Interesting

[colporteur]

Yes, Larry, I read the statement by L Hardinage too quickly.

I believe original sin feeds into the  error of Christ not taking Adam's post fall nature.  If having a fallen nature is accentually the same as sinning  then all would be guilty from the moment of conception. This error also promotes infant baptism and the idea of limbo for babies. One error leads to another and to another. A continuation of the error of original sin is that it is not our acts that are righteous or sinful but who we are. Therefore we can premeditively sin and continue in sin and presumptuously be righteous. If we are guilty of sin irrespective of whether or not we sin then it would follow that we can be righteous whether or not we sin. The bottom line in this is that it really does not make a whole lot of difference what we do in terms of obedience. Sanctification is only optional.There are so many variations of error that spring board out of the concept of original sin.

Sin is a choice. While a small child may exhibit selfish tendencies until they are able to grasp right and wrong they have not sinned in the sense of being accountable. I suppose if one wishes to call unaccountable tendencies before the age of accountability...sin... but then as you have quoted..."Sin is the transgression of the law." For a baby to cry because he is wet or hungry is not selfishness. To inherit a fallen nature  is not in itself sin but the results of another's sin.

    It could be argued that animals too have inherited fallen natures from their original offspring as the result of Adam's sin. While it is not God's will that a lion kills a lamb the lion is not guilty of sin anymore than a baby is quilty of sin. They both simply inherited a dispostion that is not according to God's will and design. The animal is not guilty because he has not the mental capability to choose to act against the fallen nature. The same is true of the baby. Of course the difference is that the baby reaches a point to where he realizes what he does is wrong. This is not true with an animal and their lower mental capacity.
     

[colporteur]

As Pastor O said, both sides of this controversy can point to Ellen White quotes to support their positions.

I think it is only right to examine all the quotations and see when they were written. She certainly grew spiritually and changed some positions as time went on.

We must also examine the scriptural quotations that are pertinent to this discussion.

When Adam fell, the whole human race fell and needed to be redeemed.

cp>>> The human race inherited fallen natures but we did not fall until we acted upon that nature and sinned<<<

Everyone who is ever born into this world must be born again. We are all born with a sinful nature because of Adam's fall. When David said "In sin did my mother conceive me", David was not talking about the act of intercourse resulting in conception that was sin, he meant that he was a sinner from birth.

cp>>> No, what the verse means is that both Davids parents were sinners living in a sinful world. It does not mean that David was a sinner before he sinned.<<< Are people drug dealers before they choose to deal drugs? No.  Is a man a bank robber 50 years before he robs a bank? No

Jesus was different from us in that He DID NOT need to be BORN AGAIN. He was not born with original sin, since God the Holy Spirit was His Father. He was uniquely born of a virgin.

cp>>> Where does it say that God the Father is the Holy Spirit?<<< Jesus was also born of Mary but correct He was not born with original sin. Neither are we. True Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit therefore the Holy Spirit was the active agent involved in the conception. By the same token we are sealed by the Holy Spirit but the actual seal is the Sabbath as it contains the three vital elements contained in every seal.<<<

Just because it was possible for Jesus to die does not prove he had our sinful nature.

Jesus had two parents and two natures. A human nature and a divine nature. The divine nature had total dominion over the fallen nature. So it may be with us.<<<

Romans 5:12-19 expresses some of what I tried to express above, except much better :

12  "Wherefore, as by ONE MAN sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon ALL MEN for that all have sinned:

cp>>> the fisrt part of the verse is obviously simply referring to our inheriting perishable flesh. Animals also inheritedf the same because of Adam's sin but they are not sinners because they are incapable of sin. The same is true of a baby in the womb.  The statement "all have sinned" is simply prefiguring the obvious fact that all will sin. People that have not yet been concieved have noty sinned but when they are born and live they will have sinned. It is as though this verse is a reflected back from the time of judgment.<<<

 13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

cp>>> And sin is the transgression of the law. We sin as we chose to sin not as our parents sin on our behalf.<<<

 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

 15But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the OFFENCE OF ONE many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by ONE MAN, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

cp>>> Again this is obviously referring to effects of a fallen nature which will result in comitting sin.<<<

 16And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

 17For if by ONE MAN'S OFFENCE death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by ONE, Jesus Christ.)

