T. F. Torrance says:
Perhaps the most fundamental truth which we have to learn in the Christian Church, or rather relearn since we have suppressed it, is that the incarnation was the coming of God to save us in the heart of our fallen and depraved humanity, where humanity is at its wickedest in its enmity and violence against the reconciling love of God. That is to say, the incarnation is to be understood as the coming of God to take upon himself our fallen human nature, our actual human existence laden with sin and guilt, our humanity diseased in mind and soul in its estrangement or alienation from the Creator. This is a doctrine found everywhere in the early Church in the first five centuries, expressed again and again in the terms that the whole man had to be assumed by Christ if the whole man was to be saved, that the unassumed is unhealed, or that what God has not taken up in Christ is not saved. The sharp point of those formulations of this truth lay in the fact that it is the alienated mind of man that God had laid hold of in Jesus Christ in order to redeem it and effect reconciliation deep within the rational centre of human being. (T. F. Torrance, “The Mediation of Christ,” 48-9)
I agree, I believe with Torrance that Christ really “assumed” sinful man; or that He assumed a “sinful” body and human “soul.” I will tell you why, if you want . . . or you could allow me to keep a secret — it’s up to you 😉 . Of course my response is going to be in total agreement and informed by the kind of thinking you just read from TFT.
The Face Of Christ 
Do go on Bobby
Okay, Gav . . . but it’s pretty much repetitive of what TFT has just said 😉 .
First let me point you to this post: https://recreatedinchrist.wordpress.com/2009/07/19/a-fallen-christ/
Then let me just say, simply, that if Jesus did not truly enter into our “Fallen state” (only partially) then what did He redeem? What did He put to death? I think, actually the most clear articulation of this, is the straightforward of Paul, here:
“He who knew no sin, became sin, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” II Cor. 5:21
To be true, there is more at stake here; but I really don’t want to try and develop all of that here, maybe via post (soon). The issue here, as far as I have engaged it, really revolves around two different approaches to how we approach and talk about God (i.e. there is the Classic way [the scholastic or Thomistic], or there is the “Evangelical/trinitarian” way — and it is these two variant approaches that leads to differing conclusions about the Incarnation, and in particular this issue under consideration).
What do you think, Gav?
Skip Torrence and just read Maximus Ad Thalassium 42
Heck, no! Torrance is my “homeboy.” 😉
Yes, but Maximus is a Father! (Orthodox trump card!)
Touche’ . . . 🙂