Please excuse me if I sound grumpy this morning-but I have to question how far human language and thoughts can go to describe something we can not fully comprhend.

Sproul says that " We should shrink in horror from the idea that God actually died on the cross." I certainly agree with that. He says that the atonement was made by the human nature of Christ- so here are my questions
Where was the God-Man when Christ died--can His two natures be separated?

When we speak of the human nature of Christ do we mean a nature exactly like ours? Since Christ was born of a virgin He had no original sin like the rest of us. So He is like us but different from us.

To me there are some things about God and the atonement that we can believe but not fully understand. When we try to put some of this into human words it seems to me to fall short. So God did not die for my sins--so who did? Where was the God part of Jesus on the cross?

I hope I do not sound like a heretic- I am willing to be instructed.

I just think in trying to explain this Dr. Sproul is confusing and speaking in circles. It sounds to me like he is separating the God Man which is what he is refuting.(I think)

One more thought-question-
He says that if we say that the second person of the Trinity died "that would be a mutation within the very being of God,"
I understand what he is saying--I think--however something happened to the Trinity when the Son became a man--Jesus the Eternal Son became forever the God Man--how do we think about that fact--is there not some kind of fundamental change--O my I am sounding like a heretic!
See what I mean- I think we get into big trouble when we try to explain the unexplainable.

Victoria, it’s a difficult subject, to be sure, and we can get in trouble by trying to explain some things that are beyond us—which is, I think, why Sproul’s explanation leaves you unsatisfied. Even the Doctor can only dig so deep into such a bottomless topic. At the risk of committing heresy myself, allow me to lay out a few points of (attempted) clarification.

• I do believe Jesus had a human nature just like ours, but before the fall. He was exactly like us in his humanity, minus the sin.
• Death is only physical. When we die, it is only our physical being that passes away. Our spirit lives forever. So it was with Christ. He died physically, but not spiritually.
• While Christ took on human flesh, God is spirit only. A spirit does not die.

I doubt that does much to clear it up, but it’s the best I’ve got. I don’t think having questions about this makes you a heretic. On the contrary, if you ever claim to understand this completely and perfectly, then I’ll probably think you’re a heretic!

Thanks- but now I have more concerns
1. Quote "I do believe Jesus had a human nature just like ours, but before the fall"--my understanding is that before the fall Adam and Eve were innocent but capable of sin, whereas Christ was sinless and nothing in Him could sin.

2. Quote "Death is only physical"
I have been taught that death is both physical and spiritual: physical death is separation of the soul from the body and spiritual death is separation from God.
Quoting Thayer:
NT:2288
"the miserable state of the wicked dead in hell is called -- now simply (thanatos) , Rom 1:32
(from Thayer's Greek Lexicon, Electronic Database. )

I do not believe that Christ suffered spiritual death in the sense that He ceased to exist-- but when the wrath of God was poured out on Him for our sins--and He cried out "My God my God was hast thou forsaken me" What exactly was happening?

I don’t believe Jesus was incapable of sin. If he had been, he could never have been “tempted in all things as we are.”

On spiritual death, we are born spiritually “dead in trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1). That is not the same as the death of the spirit. The spirit lives eternally, ultimately in heaven or hell.

On separation from God, the damned souls in hell would love nothing more. Sproul says,

. . . those who are in hell desire nothing more than the absence of God. They didn’t want to be in God’s presence during their earthly lives, and they certainly don’t want Him near when they’re in hell. The worst thing about hell is the presence of God there.
   When we use the imagery of the Old Testament in an attempt to understand the forsakenness of the lost, we are not speaking of the idea of the departure of God or the absence of God in the sense that He ceases to be omnipresent. Rather, it’s a way of describing the withdrawal of God in terms of His redemptive blessing. It is the absence of the light of His countenance. It is the absence of the blessedness of His unveiled glory that is a delight to the souls of those who love Him, but it is the presence of darkness and judgment. Hell reflects the presence of God in His mode of judgment, in His exercise of wrath, and that’s what everyone would like to escape.

That “absence of the light of His countenance,” “absence of the blessedness of His unveiled glory,” and “presence of darkness and judgment” is what Christ experienced when he was forsaken by the Father.

Thank you for a good discussion but I do disagree that Jesus could sin.
I hope you do not mind a pretty long quote from John Mac Arthur's commentary on Hebrews. I have been taught by Mac Arthur for over 30 years and I really trust him on these issues. Please don't take offense if I ask you to do some more research on this.

Since the Bible says he was tempted in all points as us but without sin, that makes it absolute truth. I can't see how that would mean though that He had to be capable of sinning to be like us. He was not exactly like us because He had no earthly father and was born with no propensity to sin----no sin nature- sin had no hook in Him as it has in us.

