PDA

View Full Version : Adam and the sin nature



Equipped_4_Love
Oct 12th 2008, 09:53 PM
John 8:34 Jesus answered them, "Most assuredly I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave to sin"

We sin because we are sinners by nature. The Bible indicates that we are in bondage to sin, and it is Christ who sets us free. Through Adam, sin entered the world:

Rom. 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spead to all men, because all sinned

So, because of Adam, we have all been brought under the bondage of sin and death. It wasn't until Adam sinned that we became enslaved to sin.

We know that we sin because we are sinners....because it is part of our fallen nature. So, then, if we sin because we are in bondage to sin, as Jesus said, then why did Adam sin?

Obviously, he was not in bondage to sin at that point.

BroRog
Oct 12th 2008, 10:02 PM
John 8:34 Jesus answered them, "Most assuredly I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave to sin"

We sin because we are sinners by nature. The Bible indicates that we are in bondage to sin, and it is Christ who sets us free. Through Adam, sin entered the world:

Rom. 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spead to all men, because all sinned

So, because of Adam, we have all been brought under the bondage of sin and death. It wasn't until Adam sinned that we became enslaved to sin.

We know that we sin because we are sinners....because it is part of our fallen nature. So, then, if we sin because we are in bondage to sin, as Jesus said, then why did Adam sin?

Obviously, he was not in bondage to sin at that point.

Why is it obvious? :)

Romans 5:12 tells us when sin entered the world, but when did sin enter Adam?

Equipped_4_Love
Oct 12th 2008, 10:39 PM
Wasn't bondage to sin a result of the Fall? Wasn't that when sin entered us, and we became seperated from God?

Was it in Adam's nature to sin before he fell?

BroRog
Oct 13th 2008, 12:41 AM
Wasn't bondage to sin a result of the Fall? Wasn't that when sin entered us, and we became seperated from God?

Was it in Adam's nature to sin before he fell?

I believe it was in Adam's nature to sin before he fell. The whole purpose of the "Tree of knowledge" was to provide Adam with the opportunity to learn this fact about himself. And God designed the sin nature into Adam because the purpose of creation is to display the glory and grace of God through a story of redemption. All of this was God's plan from the very beginning.

divaD
Oct 13th 2008, 01:00 AM
I believe it was in Adam's nature to sin before he fell. The whole purpose of the "Tree of knowledge" was to provide Adam with the opportunity to learn this fact about himself. And God designed the sin nature into Adam because the purpose of creation is to display the glory and grace of God through a story of redemption. All of this was God's plan from the very beginning.



Unless of course the tree of the knowledge of good and evil wasn't really a literal tree, but was an entity of some sort.

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen2.pdf defines the tree as a him.

faroutinmt
Oct 13th 2008, 01:02 AM
I believe it was in Adam's nature to sin before he fell. The whole purpose of the "Tree of knowledge" was to provide Adam with the opportunity to learn this fact about himself. And God designed the sin nature into Adam because the purpose of creation is to display the glory and grace of God through a story of redemption. All of this was God's plan from the very beginning.

You believe that God designed the sin nature into Adam? That would make God the author of sin. Is there a scriptural basis for this belief?

divaD
Oct 13th 2008, 01:13 AM
You believe that God designed the sin nature into Adam? That would make God the author of sin. Is there a scriptural basis for this belief?



I agree, there is no Scriptural basis for this. The Bible explicitly tells us than sin entered in thru Adam, and it doesn't tell us that he was designed to sin on purpose. So how did sin enter thru Adam? Via the serpent. How else? Seems pretty clear cut to me.

Equipped_4_Love
Oct 13th 2008, 01:59 AM
I agree, there is no Scriptural basis for this. The Bible explicitly tells us than sin entered in thru Adam, and it doesn't tell us that he was designed to sin on purpose. So how did sin enter thru Adam? Via the serpent. How else? Seems pretty clear cut to me.

Yes, but Jesus stated quite clearly why we sin.....because we are slaves to sin. Adam was not a slave to sin at this point, so I guess the question is, why did he sin if he was not a slave to sin?

What was it inside of his nature that caused him to sin before the fall? Obviously, at this point, it was not sin, and there was something else besides the inclination to sin that caused him to sin.

I also dont agree that God instilled sin inside of Adam's nature before the Fall.

BroRog
Oct 13th 2008, 04:38 AM
You believe that God designed the sin nature into Adam? That would make God the author of sin. Is there a scriptural basis for this belief?

First, according to John, God is the author of everything.

All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

Second, it's common sense. If you see a bunch of water on the floor with a plastic bottle and an open lid, it's a real good bet that the water came from the bottle.