 18Therefore as by the OFFENCE OF ONE judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the RIGHTEOUSNESS OF ONE the FREE GIFT came upon all men unto justification of life.

cp>>> Yes, all men reap what Adam sowed in transgression just like a baby may not be well sustained if his father is in prison for murder. The baby reap the father's sin though the baby is not guilty of sin nore can be as it was not his choice.

 19For as by ONE MAN'S DISOBEDIENCE many were made sinners, so by the OBEDIENCE OF ONE shall many be made righteous."

cp>>>There is no tense as to when we are made sinners. Your intepretation here Stan leads to universal justification, optional sanctification and salvation in sin.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stan

[Soli Deo Gloria]

Stan, the idea that babys are born guilty of sin makes no sense. God is reasonable and just. To follow the doctrine of original sin to its logical conclusion, would be that God will punish babies and very young children as sinners even though they had no understanding or conception of the law, or even the concept of right and wrong. Thats an insult to God's character. True, it does not take long for a new parent to notice the self centeredness and "selfishness" of a baby. They are born with a fallen nature with a pull towards sin. But God does not hold them guilty of sin until they are able to understand sufficiently to be accountable. Even man made laws don't hold babies and young children accountable. Lets not make God out to be meaner than we are.

"Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law for sin is the transgression of the law." (1John 3:4) A baby has no understanding of the law.

"Therefore, to him that knoweth to do good, but doeth it not, to him it is sin. (James 4:17)
A baby does not "knoweth to do good."

David's statement "In sin did my mother conceive me," was an acknowlegement that children inherit the sinful tendencies of their parents. 
He also said "The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. (Ps 58: 3) This is obviously a bit of hyperbole to make the point that it does not take long for mankind to manifest sin. But they certainly do not go astray "as soon as they be born" nor are they actually born "speaking lies"
Job 14:4 also speaks to this: "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?"
These texts are talking about our fallen nature, they do not prove original sin.
 

Larry,

I agree that a child is not going to answer for sins committed before whatever age the child becomes accountable, and only God knows when that is. God will always be perfectly just. But that doesn't take away from what Romans 5:19 says clearly:

19For as by ONE MAN'S DISOBEDIENCE many were made sinners, so by the OBEDIENCE OF ONE shall many be made righteous."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Adam's fall made us sinners, but Christ's obedience makes us righteous, if we only trust on Him.

Here is the official statement fundamental 7 of the SDA church:

7. Nature of Man:
Man and woman were made in the image of God with individuality, the power and freedom to think and to do. Though created free beings, each is an indivisible unity of body, mind, and spirit, dependent upon God for life and breath and all else. When our first parents disobeyed God, they denied their dependence upon Him and fell from their high position under God. The image of God in them was marred and they became subject to death. Their descendants SHARE THIS FALLEN NATURE AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. They are born with weaknesses and tendencies to evil. But God in Christ reconciled the world to Himself and by His Spirit restores in penitent mortals the image of their Maker. Created for the glory of God, they are called to love Him and one another, and to care for their environment. (Gen. 1:26-28; 2:7; Ps. 8:4-8; Acts 17:24-28; Gen. 3; Ps. 51:5; Rom. 5:12-17; 2 Cor. 5:19, 20; Ps. 51:10; 1 John 4:7, 8, 11, 20; Gen. 2:15.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, did Jesus SHARE OUR FALLEN NATURE AND ITS CONSEQUENCES?  The same as we who are fallen Adam's descendants?

If Jesus inherited exactly the same fallen nature as we did, then it would become necessary for Jesus to be born again. Fallen beings had to be redeemed by a sinless substitute.

I have no problem with the fundamental belief statement above, and it possibly may be interpreted in different ways.

I was always taught in SDA schools that we were born with original sin, but others may have been taught different.

The majority of the Christian church through hundreds of years have interpreted Romans 5 as meaning that Adam imputed sin to the human race, but Christ, the second Adam redeemed us from this curse.

Praise God indeed for providing us with so great a Substitute!

Stan

[Larry Lyons]

Stan, I can see that this it all comes down to how we choose to interpret Romans 5:19. I agree with Cp that making a mistake here can lead to confusion and error in understanding the nature of Christ, and a lot of other things as well. 