To quote MacArthur from Hebrews 4:15
"Some may wonder how Jesus can completely identify with us if He did not actually sin as we do. It was Jesus' facing sin with His perfect righteousness and truth, however, that qualifies Him, Merely experiencing something does not give us understanding of it. A person can have many successful operations without understanding the least bit about surgery. On the other hand, a doctor may perform thousands of complicated and successful operations without ever having had the surgery himself. It is his knowledge of the disease or disorder and his surgical skill in treating it that qualifies him, not his having had the disease. He has great experience with the disease — much greater experience with it than any of his patients — having confronted it in all of its manifestations. Jesus never sinned, but He understands sin better than any man. He has seen it more clearly and fought it more diligently than any of us could ever be able to do.
Sinlessness alone can properly estimate sin. Jesus Christ DID NOT SIN, COULD NOT SIN, HAD NO CAPACITY TO SIN"
(from The MacArthur New Testament Commentary, Copyright © Moody Press and John MacArthur, Jr., 1983-2005.) I put those caps in to highlight that statement.

I agree with the rest of your comment though. I guess it is not a bad thing to try put into words the sometimes unfathomable concepts of the atonement, because it makes us think very hard.

There is no text in all of scripture (that I am aware of) that teaches that men sin --because of-- a "sin nature".

Scripture teaches plainly that everyone who is able to sin, does so. Scripture teaches that sin (and death) entered the world through Adam, and that both spread to all men - but it does not say how it did that.

I embolden that last text because if we are going to be truly unbiased, we should look at the thing without being yoked to theology that stands or falls on what amounts to a presumption.

The presumption here, is that we --presume-- that sin and death spread through physical descendancy.

The bible doesn't say that. It just says that sin and death came in through Adam and spread to all men. To go the next step and say "it spread through physical descendancy" is to go one rung more than the ladder gives.

Why should we stop and consider that? I mean, surely our presumption is right ... right? Isn't it a little much to imagine that sin and death spread some other way - besides, if it were otherwise, I am sure someone smarter than us long ago would have suggested it. So really, is it not foolish to dismiss something that is so universally established?

Too many Catholics think like that. If it were wrong, why has the Catholic Church always believed otherwise? I mention that by way of example, that believing something for a long, long time, adds no real merit to a position.

Consider, therefore, if sin and death spread to all men through some other means than physical descendancy.

Consider the lovely glass vase - perfect in form and color. One day that vase gets a crack in it. The crack itself has no substance - it's "existance" is real, in that we can see it and touch it - but it has no substance in and of itself - it isn't as if you could take the crack and weigh it on a scale - it doesn't really "exist" in that way. It is there, but it was not "added" to the vase - in fact, it represents something that was taken away from the vase - perfect soundness. The vase was once flawless, but now, having been cracked, it can never again be flawless - it hasn't gained a crack, it has lost perfection.

I mention the vase, because if one thinks of a crack long enough, one realizes that the crack doesn't have any substance - it is there, but what is there is not a thing, but the lack of a thing - a lack of wholeness, completeness, flawlessness - perfection. The crack is there, but it is not an addition, it is a subtraction.

Sin and death are like that too. Sin is not something Adam added to our humanity, it is something that was taken away - just as death was not added to our life, it was taken away from it.

What happened when Adam sinned? Adam was cursed - but not cursed to forever sin - that wasn't his curse. Eve was cursed, all of creation was cursed... and then what? Then Adam and Eve were driven out of the Garden... and what else? They were driven out of God's presence, and away from the Tree of Life. Even in their perfect state, Adam and Eve were tempted - their flesh longed to rule itself - and every temptation rises from this longing. Their sin was to give into a longing that was already there. It isn't that they did something they didn't want to do, it is that they wanted to do something God told them not to, and they listened to their longing rather than their God.

What if the "lack" that we all inherit has more to do with being cast out of God's (immediate) presence and provision, and being abandoned to a cursed world wherein the devil has influence? What if sin and death spread to all men through the corrupt world, the devil, and other corrupt people. What would happen to a babe born innocent into this world? I will tell you - if Adam sinned in a perfect world, an innocent born into this world would sin also. And they do.

So it may not be that there are two kinds of human flesh - pre-fall, and post-fall, and that Adam and Eve started off with Version 1.0 flesh, but after the fall, got reffitted with V.0.9 flesh - and all their children, and children's children now have some sort of inferior flesh.

Consider the other possibility - that Christ's flesh was exactly like everyone else's flesh, but unlike everyone else, Christ was not unaware of God's presence - that is, Christ did not inherit the curse of being driven out of God's presence, and therefore grew up in unbroken fellowship with God - not because he had superior flesh, nor because he was cashing in on some extra divine power - rather he was a second Adam, living like the first, in the same flesh as anyone else - but not allowing the longings of that flesh to rule over Him. His temptations were very real, as his flesh longed for all that our flesh longs for - for there is no sin in being coupled to flesh that longs for its own rule - there is only sin in obeying that flesh over God.