Likewise, if Adam sinned, he had the sin nature in him.

crawfish
Oct 13th 2008, 03:51 PM
I agree, there is no Scriptural basis for this. The Bible explicitly tells us than sin entered in thru Adam, and it doesn't tell us that he was designed to sin on purpose. So how did sin enter thru Adam? Via the serpent. How else? Seems pretty clear cut to me.

Didn't God also create the serpent?

faroutinmt
Oct 13th 2008, 04:54 PM
First, according to John, God is the author of everything.

All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

Second, it's common sense. If you see a bunch of water on the floor with a plastic bottle and an open lid, it's a real good bet that the water came from the bottle.

Likewise, if Adam sinned, he had the sin nature in him.

According to your reasoning, God created sin. How could God, who is absolutely righteous, create something which is completely hostile to and opposed to Himself? Why would God create something toward which He has complete hatred? If God is a creator of sin, you and I are in big trouble.

No where in the bible is it even remotely suggested that Adam had a sin nature before he disobeyed God's command about eating the forbidden fruit.

faroutinmt
Oct 13th 2008, 05:00 PM
Yes, but Jesus stated quite clearly why we sin.....because we are slaves to sin. Adam was not a slave to sin at this point, so I guess the question is, why did he sin if he was not a slave to sin?

What was it inside of his nature that caused him to sin before the fall? Obviously, at this point, it was not sin, and there was something else besides the inclination to sin that caused him to sin.

I also dont agree that God instilled sin inside of Adam's nature before the Fall.

The suggestion here is that Adam had to sin from a predisposition, or inclination toward good or evil.

It seems to me- and I certainly could be wrong- that Adam was created with the ability to either obey or disobey God. Since we cannot relate, I think we are stumped on this concept. We don't have to completely understand the idea how he was free in this respect.

He had no desire to sin until he either heard what the serpent said (we don't know if he heard the conversation), or when he saw his wife eating. Somehow, at some point, sinful desires were welcomed by him into his heart, and those desires motivated him to disobey God.

cdo
Oct 13th 2008, 06:23 PM
Wasn't bondage to sin a result of the Fall? Wasn't that when sin entered us, and we became seperated from God?
God created this world a Perfect Paradise for all of us.When the Fall happened sin entered into this world and it was no longer a Paradise for us. And sin entered the whole world and yes, sin separates us from our God.


Was it in Adam's nature to sin before he fell?
No.....not the way I understand....that was not the plan of God for us.It was a choice that was made from man being deceived by 'satan's deceiving'But, God always prepares away for all of us.
Reference from Genenis.

ZuriCH
Oct 13th 2008, 06:36 PM
Unless of course the tree of the knowledge of good and evil wasn't really a literal tree, but was an entity of some sort.

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen2.pdf defines the tree as a him.


I don't speak hebrew, so it might not be valid, but I believe that the
hebrew word tree is in the masculine, hence referred to as "him" in the
literal translation of the document you posted. Very much like the strange
(for me, that is) habit of english speaking persons when the refer to a ship
and call it a she or a her.

BroRog
Oct 13th 2008, 06:39 PM
According to your reasoning, God created sin. How could God, who is absolutely righteous, create something which is completely hostile to and opposed to Himself? Why would God create something toward which He has complete hatred? If God is a creator of sin, you and I are in big trouble.

No where in the bible is it even remotely suggested that Adam had a sin nature before he disobeyed God's command about eating the forbidden fruit.

First, it's a subtle point but worthy of note, I think, that God created sinners. We sinners create the sin.

Second, while it is true and goes without saying that God is righteous, he is also full of love, grace, and mercy. In order for God to give self-expression to these qualities, which the Bible teaches are a part of his glory, he has to create a world in which he might be gracious, forgiving, and loving.

Third, the Bible also teaches us that Jesus Christ, the savior, is the focal point of all creation. The world was made with him in view such that Jesus might become the savior of the world and put at the head of all creation. To this purpose God created a world in which his creatures would need to be redeemed. Thus, while God created creatures with a sin nature, this act, taken in the context of his self-expression is not evil, but good.

Fourth, if God was as strict about sin as your post suggests, he would have put us all to death a long time ago. However, He doesn't judge us right away because he CAN wait patiently while his plans come to fruition, even though this means he has to put up with sinners in the mean time.

Doesn't this make sense of the entire Biblical picture?

tt1106
Oct 13th 2008, 06:46 PM
And yet Christ also calls us to be slaves(doulos) to Christ he King (Curio).
I think the choice there is obvious. You are a slave either way, so are you a slave to the flesh or are you a slave to the spirit.

the rookie
Oct 13th 2008, 06:47 PM
First, it's a subtle point but worthy of note, I think, that God created sinners. We sinners create the sin.

