposing modern laws pertaining to minors. Again, what makes you think that Adam was in any way a non-cognitive child? The text and his actions don't back up your claim. Show me the scripture where you derive this point.

We are made in the image of God, so these are universal truths, whether Jew or Gentile. As seen in the understanding of the concept of an age of accountability in all cultures and domains, in judging spiritual or secular infraction.

Jewish custom is not universal truth, it is just custom.

 

[Wordkeeper]

That doesn't make any sense to your point Adam was created sinful. You're adding something to the text based on preconceived notions, and you're still not addressing the 3 falls I mentioned, rather just distorting one of them and ignoring the other two.

Look, I showed you Adam and Eve sinning without any extra input from God. That means they were created untamed. God said go forth and tame the world. Separation from God meant they lost the ability to do that. Union with Christ means we can now put to death the deeds of the body. That's why Paul was so full of joy in Romans 7. Who will save him from his body of death? His answer? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!

Here you go back to someone being a minor, then imposing modern laws pertaining to minors. Again, what makes you think that Adam was in any way a non-cognitive child? The text and his actions don't back up your claim. Show me the scripture where you derive this point.

Genesis 3
7Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings.

Note the change. Before, non cognitive, after cognitive. Pete's sake, they didn't even know they were neked.

Jewish custom is not universal truth, it is just custom.

Jewish custom absolves minors. Secular laws absolves minors. God's eternal law is inferior? Without mercy? Uninformed? Gimme a break. He created Man. He should know better than medieval Jews and modern doctors the composition and development of the brain, right?

 

[sculleywr]

Are you not reading Romans 3 at all???


Hint - I did not write Romans 3. IT is more than 500 years old -- but we can all read it.

Stick with the facts of the subject please.

Yes I am. It took people more than 1500 years to understand it to mean total depravity.

And you ignored the point I made: If human NATURE is depraved, then Christ was either depraved or not human. If He was human, then He had ALL of human nature, because He got every single bit of human nature that His mother had, including her sinful nature, because He was CONCEIVED. The logic is simple:

1. Human nature is depraved
2. All humans have human nature
3. Jesus was a human
Conclusion: Jesus had a depraved nature.

If, however, we are to assume that the 1500 years of Christians who died for Christ were not too stupid to notice something that, according to you, is in the CLEAR MEANING of the text, then we have two questions:

1. Why did the message change to fit this legalistic, loveless view of salvation?
or
2. Why did anyone even pretend that God is loving when He makes us naturally sinful and is thus the source of all sin?

Here's the problem:

1. God forms us in the womb
2. We come out of the womb sinful
Conclusion: God creates the sinfulness in the womb.

We have done exactly zero sins at birth, and yet according to TD, we are already sinful. So from whom does the sin come from?

It is NOT from Adam, because that is the opposite of just as defined by Scripture. Consequences of sin pass from generation to generation, but not the sin itself.

Therefore, since God forms us, He creates the sin. He makes some imagined sin that we never really did, but only exists in His mind. And since He created it, it is His responsibility. If a man is fated to be evil, then his evil actions are not his responsibility, nor can a man who is fated to be good be praised for doing good?

Think of it like this, if a man uses a wrench to tighten a bolt, preventing the collapse of a bridge, does the wrench get praised for tightening the bolt? No. It was designed and made to do what it did. But if a man shoots a missile at that bridge and blows it up, does the missile get blamed for the destruction it caused? No. It did what it was designed to do.

Total Depravity makes us nothing more than pawns, tools used as playthings of God.

Total Depravity also completely negates any argument of free will, because a totally depraved person is incapable of confessing, repenting, or accepting Christ. Total means total. If there is even the slightest chance a person could choose to do a selfless good action apart from God, to confess or repent, then he is not totally depraved. And no, rationalizing that the Holy Spirit moves on them automatically begs the question of why the Spirit doesn't just do the same on every person.

Even if you explain past all that, you still end up with Christ not being human, so the Gnostics were correct.

 

[sculleywr]

I never said he didn't have a human nature, in fact, I claimed a human nature. Specifically, a non-fallen human nature. Sin is part of a fallen nature only, not human nature as a whole since there are both fallen and non-fallen aspects to human nature.

You're the one equating the absence of a sin nature to be less than complete humanity.