When people ask if Christ could have sinned, usually they are skirting a deeper question - How much was Jesus like me? The answer is the humanity of Jesus was like yours in every way, but unlike you, Jesus didn't need to be reconciled to God - He had never been separated from Him (at least not until he was united with us [and our curse became His] on Calvary).

But here is where the question comes to fruition - if Jesus wasn't God, would or could He have sinned?

Truly, whatever the answer to that question is, it makes absolutely no difference to our own walk and relationship with God. What matters is that Jesus was really human, and He lived his life in unbroken fellowship with God and in doing so He demonstrated that God keeps His promises.

that's how I see it.

"the humanity of Jesus was like yours in every way,"
I can't see it Daniel--my humanity is INFUSED with sin-His was not.
3 of us have responded here and I feel dissatisfied with all 3 of our explanations.

And Daniel ,you are right that this has nothing to do with our walk with God, but I can assure you of what I think you already know: The early church fathers spent their whole lives trying to figure these things out so we would have a proper orthodoxy--leading leading to a proper othoproxy.

I misspelled Orthoproxy.
Please let me add, lest you do think me heretical, that I do believe Jesus was like us-
and then I also believe He was not like us-
Both things are true and that is the way it is in much Christian theology.
God is one God manifest in 3 persons.
God is sovereign in election-but men are responsible for their sin and for rejecting Christ.
Jesus Christ-fully God--fully man.
We can only believe those things -we can not comprehend those truths or adequately explain them.

One more unsatisfactory comment:

I can’t answer with any authority whether or not Jesus was able to sin. MacArthur may be right about that. However, as I see it, Jesus was not sinless because he was unable to sin (whether or not that is true), but because he was able to not sin. Conversely, we do not sin because we are able to sin, but because we are unable to not sin. That is the contrast between Christ and us—his ability vs. our inability.

Following that, I have to agree with Daniel. Sinfulness is not something added to human nature, but an indication that something is missing. The humanity of Christ was not extraordinary, it was perfect humanity. Ours is a broken humanity.

I tend to think of our humanity as the blanket expression for both our spirit and our flesh.

I think that when Adam sinned, it affected a spiritual, and not a physical change - that is, Adam's sin affected our humanity, not physically, but spiritually.

If we are talking about whether or not Christ was human (flesh like our flesh), then I am inclined to say that he was exactly like our flesh - and scripture says that he came in the "homoioma sarkos hamartias" - that is, in the simultude of flesh of sin (romans 8:3) - This isn't to say that Christ came in flesh that was sinful, but rather that Christ came in the exact same kind of flesh as sin works in and through - and he came in that flesh in order to condemn sin in -that- flesh.

It isn't a question of whether or not Jesus' flesh was like yours or mine - it was, as far as scripture reads, and it had to be.

Sin does not rise up out of our flesh, desire rises up out of our flesh - sin is giving into that desire.

Think this through with me:

God created Adam body and spirit. Our body was designed to obey the spirit God created for us. The spirit God created for us was supposed to trust to God for all worldly and spiritual provision. That was how it was supposed to be.

The tempter tempted Eve by convincing her spirit that she could have her eyes opened (like God) and so know both good and evil. The temptation attacked the chain of command: God's Spirit provides for and directs Eve's spirit which in turn accepts God's provision and direction for Eve's body. The temptation was to take advantage of God's provision, and change the chain of command to: God's Spirit provides for Eve's spirit who in turn determines how that provision will be used for Eve's body.

The major fallout from that sin wasn't that weeds sprang up so that men had to toil for food - it was that they were driven from God's presence.

There were no means on earth given to men to restore that right relationship God --> Man's Spirit --> Man's body. God had not abandoned His creation, but he was no longer moving through the garden, as it were. Men needed to be reconciled to God in order to re-establish the created order.

So when we speak of the humanity of Christ, we are speaking of a man who was born with this created order intact, and who did not destroy this created order by sin. It does not suggest, I think, that he had a different flesh than us - I think that smells of old Catholic superstition and not of scripture.

I will heartily agree that Christ's humanity was superior to ours, if we define humanity as body and spirit. But if we are talking just body - goodness, let's not go all superstitious. Find a verse that says our flesh changed and we can sniff out that rabbit trail - but if we can't find such a verse, or worse, if we have to bend other verses to forced them to serve our inquiry - then let us put to rest at once this notion that Christ's flesh was superior to ours.

Yes, his humanity (body and spirit) was superior - but it was superior because He still had that unbroken spiritual chain of command - the very thing that Adam and all his progeny lost in Eden.

Christ relied on God's provision in all things, and accepted God's direction in all things, and directed his own flesh according to God's provision and God's direction. Christ lived in the way Man was created to live - the way Adam was supposed to have lived, but failed to do - not because His flesh was better, but because his faith was better.