I believe that the correct way to interpret the text is that all were "made sinners" by being born with a fallen nature with an inborn inclination towards sin that could never be resisted without the power of the Holy Spirit. Without Christ, our destiny was to sin. I don't believe that it means we were born guilty at birth.

Praise God that we do have a Savior "who is able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by Him, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession for them." (Heb. 7:25

[newbie]

Sometimes try to think of it this way.....   

sin is a disease that we are all born with... it is the fallen nature of Adam.  But the symptoms of the disease are sins that are committed by us that can be repented of through the grace of God.   Jesus died for our repented sins and sins of ignorance and for the disease of sin set forth by Adam's fall and redeemed through Jesus.

[Deep Waters]

I find this scriptural quotation very interesting:

1 Peter 1:18,19 (King James Version)

18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

 19 "But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a LAMB without BLEMISH and without SPOT:"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now why did the Holy Spirit inspire Peter to to use both terms "blemish" and "spot"?

In the sacrificial system, it was required to have a lamb without blemish as in Exodus 12:5:

5"Your lamb shall be without BLEMISH, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats:"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Blemish would certainly typify an inherited defect.

So, as Peter said, Jesus, the Lamb, had no BLEMISH, or inherited defect or inherited sin, and He had no "SPOT", or external sin.

Stan

So, Stan, you believe that some lambs were born with fallen natures because they had spots and blemishes, but the ones which were born without spot or blemish were born with unfallen natures? I doubt you believe this, but one must be careful to understand just how far one is to go with the symbolism provided by Scripture. On the other hand, maybe you do! After all, the logic you bring to the Scriptures you just quoted regarding lambs is identical with the ones regarding priests. Maybe you believe that some priests born with blemishes were of the fallen nature, while those without had unfallen natures. After all, God did say in Leviticus 21:21,  "No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God."

But, if you believe that Jesus was born of fallen flesh without defect in the sense that He was not blind, crippled, or leprous, and that He had an unfallen spiritual nature just as Ellen White wrote, then you would have no conflict with the Scriptures and her writings.

Still, if you wish to believe that Jesus could condemn sin in the flesh while here on this earth in an unfallen human nature, what has He done that unfallen angels could not do?

[colporteur]

Now, did Jesus SHARE OUR FALLEN NATURE AND ITS CONSEQUENCES?  The same as we who are fallen Adam's descendants?

If Jesus inherited exactly the same fallen nature as we did, then it would become necessary for Jesus to be born again. Fallen beings had to be redeemed by a sinless substitute.

cp>>>Jesus shared our nature but not its consequences. The reason for this is because though He took our nature He did not fall. The difference is that Christ was born with the divine nature ruling over the fallen nature. We are born with the fallen nature ruling therefore we sin. The 144,000 will also have the divine nature ruling over the fallen nature. The reason why we fall spiritually is because there is nothing to inhibit us from acting upon the fallen nature until we are sanctified and also have the divine nature ruling over the fallen nature.. The reason that Jesus had no propensity for sin is because the extent to which the divine nature was in control. It's not that Christ's fallen nature was different than ours its the fact that Jesus was  born also with a divine nature that was in full control while we grow into this state in the sanctification process. When Mrs. White said Jesus had no propensity to sin I believe this was because His divine nature had in effect smothered the fallen nature, the old man He inherited and took upon Himself was kept in the grave, also that He had no propensity for sin because of any cultivated sin. In other words He had no propensity for sin within the nature that He chose to be dominated by or led by.. the divine nature. <<<

I have no problem with the fundamental belief statement above, and it possibly may be interpreted in different ways.