- Christ had no sinful nature. Adam was not created with a sinful nature - but he sure found a great way to "acquire one" -- all he had to do was 'sin'



That is an interesting fiction.

Here is the actual Bible -

Romans 3
9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin.
10 As it is written:
“There is none righteous, no, not one;
11 There is none who understands;
There is none who seeks after God.
12 They have all turned aside;
They have together become unprofitable;
There is none who does good, no, not one.”
13 “Their throat is an open tomb;
With their tongues they have practiced deceit”;
“The poison of asps is under their lips”;
14 “Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.”
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 Destruction and misery are in their ways;
17 And the way of peace they have not known.”
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
===============================

In that text Paul points to the elements of the sinful nature - that all have - all except Christ.

All condemned -- all except Christ.

All need a savior -- all except Christ.

The sinful nature is something OUTSIDE of human nature. I have rhinovirus in me, but the rhinovirus is not me. It still effects me. A person who has AIDS in him is not naturally the HIV within him, but a victim of the HIV. People are controlled by viruses in their body. I am controlled by the autoimmune disease attacking my colon. But I am not the disease. The disease is not part of who I am. It is not part of my human nature.

You are like the Jews who looked at all of the prophecies of the Messiah's comings and assumed they were talking of one single coming. You look at the descriptions of human nature as if it was the same as the sinful nature within us, but even Paul said there are two natures, the old self, and the new creation. It's not as if these did not exist prior. Even people who knew not the law were managing to live according to it according to Paul in Romans. No exposure to the Church, to Christ, to the Bible, and yet according to Paul, this law written in their hearts can defend them in the day of judgment. It is there as part of their basic human nature.

Human nature is ONLY what Adam had at Creation. EVERYTHING ELSE is other. Anything that was not there in man when God said "everything I have created is very good" is not part of the fundamental human nature.

 

[sculleywr]

An act of sin doesn't require a sinful nature, but rather we see it is a result of the sinful act, both at the fall of man and the devil and his angels.

That makes no sense. We now have a chicken-egg problem.

Ultimately, if Christ didn't have ALL of the same sources of temptation we have, then He didn't get tempted in all ways like we were. We are tempted by our human passions, because we do not have the maturity to handle them. But if Christ did not have these passions, the "sinful nature" within us, then He did not have the same temptations we have. All of Christ's temptations were coming from outside of Him, and none from within. Basically, the temptations of Christ were not born according to the formula of James 1. If Christ had no evil desires, then He was not tempted like we are. It's just that simple.

 

[sculleywr]

just like being human and being sinful are two different things, being guilty of evil and being responsible for evil are two different things.

Guilt includes responsibility. At least in a perfectly just system. Now, unless you're going to say that God is not really just, as the Scripture portray justice, then we must believe that those held guilty of a sin are responsible for its enacting. I was not there for the actions of Adam, therefore I am not judged by them if God is JUST.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

"
One of the doctrines which really perplexes me from some Protestant viewpoints is the teaching that human nature is totally depraved. ... If man is totally depraved in his nature, then unless Christ is totally depraved, then Christ is not truly human, because He does not have a human nature.

If only people were taught correctly about Jesus' dual nature, there would be no contention here. Start with the false teaching that Jesus was just like us in every way.

We all have a father and a mother. That is a law of human nature. When a man knows a women, a child may be conceived. This is a miracle in that a new soul is created. A fleshy body develops and some time later is born, becoming independent flesh from the mother. Christians are against abortion because we believe that life begins with conception.

Jesus, did not have a human father. His life did not start at conception. His spirit existed forever. It was joined to flesh at conception. Now if we understand that one living by the spirit will cause the body to follow God's ways, then Jesus being God had a perfect spirit, not a sinful nature and could not sin. His flesh was like us in every way, but his spirit, NOT.

Sinful nature is to sin when tempted. We have an imperfect spirit with a sinful nature in this age. We sin when tempted. Jesus did not sin when tempted. It should be obvious Jesus did not have a sinful nature. But we should be able to comes up with something much more plausible than immaculate conception. If you acknowledge that our choices/decisions come from our spirit and not our flesh, than the answer is simply obvious how we have sinful nature and Jesus did not. It has nothing to do with the flesh we have in common.