Why is faith what is needed to restore our relationship with God? Because faith is what was thrown away in Eden. Perhaps I am overly simplistic in my thinking, but I find the whole notion of tainted flesh to extra-biblical hoobaloo. My flesh is no longer bridled by the sovereignty of God, and what were created as fit desires when used according to God's provision and will, are now unbridled and unchecked by my spirit which is insufficient in and of itself to rightly direct my flesh.

The result is that my broken spirit no longer directs my flesh according to God's will, but instead directs it to satisfy its own desires. Eve's sin was that she gave a carnal desire the place of rule her actions when the rule over her actions was God's place - and that is the very description of all our sin. The desires of the flesh were put there originally by God for good purpose - just a knife has a good and right purpose - but just as a knife used for an improper purpose (murder) is evil, so too the desires of the flesh were designed for right use, but given their liberty they lead always to sin.

Is it really that subtle that people miss it? I mean, the problem is not with the flesh, but with the broken spirit. The dead will be raised incorruptible - but I take that to mean our spirit will be incorruptible - our bodies will continue to hunger and thirst just as these present bodies do. I think we tend to theological myopia when it comes to thoughts like that - we read we will be raised incorruptible, and we presume it means our flesh will be better.

Bottom line, our sin does not spring from our flesh because our flesh is inherently "sinful" - rather all flesh (even Christ's flesh) comes with carnal desires that we are supposed to direct in the service of God's purpose. To unleash these desires and obey them instead of God - that is sin. It isn't as though Christ had better flesh in that it never had desires like ours - Scripture says He was tempted on all counts in the same way we are - rather it is that Christ's relationship with God was never tainted by giving into the flesh.

Final thought: I thought it was spelled "Orthopraxy."

Afterthought:

In Hebrews 20:19-20 we read, [NASB] "Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh,..."

The "holy place" is not a location, per se, it is representative of God's presence - and it is from this "place" that Adam and Eve were driven. All their progeny has lived and died outside that "place" - but Christ did not inherit this curse - he didn't have to go into the holy of holies to meet with God, he was constantly in the holy of holies - having never been cast out of it. When the temple veil tore, it symbolized Christ's victory - that He had, through the veil of his own flesh, provided a way back into God's presence.

Thanks Daniel for correcting my spelling-but I don't think you have corrected my theology--yet.

I really think we are looking at truth from 2 different angles.

I agree with most of what you are saying-and I think you are misunderstanding me. Maybe I am just not stating my thoughts in precise enough words.

You talk about our broken spirit--when actually since the fall we have a dead spirit-totally separated from God by the corruption of sin. Until God regenerates us we have a dead spirit.
And it seems to me that the fall is about disobedience instead of faith.
And no I'm not "going all superstitious"-His BODY was like ours.
But He was unlike us in His ability to not sin, and I still believe He was incapable of sin.

You made the statement that sin may not be passed on through physical decent- I don't see how it could pass on any other way-In Adam all die. The whole human race was in the loins of Adam when he sinned.

What exactly was the point of the virgin birth? Why did Jesus not have a human father? There is no other human in history with a birth like His. That alone makes Him like us but not like us. And it seems dishonest to me not to acknowledge that fact. And please, these are legitimate questions and have no Catholic root!

Finally, since this is getting over my head- I think I won't have anymore to say. I feel we might become like Job's friends: they sounded good but were just wrong:I don't know how far we can go with finite minds and words in explaining the infinite plan of God in the incarnation and atonement.

Here I am again because I keep reading Daniel's last post and I keep mulling it over and over!
You say, Daniel
"The tempter tempted Eve by convincing her spirit that she could have her eyes opened (like God) and so know both good and evil. The temptation attacked the chain of command: God's Spirit provides for and directs Eve's spirit which in turn accepts God's provision and direction for Eve's body. The temptation was to take advantage of God's provision, and change the chain of command to: God's Spirit provides for Eve's spirit who in turn determines how that provision will be used for Eve's body."

This statement is pure speculation. Scripture never mentions chain of command as the issue- it is about transgression.

You say"The major fallout from that sin wasn't that weeds sprang up so that men had to toil for food - it was that they were driven from God's presence."

Scripture teaches--The major fallout from that sin was that Adam and Eve DIED spiritually and the whole human family died with them.
And just to show how serious it all was God himself slaughtered two innocent animals. The curse that came upon the entire creation was the curse of DEATH. Then God gave them the promise of the redeemer who would come through the seed of the woman.

You say
"Is it really that subtle that people miss it? I mean, the problem is not with the flesh, but with the broken spirit. The dead will be raised incorruptible - but I take that to mean our spirit will be incorruptible - our bodies will continue to hunger and thirst just as these present bodies do. I think we tend to theological myopia when it comes to thoughts like that - we read we will be raised incorruptible, and we presume it means our flesh will be better."

Scripture says-- that Nothing about our resurrected bodies will be corruptible in any way. We will be in a body just like Christ's. Spiritual bodies that will never hunger or thirst or age or be in pain. SPIRITUAL bodies that will never be capable of sin again.
We absolutely will be in a body very different from our now body.
Please don't take offense but some of what you have said above bears no resemblance to orthodox Christian doctrine.