I was always taught in SDA schools that we were born with original sin, but others may have been taught different.

 cp>>>Many SDA schools can be a dangerous place to be. I was not taught in any SDA school but in the school of Christ<<<

The majority of the Christian church through hundreds of years have interpreted Romans 5 as meaning that Adam imputed sin to the human race, but Christ, the second Adam redeemed us from this curse.

 cp>>>The very same can be said of  Eccl. 12:7  where it is believed that when the verse says "the spirit shall return to God who gave it" is thought to mean the immortal soul  returns to God at death. The same can be said about  Rev. 1:10  " I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day..." where the majority of the Christian church did and does think that the Lord's day is Sunday when there is not a single verse in all of Scripture that would indicate that the Lord's day is other than the 7th day Sabbath. There is a long list of errors that the churches have held for centuries and still does. Adam imputed a fallen nature and a body subject to pain and death to the human race. He did not impute quilt. He only imputed  sin to us in that our natures are geared that direction so we naturally sin. Sin is a choice..our choice... even though we are somewhat ignorant of the full ramifications and fruit of sin. While we have not chosen our natures we can chose a different nature and we can chose to have victory over sin if we are willing to accept the conditions to do so.<<<

Praise God indeed for providing us with so great a Substitute!

cp>>> Very true. He took everything we have short of sin.<<<

Stan

[Richard OFfill]

I have been traveling. I actually read the posts so far, howbeit rapidly. This topic always lends itself to a nice discussion.

I must confess that (maybe this has already been rebutted) I believe that Jesus was not born with a sinful nature. If this had been the case he himself would have needed a Savior.

It seems to me that there are embedded  some problems in this discussion and one is that there is a regular use of the word, "our example". While this is surely the case it is not were it all begins. He came first not to be our example but to be  our substitute. To suggest that we need do only what he did is to suggest that the problem of sin is solved by a kind of formula. If we are saved by a formula then we didn't need him only the formula.

It troubles me through the years to hear from time to time that if he wasn't just like me then he couldn't have been my Savior. I believe he is our Savior in every way without being like me in every way. Just as soon as we say that he had no propensity to sin then it becomes impossible to say that he was like us. As has been mentioned earlier, he needed no Savior inasmuch as he was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. He was the "holy thing" from His conception, something that no baby has ever been. This means that his nature from birth was unlike anyone from birth on has ever been.

While the last generation will have victory over every sin and besetment, I don't believe it is safe to say that at that time they will be in respect to holiness past depending on Jesus anymore. It seems to me that the words of Paul that in Him we live and move and have our being is for eternity and not just until the close of probation.

To me it is (hang on now) not doing what he did but accepting what he did for us not only for now but forever. We can study the Bible everyday and pray all day, but it is not doing what he  did, but receiving what he did through the Holy Spirit into our being and thus being changed from the ground up. It is impossible that he had to be born again. The fact that we do need to be born again makes Him different than us. As I have studied, it is clear that Jesus had to begin where Adam began for the simple reason that to come at a point after that time would have been took late. To me the issue was one and that is did Adam have to do what he did? Christ beginning where Adam began says no. When I take all the quotes and all the texts on the subject I just conclude that just was a "third kind". None like Him before and none like Him after.

I personally fear that we may try so hard to make him like us and simply try to follow his "example" that we in reality are simply trying to pull ourselves  up by our boot straps and in effect trying to save ourselves by our own effort ie. righteousness by our own - not his -  works.While He is indeed our example, Praise God, He is much, much more.

 When a person who you would know heard me express what I have just expressed  He told me that I didn't believe in victory over sin. I told him that in spite of my conviction I am not a closet Catholic.  I do believe in victorious Christian living -Christ in us the hope of Glory. He said that I must be the only one. No, though I am one, there are many like me!

Well, discussing this topic among friends, is nice. However, it sometimes reminds me of the man who was telling a friend that his dad used to wake him up every day by throwing the cat on the bed. His friend wanted to know what was wrong with that. "I slept with the dog."

[Soli Deo Gloria]

So, Stan, you believe that some lambs were born with fallen natures because they had spots and blemishes, but the ones which were born without spot or blemish were born with unfallen natures? I doubt you believe this, but one must be careful to understand just how far one is to go with the symbolism provided by Scripture. On the other hand, maybe you do! After all, the logic you bring to the Scriptures you just quoted regarding lambs is identical with the ones regarding priests. Maybe you believe that some priests born with blemishes were of the fallen nature, while those without had unfallen natures. After all, God did say in Leviticus 21:21,  "No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God."

But, if you believe that Jesus was born of fallen flesh without defect in the sense that He was not blind, crippled, or leprous, and that He had an unfallen spiritual nature just as Ellen White wrote, then you would have no conflict with the Scriptures and her writings.