Examine the concept of being born again. Scripture relates that to us being saved. It results in a new person that tries to makes choices that are godly. I ask, does one born again get a new body or new spirit? Obviously we don't get a new flesh/body, but a new spirit. This new spirit desires to follow God. This new spirit, tries to not be so sinful and represses the sinful nature. It shows that a faithful spirit drives the flesh, not the other way.

John 6:63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life.​

 

[sculleywr]

If only people were taught correctly about Jesus' dual nature, there would be no contention here. Start with the false teaching that Jesus was just like us in every way.

We all have a father and a mother. That is a law of human nature. When a man knows a women, a child may be conceived. This is a miracle in that a new soul is created. A fleshy body develops and some time later is born, becoming independent flesh from the mother. Christians are against abortion because we believe that life begins with conception.

Jesus, did not have a human father. His life did not start at conception. His spirit existed forever. It was joined to flesh at conception. Now if we understand that one living by the spirit will cause the body to follow God's ways, then Jesus being God had a perfect spirit, not a sinful nature and could not sin. His flesh was like us in every way, but his spirit, NOT.

Sinful nature is to sin when tempted. We have an imperfect spirit with a sinful nature in this age. We sin when tempted. Jesus did not sin when tempted. It should be obvious Jesus did not have a sinful nature. But we should be able to comes up with something much more plausible than immaculate conception. If you acknowledge that our choices/decisions come from our spirit and not our flesh, than the answer is simply obvious how we have sinful nature and Jesus did not. It has nothing to do with the flesh we have in common.

Examine the concept of being born again. Scripture relates that to us being saved. It results in a new person that tries to makes choices that are godly. I ask, does one born again get a new body or new spirit? Obviously we don't get a new flesh/body, but a new spirit. This new spirit desires to follow God. This new spirit, tries to not be so sinful and represses the sinful nature. It shows that a faithful spirit drives the flesh, not the other way.

John 6:63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life.​

The problem is that that is not how temptation arises. Temptation occurs from within. James 1 states:

When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when by his own evil desires he is lured away and enticed. Then after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is fully grown, it gives birth to death.​

Scripture also says:

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who was tempted in every way that we are, yet was without sin. (Hebrews 4:15)
​

Now, if Jesus really was tempted in EVERY way that we are, then He had to have those same "evil desires" described in James 1:14-16, from which our personal temptations arise. If He did not have this, then the Scripture in Hebrews is not really true. This is why we say He has the truly human nature.

If the flesh was really completely unimportant, as you seem to be implying, then physical sins and physical actions are really unimportant. They mean nothing. We cannot divorce the concept that Christ did not have a human nature from the concept that He did not have a human body. As Athanasius said, whatever was not assumed was not redeemed. If He did not assume the natural human nature, then He did not redeem it.

Overall, the claim that Jesus did not have a fully human nature runs into many issues with Scripture itself, not the least of which being the fact that it makes many Scriptures out to be lies. Monophysites tried to rationalize this away, and it is certainly a lot easier to rationalize the nature of Christ rather than to simply accept Him as He is, but we do not have that luxury. Anything that attacks the nature of Christ as being fully God and fully man is turned away as false. This is what we profess in the creed of Chalcedon:

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with us according to the manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the virgin Mary, the mother of God, according to the manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; 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 and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.
​

Two natures. The nature of man does not necessitate sin. Sin is not the desire to do something. It is the enaction of that desire. Part of man's nature is free will, the ability to choose between the passions and the virtues. The desires can spring up within us to do either, whether evil or good. It is not until we give voice to those desires that it becomes sin. Christ had those same desires pop up in Him. One needs only look at His prayer at Gesthemene. He, in His human frailty, desired to escape the cross and death. But He did not allow that desire to grow and conceive and give birth to sin. He pushed it down and starved it, being without sin.