As far as the problem not being with our flesh this is what Paul says in Rom 7:18
For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh." ESV
If you study flesh in the book of Romans you will see that it stinks--it is corrupt period. Sin does rise from our unredeemed flesh.

And I could go on but that is enough , I think.

Victoria, forgive the length of this comment, as I hope to address all your comments, and that promises to be a lengthy thing, but my intent is by no means to wear you out by posting ridiculously long comments. I personally have no joy in answering long comments, so don't feel obligated to answer this one - in it I simply explain what I am saying more precisely, and address what you have said, and hopefully dispel much of your concern. ;)

First, allow me to elucidate this thought that you have quoted me on when you say, You talk about our broken spirit--when actually since the fall we have a dead spirit; I think you misunderstand my terminology.

We mean the same thing when I say "broken" and you say "dead". I mean only something that has (by some catastrophe or other) become irreparable and therefore useless. I do not mean "broken spirit" in the sense of wounded, but otherwise functioning normally.

Later you say, I don't see how [sin and death] could pass on any other way-In Adam all die. The whole human race was in the loins of Adam when he sinned.

In Exodus 34:7, and again in Deuteronomy 5:9, scripture tells us that God visits the iniquity of the father on the children and on the third and fourth generations of those who hate God. That is pretty serious stuff. It says that the sins of those who hate God will not only affect themselves, but their children, grandchildren, and even their great grandchildren.

That isn't teaching that the children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren of someone who hates God will all be condemned, that is, it is not saying that the children will pay the penalty for their father's sins (for the penalty is condemnation) - what it is saying is that the sin of the father has pan-generational consequences. We see this day in and day out. Spousal and child abuse passing from father to son. Alcoholism, even such things as laziness, lasciviousness, and dishonesty - these, while not as obvious, likewise can affect a family for generations. The sins of the father are certainly visited upon his children, and their children - and more so in the context that these were written - where it was normative for four generations of one family all lived in the same tent.

This is, I say, categorically different that paying the penalty for the sins of the father, for scripture is likewise very clear on that point - fathers shall not be put to death for the sins of the sons, nor sons put to death for the sins of their fathers (c.f. Deut. 26:14; 2 Kings 14:6; 2 Chronicles 25:4; Jeremiah 31:29-30;Ezekiel 18:20)

This is to say (up front) that I believe scripture rejects the notion that anyone but Adam is condemned for Adam’s sin. The consequences of Adam's sin are with us to this day, but not the condemnation. We bear our own condemnation, not Adam's.

I mention that up front, because Adam's unfortunate loins are often cited as proof enough that we inherited a "sin nature" from Adam. But there is a lot of assumption and presumption in that.

What scripture tells is us (in Romans 5) is that sin came into the world through Adam, and death through sin - and that this same death spread to all because all sin.

We get the formula in verse 12 - [1] sin came in through one single sinful act, [2] death came in through that same sin, and [3] death being now in the world, it spread to all men because all men sinned.

Now, in verse 18, that death is called "condemnation" so that we understand that when Paul spoke of death coming into the world through sin, he was speaking of condemnation coming into the world through Adam's sin, and that condemnation spread to all men because all men, not because condemnation produced a sin nature in mankind - but because all men sinned.

It is good to keep the context in mind as we rehearse these well known verses.

Paul is framing his argument this way because he is about to make a parallel argument for the cross, grace, and justification. Consider the exact same formula (emboldened for clarity):

[1] justification came into the world through one obedient act (the cross), [2] life came into the world through justification, and [3] that life being now in the world is spreading to by grace.

The invention of a "sin nature" is not required for this passage to be understood, and injecting the idea into the text, while conveniently providing an answer to the question "why do we sin" it does so not by expositing the text so much as by inferring a reason that isn't necessarily there.

If we do not insist on injecting the notion of a sin nature into this text, what we end up with is an uncluttered argument - condemnation comes by sin, and all men sin, so all are condemned. Life comes by justification, and justification comes through grace. The perfect set up for Romans six.

It doesn't deny that all men sin - and Paul has certainly said as much elsewhere, even earlier in the same epistle. What Paul hasn't said, and what the theology of some affirm is "why" we all sin. We like to say according to our theology that, "we sin because we have a sin nature" rather than according to scripture, "we sin because all men sin".

The nuance may seem small, but it is germane to this discussion.

If we are going to premise that something changed physically in Adam when he sinned, we ought to have something in scripture that teaches this, but we do not have that in scripture, what we have in scripture is that all men sin.

I want to be clear, in order to answer the question, “why do all men sin”, theology has postulated:
[1] that human beings have a nature
[2] that our nature is transmittable through procreation
[3] that our nature can be corrupted
[4] that this corrupted nature can be transmitted through procreation.