Still, if you wish to believe that Jesus could condemn sin in the flesh while here on this earth in an unfallen human nature, what has He done that unfallen angels could not do?

Deep Waters,

All I can tell you is this regarding the scripture cited:

18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

 19 "But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a LAMB without BLEMISH and without SPOT:"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is true that not all analogies are perfect. But I do find it interesting that Peter used both BLEMISH (which in the Passover Lamb meant no inherited defect) and SPOT to describe our Passover Lamb who is Christ.

 I will say that this text proves that Christ was different from me. He was without blemish or spot, but I am a sinner redeemed by the blood of the Lamb.

Soli Deo Gloria

[Soli Deo Gloria]

I have been traveling. I actually read the posts so far, howbeit rapidly. This topic always lends itself to a nice discussion.

I must confess that (maybe this has already been rebutted) I believe that Jesus was not born with a sinful nature. If this had been the case he himself would have needed a Savior.

It seems to me that there are embedded  some problems in this discussion and one is that there is a regular use of the word, "our example". While this is surely the case it is not were it all begins. He came first not to be our example but to be  our substitute. To suggest that we need do only what he did is to suggest that the problem of sin is solved by a kind of formula. If we are saved by a formula then we didn't need him only the formula.

It troubles me through the years to hear from time to time that if he wasn't just like me then he couldn't have been my Savior. I believe he is our Savior in every way without being like me in every way. Just as soon as we say that he had no propensity to sin then it becomes impossible to say that he was like us. As has been mentioned earlier, he needed no Savior inasmuch as he was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. He was the "holy thing" from His conception, something that no baby has ever been. This means that his nature from birth was unlike anyone from birth on has ever been.

While the last generation will have victory over every sin and besetment, I don't believe it is safe to say that at that time they will be in respect to holiness past depending on Jesus anymore. It seems to me that the words of Paul that in Him we live and move and have our being is for eternity and not just until the close of probation.

To me it is (hang on now) not doing what he did but accepting what he did for us not only for now but forever. We can study the Bible everyday and pray all day, but it is not doing what he  did, but receiving what he did through the Holy Spirit into our being and thus being changed from the ground up. It is impossible that he had to be born again. The fact that we do need to be born again makes Him different than us. As I have studied, it is clear that Jesus had to begin where Adam began for the simple reason that to come at a point after that time would have been took late. To me the issue was one and that is did Adam have to do what he did? Christ beginning where Adam began says no. When I take all the quotes and all the texts on the subject I just conclude that just was a "third kind". None like Him before and none like Him after.

I personally fear that we may try so hard to make him like us and simply try to follow his "example" that we in reality are simply trying to pull ourselves  up by our boot straps and in effect trying to save ourselves by our own effort ie. righteousness by our own - not his -  works.While He is indeed our example, Praise God, He is much, much more.

 When a person who you would know heard me express what I have just expressed  He told me that I didn't believe in victory over sin. I told him that in spite of my conviction I am not a closet Catholic.  I do believe in victorious Christian living -Christ in us the hope of Glory. He said that I must be the only one. No, though I am one, there are many like me!

Well, discussing this topic among friends, is nice. However, it sometimes reminds me of the man who was telling a friend that his dad used to wake him up every day by throwing the cat on the bed. His friend wanted to know what was wrong with that. "I slept with the dog."

Excellent post Pastor. I agree with you completely.

Stan

[Soli Deo Gloria]

Here are some thoughts on this topic that someone sent me by email, and they are not original with me, but I thought I would share them:

The original sin was first a broken relationship. To define sin
merely as

[Deep Waters]

"Christ is called the second Adam. In purity and holiness, connected with God and beloved by God, He began where the first Adam began. . . ." Amazing Grace page 42

"Christ is called the second Adam. In purity and holiness, connected with God and beloved by God, he began where the first Adam began. Willingly he passed over the ground where Adam fell, and redeemed Adam's failure." {Youth Instructor, June 2, 1898 par. 1}

"Christ is called the second Adam. In purity and holiness, connected with God, and beloved by God, He began where the first Adam began." 8 Manuscript Release p. 40

Pastor, I did not respond to your post before now because I needed to prayerfully ponder your point. And now I understand that there is an immense misunderstanding on the phrase, "He began where the first Adam began".