People act as if this is something that humans didn't have from the Creation, but the ability to choose necessitates this reality. One can choose to sin without having a sinful nature. Eve shows that same desire being within her as it was coaxed out by the serpent in the garden. But if the desire were not there, the serpent could not have coaxed it out. Have you ever tried to just talk to a computer and convince it to let you around an encryption on a file inside it? Doesn't really work that way, now does it? It doesn't have desires. You can't convince it to do something. The only way to convince someone to do something is to feed one of their desires. But without those desires, there is no temptation. So Adam had these desires from creation, as do all humans. The desires for the passions are not in and of themselves sinful. Think of it. With all of the passions, there are right and wrong uses:

Lust is sinful when it is directed at people in a damaging way that does not uplift them. When directed at people outside of marriage, in brief, fleeting one night stands, it is sinful. But when one comes together in the marriage bed with his wife, there is nothing sinful about it at all. There is nothing sad, or disgraceful when two married people have consensual, loving sex with each other. And if Mark Gungor is to be believed, it can be wildly passionate and even fun. But it is special. The reason God told us it was sinful outside of marriage was not because of some arbitrary rule to say "thou shalt not have fun". It was because He knew what the effect of sex outside of marriage would be, with numerous negative effects on people who engage in sexual intercourse without the commitment it is tied to.

Anger is sinful when it is out of control and not based in righteousness. There is a story of a monk who came to his abbot in the desert and asked, "what does it mean to be angry without a cause?" He was referring to a passage in the Scriptures commanding us to not be angry, and in some texts it says "without a cause". The abbot answered, "do not be angry with your brother, even if he were to dismember you, for he only causes damage to that which is temporary. Be angry rather, when you see a man trying to separate another from God." The meaning here is that those who cause physical harm to us personally cannot separate us from God. But when someone seeks to fool a person of weak spirit into following a heresy, or into worshiping another god, to cause that person to stumble, then we ought to be angry. Even Christ spoke of this kind of person with righteous anger, saying it would be best if the misleading person were to have a millstone hung from their neck and cast into the sea.

I could go on with an example for each of the seven passions, but we do not have that space. The point is that sin is not something innate, but something other than us. It is something other than what God intended, something that is not our birthright, nor is it something we are born with. It is a disease that we contract. If it weren't for the demons going around tempting people, it would be possible for a child to be raised without exposure to sin. Since we are "monkey see, monkey do" people, we do not come preloaded with the desire to sin. Whether it is from us seeing mom or dad do something and mimicking them, or by satan or his minions planting the thought in our heads, we would have no exposure to sin. The desire has to precede the action.

Christ had all of these desires. But He did not let them conceive in sin. He was in complete control of His passions, as we were intended to be. That does not mean He did not have them. If He didn't have them, then He couldn't be tempted.

 

[JoeP222w]

If man is totally depraved in his nature, then unless Christ is totally depraved, then Christ is not truly human, because He does not have a human nature.

This is a denial of the deity of Christ. And a misunderstanding of the nature of man and the nature of Christ.

Jesus is not only a man. Jesus is fully man and fully God. They are not separate things. Jesus was without sin because of His perfect obedience to the Father. Jesus was not under the federal headship if Adam since He was born of a virgin, not under the blood of Adam.

 

[Rick Otto]

Guilt includes responsibility. At least in a perfectly just system. Now, unless you're going to say that God is not really just, as the Scripture portray justice, then we must believe that those held guilty of a sin are responsible for its enacting. I was not there for the actions of Adam, therefore I am not judged by them if God is JUST.

Guilt includes responsibility, of course....
But you still don't seem cognizant that responsibility might not include guilt.

 

[Rick Otto]

This is a denial of the deity of Christ. And a misunderstanding of the nature of man and the nature of Christ.

Jesus is not only a man. Jesus is fully man and fully God. They are not separate things. Jesus was without sin because of His perfect obedience to the Father. Jesus was not under the federal headship if Adam since He was born of a virgin, not under the blood of Adam.

You're right, but what he is confusing is human nature and fallen human nature.

 

[sculleywr]

This is a denial of the deity of Christ. And a misunderstanding of the nature of man and the nature of Christ.

Jesus is not only a man. Jesus is fully man and fully God. They are not separate things. Jesus was without sin because of His perfect obedience to the Father. Jesus was not under the federal headship if Adam since He was born of a virgin, not under the blood of Adam.

No. It is an acceptance that Christ was FULLY God AND FULLY man. A man is subject to the passions, and must control them. The obedience of Christ was not born out of His divinity, but out of His humanity. And unless you're saying that Mary was somehow excepted, as the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception states, then Jesus inherited his humanity from a descendent of Adam.

In either way, if temptation is a result of evil desires WITHIN US (James 1:13), then if Christ did not have those desires, then He was not tempted in all ways like we were, as Hebrews would tell us. We cannot have the great exception doctrine be somehow true without denying the full humanity of Christ.