Whatever we call this nature (sin nature/original sin/soul stain/etc.), it remains a theological precept – a conclusion we draw in order to give an answer to a question that scripture doesn’t directly address. We call that a theological precept.

Now that we have a precept, we can build on it. We can say, Jesus could not have had the same flesh as you or me, because our precept restricts that possibility. Jesus must therefore have superior flesh than ours, because our theological precept demands it. Now we say that Jesus, although fully human, was not the same as us in his flesh, because his flesh was uncorrupted by sin, and ours, according to our precept – not only can be, but is corrupted by sin - hence we build a precept upon another precept. We didn’t even have to go to scripture, because our theology tells us that Jesus couldn’t have the same kind of flesh as us.

When we build a precept upon another precept our theology becomes line upon line, precept upon precept, and suffers for it.

That is dangerous stuff, because as the Lord says through Isaiah, the reason men will reject the truth is because they regard their theological house of cards as though it were the word of God – the word of God for them, says Isaiah 28:13, "And the word of the LORD will be to them precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little, that they may go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.” – which is one reason why I am hesitant to embrace precept driven theology.

Which is a rather long way of saying, that I don't buy the idea that there is such a thing as a "sin nature" that corrupted Adam's flesh, and was transmitted to to all his progeny. Scripture doesn't say that even if one’s theology is settled on the matter.

You ask, What exactly was the point of the virgin birth? Why did Jesus not have a human father?

The Lord foretold the virgin birth giving the reason for that birth - it would be a sign (c.f. Isaiah 7:14, ) to the house of David.

Matthew writes (c.f. Matthew 1:22-23) that this sign declared the child to be the Messiah. We can speculate that Jesus --had-- to be born of a virgin because he was different, but if we are inclined to this speculation, let's be clear about the fact that we in fact speculating about "why" God did something after scripture has already answered the question.

You then say, " There is no other human in history with a birth like His. That alone makes Him like us but not like us. And it seems dishonest to me not to acknowledge that fact. And please, these are legitimate questions and have no Catholic root!"

First, I agree, it would be dishonest to fail to acknowledge the uniqueness of Christ's birth, and I am not about to engage in doing so. Christ's birth was unique.

But it was the Catholics who well understood the fallout of their theology; for they understood that if sin does pass from parent to child, then the taint of Adam's sin must have been on Mary when she birthed our Lord, and if so, then how do you explain that Christ didn't inherit this stain?

The Catholics invented the immaculate conception - not that Christ was born without sin - but that, in a special one time act of grace, God allowed Mary to be born without the stain of original sin, and not only that - God kept her from sinning - at least until Christ's birth, so that some new taint might not infect the child.

The Catholics well understand the problems that arise from this particular apology - if there is a sin nature, and it passes from parent to child - why didn't Jesus get it from Mary? Their solution is theologically unhinged from scripture - and lacks much on that account. But we too face the same problem.

How do we deal with Mary's corruption? There were three options open to the Catholics, who refused to consider the possibility that perhaps the reason everyone sins was not physical but spiritual - and so they had to choose: [1] Mary didn't pass original sin to Jesus because original sin passes through the man's seed, [2] Mary didn't pass original sin to Jesus because she wasn't really his mother - she was just his "incubator", or [3] Mary didn't pass original sin to Jesus because she didn't have any to pass having been born without sin, and kept without sin herself.

So when I mention Catholics, I am not suggesting that you are taking instruction from Rome, rather I am suggesting that these problems originate from the same presumptions about "original sin" that Rome was making popular long before the reformation. Your questions are legitimate, and in discussing them I don't mean to suggest otherwise, even if I mention Rome in my discourse.

I am happy to allow the end of the discussion, as I am not attempting to persuade you out of error, but using the opportunity to simply answer the situation according to my understanding.

In your second rejoinder you describe my description of the relationship between God’s commands and the human person as “speculative”, and I allow that with some qualification – what I am doing there is describing, by way of example, what we see elsewhere in scripture.

I am not speculating when I say that a man consists of both body and spirit, I think you would agree that this is biblical and not speculative.

Yet in Romans 7 Paul describes himself alternately as two persons - the one wanting to sin, and the other wanting to obey God, and given that we know already that people exist as both body and spirit, it is indeed a matter of speculation when I interpret these two persons whom Paul describes as separate to one another, and yet both being himself – I say, it is a matter of some speculation – though not unmerited – to suggest that this is describing the relationship between Paul’s flesh and Paul’s spirit.

When I described, therefore, the “chain of command” – I fully allow that scripture hasn’t labeled it as such – but I am just describing the origin of divine command and provision as being from God, and as being received by men. I don’t think you would argue that I am speculating here – since both reason and scripture defend the notion that God both provides for and instructs mankind. When I speak of the “chain of command” therefore, as being properly from “God’s spirit to our spirit to our flesh” I am merely recognizing what Paul describes in Romans 7 – that there is one part of us that not only receives various motivations, but decides upon the course of action for the whole – and another part that only sends out demands. If I have called the part that “sends out demands” the body, and the part that receives and determines which demands to obey “the spirit” – then perhaps you will not find the model so speculative after all, for all I am saying is that a right relationship with God has our spirit obeying God’s directions for our whole being (body and spirit) and does not have us obeying our bodies directives.

