My first reaction was to think, "This is only to the fourth generation..." But really, if one considers the cascading effect... This part of your position is perfectly plausible...
[...] I was reminded by some of the scriptures I read that the fall did not happen when Eve tasted the fruit. It happened when Adam did. By one man’s sin, Adam, sin entered the world.
It is true that the blame is laid primarily upon Adam, but the curse fell first upon the serpent, then upon Eve, and lastly upon Adam... I will have to think about it a bit more... But this too shows promise.
[You suggest that because the impetus to sin is removed from Him, his actions of free will, obeying the Father, caused Him to live a sinless life, thus breaking the bonds of sin for all?]
The sin’s of the fathers part makes it all possible. Fallen man has more than an impetus to sin, he has no choice but to sin.
This part bugs me. I find it difficult to believe. I offer Cain and Able:
The difference shown between Cain and Able is all about choosing to do right before God. Able by his choice, did the right thing, Cain did not. For your construct to work, Able cannot have the free will to do good before God (he cannot help but sin), or he is some sort of automaton contrived for the part he plays.
I can pull hundreds of examples from the Old Testament of people blessed for doing the right thing- Enoch, Noah, Moses, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, and etcetera... Many, many people who would seem to have the free choice to do good. If man had no choice but to sin, then how are these explained?
The free will was over powered by the sin nature. No one could gain heaven on there own. That is why God sent Jesus.
Well, yes, but such is still the case. Even among Christians, the sinful nature persists. I see sinful nature as being a poison infecting mankind. But free will is intrinsically part of what we are. It is always our choice to do evil or good. If it is not our choice, it is not our fault. To punish us would not be just.
[The courts of Heaven must be satisfied, to be sure, but it is my reckoning that the sinless life of Christ was the deal breaker, though the word of God (Prophecy) had to be fulfilled in Him too (God could not break His word).]
The sinless life of Christ was the deal maker not breaker.
I meant the deal that gave Satan dominion over the earth- That was nullified, or broken, the minute mankind produced sinless fruit.
My point is that the Courts of Heaven had to have apples for apples. Adam lost salvation for man. Christ had to be exactly like Adam to make what He did legal. He had to be capable of the same failings or the contest would not have been fair and/or legal. When He was tempted by Satan, He had to be just as able as Adam to capitulate or it was meaningless.
This I agree with entirely. It does not seem right that Christ would have an easy time of things. It diminishes what He did to say such a thing. I am not convinced that it needed to be exactly the same. It would be acceptable (in fact likely, in my mind) if God was at a disadvantage. I am still not convinced the sinful nature was removed from Christ. If He were more likely to capitulate when tempted, the verdict would still have meaning.
Did my answers help or hinder?
Oh, helped I am sure. I just don't necessarily agree (yet)...
If Christ was indeed removed from the curse of Adam, His body an holy chalice without sin or flaw, death would not find Him, because death is part of the curse. It stands to reason thereby, that He was born into the curse, just like the rest of us, and that He succeeded where we all have utterly failed, in spite of that curse.
You are forgetting one thing. Christ died by choice. Father, Your will be done. He sweat blood just thinking about being separated from the Father. This makes it even more (What ever superlative you want to insert here.) what he did for us. Yes, He chose. but there is a distinction between choosing to go to His death, and choosing to let Himself die. I don't think that distinction can be defined, but again, the evidence points to a man in the flesh. He could be tempted. He felt hunger. he felt exhaustion. If all these, is it such a stretch to suppose he died just like anyone else?
He had to die while innocent to payoff that part of the curse for us. The death also allowed Him to be resurrected to fulfill Prophecy and to assure us the Father would do the same for us.
That is certainly true. but the curse is a propensity, not sin itself.
That is how I have been led to believe the scripture I posted from Leviticus. I.E. I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquities of the fathers unto the third and forth generation of them that hate me.
My first reaction was to think, "This is only to the fourth generation..." But really, if one considers the cascading effect... This part of your position is perfectly plausible...
It is to the third and forth generations so it happens even faster than with just the forth. Remember how fast the life spans of the successive generations decrease as corruption takes its toll.
[...] I was reminded by some of the scriptures I read that the fall did not happen when Eve tasted the fruit. It happened when Adam did. By one man’s sin, Adam, sin entered the world.
It is true that the blame is laid primarily upon Adam, but the curse fell first upon the serpent, then upon Eve, and lastly upon Adam... I will have to think about it a bit more... But this too shows promise.
The serpent, Satan, is a fallen angel. His fall only affected him and those who follow him. Eve strengthens my contention. She sinned and it only affected her as far as we can tell by the text. It was when Adam sinned that sin was accorded to all mankind.