Where did Adam begin? He was in the flush and vigor of adult manhood. Adam was not born as Christ was born. Adam was not surrounded wickedness and evil influences, that is until Eve tempted him to join her in transgression and rebellion.

Where did Jesus begin? As a baby. His personal experience was more akin to that of Cain, Abel, or Seth in that He experienced the slow development of the powers of manhood. He was surrounded by wickedness, and yet from early in His childhood He had personal accountability in His character development.

So we must ask ourselves, "What was it that Christ was beginning?" He was beginning His representation of the fallen human race. And, as previously quoted, He began with a fallen nature that was uncorrupted. Fallen in that it was human, uncorrupted because His spiritual nature was pure. And that was the only difference between Him and us, for we have a natural tendency to yield to the temptations of Satan.

What brings God the greatest glory? If Jesus had come with unfallen flesh, He would have proved nothing more than the unfallen angels of Heaven could prove. Without sinful flesh, He would not have been able to condemn sin in the flesh. We would have no example of how to obtain victory over sin with the flesh you and I have. Our claims to victory over sin through Jesus would ring hollow.

You say that if Jesus had sinful flesh He would then need a Savior Himself. That is a very Augustinian approach to sin. If one clings to it, they might as well accept that Mary didn't have sinful flesh. If Mary didn't have sinful flesh, then neither did her mother. If her mother didn't have sinful flesh, then, well the ultimate conclusion is that neither did Eve.

I find it rather interesting that Adventists used to be united on this doctrine. In one of his sermons A.T. Jones used the very logic expressed in the previous paragraph. But only in the 1900's have we departed from what was believed by our pioneering fathers. Questions on Doctrine was the first published work in our denominational history that divided us as a church. We must get back on the platform of Truth, or we will be found among those who kept not the faith of Jesus.

[Deep Waters]

Deep Waters,

All I can tell you is this regarding the scripture cited:

18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

 19 "But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a LAMB without BLEMISH and without SPOT:"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is true that not all analogies are perfect. But I do find it interesting that Peter used both BLEMISH (which in the Passover Lamb meant no inherited defect) and SPOT to describe our Passover Lamb who is Christ.

 I will say that this text proves that Christ was different from me. He was without blemish or spot, but I am a sinner redeemed by the blood of the Lamb.

Soli Deo Gloria

Stan, we both have our stance on this passage. You just choose to insert your own interpretation, based on the weakness of Augustinian theology, to support your belief. Why do you avoid the more important question regarding the faith of Jesus? How much greater is His faith in His Father if His human nature were fallen, though His spiritual nature was uncorrupted, than if He came in unfallen flesh?

Jesus' spiritual nature was without spot or blemish. And His physical nature was without lameness, deafness, blindness, or leprosy. But that does not mean that He had unfallen flesh.

[newbie]

Jesus came in the fallen state of Adam (flesh), and that is the only way that He could fix what had been done.  But His Spirit was unfallen.... sanctified if you will.... and he glorified the Father by doing His will always.  This is what God has offered to us...  to become sanctified in Spirit but we will always have the fallen flesh with us until just before the second coming.  But inside, our sanctified spirit will love and keep the faith of Jesus and glorify Him in the last days.  This is what the angels are waiting to see....  that fallen man can be restored to the image of Christ in the last days.  This is what Satan said was not possible.

In a sense I can agree that Jesus was a unique and special kind in that He paved the way for us and did what no one else could do in fulfilling the requirement of God's broken law.

[Raven]

The subject of the nature of Christ could be debated from now until the second coming, but we will still not understand it fully, or even come to a common understanding among ourselves.  The bottom line is that He took our nature in a way that allowed Him to fulfill the requirements necessary to save us from being lost eternally.  He overcame sin in the same way that we must do it--through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.  He was tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin.  We cannot use the excuse that He had it easier than we do.  On the contrary, He had it much harder because the devil's eternal destiny hinged on whether or not he could defeat Jesus.  And we have been promised all the help we need to overcome as He overcame.

I think we need to keep it as simple as possible--so a child can understand it.