Let me know if that clarifies the matter?

I think the uniqueness of Christ’s birth shows Him to be the Messiah, but in no way demands that his flesh be of some different sort than my own. Christ --is-- different than us, in that while we were born spiritually dead – unable to perceive God directly as Adam did in the garden before the fall – that is, before God drove him from the Garden as part of the curse - Christ, having nothing of this curse was never driven away from God, and so was born and raised such that he always perceived God, and remained in unbroken fellowship with God. He was certainly different than us, in that from His conception He was living in fellowship relationship with God, while we, subsequently, are born without that relationship, and only come into that relationship vicariously through Christ when we become reconciled to God in Christ through faith.

So I don’t deny the uniqueness of Christ’s birth, or that He is different than us because He is the Messiah – though I would argue that his virgin birth doesn’t give him differently flesh than ours – for such is speculation.

In the garden, after the fall, God slew two innocent animals so that he could clothe Adam and Eve in “innocent flesh” – picturing their redemption in Christ. If you mean to say that the slaughter of these animals was intended to illustrate the cost of redemption – that being the death of someone innocent whose flesh would cover your own sin – then I agree, yeah, God illustrated just how serious redemption was – but I don’t think that God killed two animals just to show that he was really serious.

When I wrote that the major fallout from sin was that Adam and Eve were driven from God’s presence – I was speaking the aspect of the curse which was most significant. Being driven from the presence of the Tree of Life – is death. I don’t think I disagree with that - I just expound it so that we miss nothing of the marrow when we address the bones.

I do not, and could not take offense if some of what I say can be interpreted in a way that doesn’t seem to fit the orthodox mold. Really, orthodoxy is sort of a misnomer The great schism that separated Catholicism from Greek Orthodoxy was no so much about orthodoxy as it was about ecclesiastical hierarchy. That was a thousand years ago. The Roman Catholic church changed a lot after that so that eventually a reformation took place – creating another schism between Rome and the reformers. Who is orthodox? We didn’t see the reformers embrace Greek Orthodoxy, so now we have three major branches, all with their own orthodoxy, and frankly, our branch is the youngest and most frayed.

When we appeal to orthodoxy, we are appealing to the way the church “has always believed” – and such appeals to authority forget that we, of all the branches on the table, have the least claim to such authority.

You take to me to task, it seems, when I say that I think our resurrection bodies will continue to hunger and thirst, and perhaps I was not being clear – I did not mean by that, that I thought we would suffer hunger and thirst as we do now – but rather that we would continue to eat and drink just as we do now.

John writes in Revelation 7:16, “they will hunger no longer, nor thirst anymore; nor will the sun beat down on them, nor any heat;” – yet I don’t think that means that we will have bodies that do not require food and drink.

Consider that Adam and Eve did not suffer from hungry or thirst in the garden of Eden, for God provided for their every need. They ate and drank, and no doubt experienced hunger and thirst, but it was not a matter of suffering.

Consider also that Christ himself (after being raised) sat down and ate with His disciples.

Consider that we ourselves are waiting for the marriage feast of the Lamb

What of the two trees in Revelation 22 that bearing twelve kinds of fruit? Are not these the same from which Christ promises to reward those who overcome (c.f. Revelation 2:7 - ' He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches To him who overcomes, I will grant to eat of the tree of life which is in the Paradise of God.' It seems that we will certainly be eating at least.

I leave room in my theology to allow the words in Revelation 7 to mean only that we shall not suffer from hunger and thirst – even as we will continue to eat and drink. I think if you re-read my comment you may allow that this was all I was referring to – the fact that we will still have bodies that function very much like the ones we now possess.

That is --not-- to say however that I think that our resurrection bodies will be unchanged, and that only our spirit will be raised incorruptible; my intention was to drill home the idea that the sinner’s problem is not necessarily a physical one (my body has sinful desires!), since that kind of thinking, allowed to grow to its full stature, produces the Gnostic heresy – my flesh is wicked, but I am good, so I can sin all I want, since it is my flesh and not “me”. By underscoring the spiritual problem, I was not suggesting for a moment that the flesh is neutral. Paul describes the flesh as being enslaved to sin, and so it is. We shall not be raised with a body that can become enslaved by sin as our present bodies are.

So please don’t imagine that I am suggesting that the flesh is fine, or that we will not receive something better – I was merely saying that people tend to place more emphasis on the corruption of the flesh --at the expense of the spirit, and that doing so create something of a theological imbalance.