[You suggest that because the impetus to sin is removed from Him, his actions of free will, obeying the Father, caused Him to live a sinless life, thus breaking the bonds of sin for all?]
The sin’s of the fathers part makes it all possible. Fallen man has more than an impetus to sin, he has no choice but to sin.
This part bugs me. I find it difficult to believe. I offer Cain and Able:
The difference shown between Cain and Able is all about choosing to do right before God. Able by his choice, did the right thing, Cain did not. For your construct to work, Able cannot have the free will to do good before God (he cannot help but sin), or he is some sort of automaton contrived for the part he plays.
Cain and Able were 1st generation. The curse had no effect on them. Free will allowed Able to please God and Cain to kill him because of jealousy. Free will was a necessity in the design of man but it was also its weakness. Cain and Able show the extreme as to how differently free will can effect people.
I can pull hundreds of examples from the Old Testament of people blessed for doing the right thing- Enoch, Noah, Moses, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, and etcetera... Many, many people who would seem to have the free choice to do good. If man had no choice but to sin, then how are these explained?
True, the Bible speaks of Godly people but they were not sin free and were doomed to hell without Christ’s work and them accepting it. The godly ones, I purpose, are individuals whose ancestors chose to follow God so their free will was not completely gone. All but Enoch and Noah are post flood. We know how evil Noah's contemporaries were. The sin nature had corrupted them to the point that God started over with one family.
The only thing that has kept post flood mankind halfway civilized is the Jews trying to follow the law God gave them. You don’t have to leave this hemisphere to find human sacrifice still being carried out when Christians came ashore 1500 years after Christ was on earth. It is still being carried out today under the guise of honor.
The free will was over powered by the sin nature. No one could gain Heaven on their own. That is why God sent Jesus.
Well, yes, but such is still the case. Even among Christians, the sinful nature persists. I see sinful nature as being a poison infecting mankind. But free will is intrinsically part of what we are. It is always our choice to do evil or good. If it is not our choice, it is not our fault. To punish us would not be just.
God believes that as well and is the reason he sent Jesus. He only asks us to admit our sinfulness and except Christ’s payment for those sins and let Him adopt us back into His family.
[The courts of Heaven must be satisfied, to be sure, but it is my reckoning that the sinless life of Christ was the deal breaker, though the word of God (Prophecy) had to be fulfilled in Him too (God could not break His word).]
The sinless life of Christ was the deal maker not breaker.
I meant the deal that gave Satan dominion over the earth- That was nullified, or broken, the minute mankind produced sinless fruit.
We are saying the same thing. I just like to think of it as God winning, taking that dominion back, more than Satan losing it. lol
My point is that the Courts of Heaven had to have apples for apples. Adam lost salvation for man. Christ had to be exactly like Adam to make what He did legal. He had to be capable of the same failings or the contest would not have been fair and/or legal. When He was tempted by Satan, He had to be just as able as Adam to capitulate or it was meaningless.
This I agree with entirely. It does not seem right that Christ would have an easy time of things. It diminishes what He did to say such a thing. I am not convinced that it needed to be exactly the same. It would be acceptable (in fact likely, in my mind) if God was at a disadvantage. I am still not convinced the sinful nature was removed from Christ. If He were more likely to capitulate when tempted, the verdict would still have meaning.
Did my answers help or hinder?
Oh, helped I am sure. I just don't necessarily agree (yet)...
If Christ was indeed removed from the curse of Adam, His body an holy chalice without sin or flaw, death would not find Him, because death is part of the curse. It stands to reason thereby, that He was born into the curse, just like the rest of us, and that He succeeded where we all have utterly failed, in spite of that curse.
You are forgetting one thing. Christ died by choice. Father, Your will be done. He sweat blood just thinking about being separated from the Father. This makes it even more (What ever superlative you want to insert here.) what he did for us.
Yes, He chose. but there is a distinction between choosing to go to His death, and choosing to let Himself die. I don't think that distinction can be defined, but again, the evidence points to a man in the flesh. He could be tempted. He felt hunger. he felt exhaustion. If all these, is it such a stretch to suppose he died just like anyone else?
Christ is the innocent Lamb with no blemish or stain that God needed to atone for our sins with His blood and death. God asked and He said; “yes”. He tasted death for us so we wouldn’t have to. He had to die to make God’s plan complete.
He had to die while innocent to payoff that part of the curse for us. The death also allowed Him to be resurrected to fulfill Prophecy and to assure us the Father would do the same for us.
That is certainly true. but the curse is a propensity, not sin itself.