I do not mean to dismiss your concerns that what I am discussing appears to you to be unorthodox. Rather I am saying let us be clear about the distinction between biblical and orthodox, for I desire the former wholeheartedly, and the latter only insofar as it conforms to the former. If I test something against scripture and fail to find it there, I do not embrace it just because others have for centuries done so – that would be sacrilege to any honest heart.

Finally, you will not hear any arguments from me concerning the thought that sin can be washed out of our flesh. If you spend any time on my blog you will see that I spend a great deal of time elucidating the fact that the flesh is corrupt, and will not be redeemed in our life time.

I hope you consider this reply, not as correcting you in any way, but rather as clarifying my own remarks so that you can have a better understanding of whether or not you disagree.

I don’t think Christ’s flesh was different than mine, excepting that mine is enslaved to sin, where his has never been. I don’t see any scriptural evidence that this same enslavement is necessarily a physical trait of the flesh – but suggest that it may be spiritual in nature – and further suggest that since we are beings who are made up of both body and spirit – the distinction may be quite difficult to make. Yet if we allow the distinction we are able to reason about out fallen-ness in biblical terms, rather than in terms of theological precepts.

Let me know if that made any sense. Sometimes I tend to be verbose.

   _____________________________________
   Let it be known that the site administrator
   has granted Daniel a special dispensation to
   post comments that are absurd in length,
   provided they are not absurd in content.
                     —Administratum ex cathedra

Dear Daniel-
thank you for your comments and explanations-
I appreciate them.
I have just one request of you-
Please take 70 weeks and study Grudem's Systematic Theology.

Victoria, I only got about half way through Grudem's ST. He is quite eloquent and balanced, but there wasn't a lot there that was espcially significant or new - it isn't like I haven't read other systematic theologies - rather (though I prefer historic theologies over systematics. I hope that I haven't given you the impression that I come by my theology by way of ignorance - rather I come by it by way of scripture after much reading elsewhere.

Come on Daniel--lighten up. I was trying to bring a tad of humor into a very long and serious discussion.

I have no doubt that you are a young man who studies hard and thinks deep.
I appreciate the way you have answered me in a very respectful manner--which is sometimes a rare thing at blogs, and the reason I visit so few.

You have taken a lot of time and I told you I appreciate it and I do.
I still do not see everything your way and I feel you were just a wee bit condescending(maybe I'm just a wee bit touchy).

I come by my theology the same way you do and I have been at it for over 36 years. The wonderful thing about studying God is that you never get bored or exhaust the Subject.
I have visited your site and read your profile-- I suppose you and maybe David too would be about the age of my son, so your respect is greatly appreciated!

I have no problem being corrected-- when a believer is wrong they want to be corrected.
Thank you again for taking so much time to explain- I do understand your positions better for it.

Victoria

Victoria, I want to thank you warmly for your thoughtful correspondence on this post.

I am inclined (by way of sinful habit) to stridency and boasting and that must comes across in my writing. The Lord is working in these areas, and though I trust entirely to His grace, I am still grieved inwardly when anything I say or do rises from a condescending or malevolent heart.

The part of me that desires the praise of men - it is an oiled eel, and I am sometimes like a man with a blindfold who knows it is there, but I can't seem to catch and box the thing! So I am sorry to hear that I was condescending, but thankful for your grace in bearing with me.

My aim is not to correct anyone, but to sharpen and be sharpened by examining truth with as many as are genuine in the pursuit of it. I delight (perhaps too much?) in having my understanding questioned, because it forces me (in articulating it) to examine it for flaws and/or consistency, and the end result is that my understanding is either strengthened or perhaps moved away from error and closer to truth.

I will lighten up, but text may not be the best medium to show it in. :)

Thanks

Dan
<><

Thank you for your honest humility.

I too can be strident - boastful- and looking for the praise of man.
But overall that is not how you sounded.
I sort of see it as a passion for truth.

I think it was overall a good discussion- and I enjoyed having it with you. I actually plan on reading most of your comments again so that I will understand your position better--and hopefully learn.

And then, maybe I'll just come over your way and start another argument sometime.

If you are like me you have to watch this blogging stuff--it can become addictive.
Life is too short and there are so many really important things to do for the Lord- and sometimes these blogs make us take ourselves way too seriously!

God bless you greatly as you pursue His will.

I agree with everything Sproul says here. However, there is something he overlooks. The person of Jesus Christ is a perfect union of the two natures. The hypostatic union means that whatever is said of the one nature also applies to the other. So in that sense, even though God cannot die or suffer, the paradox is that the person of Christ has a hypostatic union of two natures, neither confused nor separated. So in that sense we can say that God literally shed His blood through Christ.

Acts 20:28 (ESV)
28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.

[1]
[1] The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001. Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

Charlie, welcome, and thanks for contributing.

Trinity, hypostatic union—this is all to hard for me to understand! I get your point, though. Like many questions, the answer isn’t as simple as I would like it to be.