Second, while it is true and goes without saying that God is righteous, he is also full of love, grace, and mercy. In order for God to give self-expression to these qualities, which the Bible teaches are a part of his glory, he has to create a world in which he might be gracious, forgiving, and loving.

Third, the Bible also teaches us that Jesus Christ, the savior, is the focal point of all creation. The world was made with him in view such that Jesus might become the savior of the world and put at the head of all creation. To this purpose God created a world in which his creatures would need to be redeemed. Thus, while God created creatures with a sin nature, this act, taken in the context of his self-expression is not evil, but good.

Fourth, if God was as strict about sin as your post suggests, he would have put us all to death a long time ago. However, He doesn't judge us right away because he CAN wait patiently while his plans come to fruition, even though this means he has to put up with sinners in the mean time.

Doesn't this make sense of the entire Biblical picture?

Hmmm. I would think that Adam could have been created with the capacity to sin related to real choices he had to make in a garden to express love (i.e. "If you love me, obey My commandments...") as a decision based on confident trust and intimate knowledge of God and the superiority of His ways.

Adam, while uncorrupted and immortal, still lacked time and experience to cultivate that kind of relationship with God. That made him immature by nature, not sinful by nature. He lacked confident trust and intimate knowledge, IOW. That comes in process through time as one develops a "history" with God. Adam did not see that process through, and thus stumbled.

I see that as vastly different than a sin nature, by which Adam was corrupted from the beginning even prior to the fall. I disagree - it seems, according to how I understand Paul, that through one man sin entered into the world. It had a beginning point after Adam's formation, not at Adam's formation, IMO.

Éσяєяυииєя
Oct 13th 2008, 08:19 PM
John 8:34 Jesus answered them, "Most assuredly I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave to sin"

We sin because we are sinners by nature. The Bible indicates that we are in bondage to sin, and it is Christ who sets us free. Through Adam, sin entered the world:...

We know that we sin because we are sinners....because it is part of our fallen nature. So, then, if we sin because we are in bondage to sin, as Jesus said, then why did Adam sin?

Obviously, he was not in bondage to sin at that point.

Hi Welder;

As i for me, according to the light I`have read, Jesus inherited God`s spiritual nature, so Jesus came here as a born again man, yet:

Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.

For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.



Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need. Hebrews 4:14-16


But in the case of the first Adam he did not share with us the feeling of our infirmities, nor was in all points tempted like as we are.


Then I`d say here is when the "sound" free will or rather Christian freedom which God gives get in the stage.


For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh... Galatians 5:13


Oh and I wanted to share a paragraph from a Christian book which I guess is a little bit related to this:


God created man for His own glory, that after test and trial the human family might become one with the heavenly family. It was God's purpose to re-populate heaven with the human family, if they would show themselves obedient to His every word. Adam was to be tested, to see whether he would be obedient, as the loyal angels, or disobedient. If he stood the test, his instruction to his children would have been only of loyalty. His mind and thoughts would have been as the mind and thoughts of God. He would have been taught by God as His husbandry and building. His character would have been moulded in accordance with the character of God (Letter 91, 1900).




Be good




______________________
Peace and so forth

-"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation..."[Salvation from what?.]
-Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

(Romans 1:16; John 8:34; Jude 1:24-25.)

http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/5459/natureavyty7.jpg

http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/3020/lifesigyyt9.gif

faroutinmt
Oct 13th 2008, 08:54 PM
First, it's a subtle point but worthy of note, I think, that God created sinners. We sinners create the sin.

Second, while it is true and goes without saying that God is righteous, he is also full of love, grace, and mercy. In order for God to give self-expression to these qualities, which the Bible teaches are a part of his glory, he has to create a world in which he might be gracious, forgiving, and loving.

Third, the Bible also teaches us that Jesus Christ, the savior, is the focal point of all creation. The world was made with him in view such that Jesus might become the savior of the world and put at the head of all creation. To this purpose God created a world in which his creatures would need to be redeemed. Thus, while God created creatures with a sin nature, this act, taken in the context of his self-expression is not evil, but good.

Fourth, if God was as strict about sin as your post suggests, he would have put us all to death a long time ago. However, He doesn't judge us right away because he CAN wait patiently while his plans come to fruition, even though this means he has to put up with sinners in the mean time.

Doesn't this make sense of the entire Biblical picture?

Well, no, not really.

Richard H
Oct 13th 2008, 09:47 PM
Adam sinned because he could.
He had free will.
He and Eve obviously had free will – because they were to obey God and not eat of the tree.
They both chose to disobey. :no:

Slightly off topic: I think it’s interesting that he shirked responsibility by pointing at Eve and then blamed God for his wife. (Gen 3:12)
“That woman you gave me…”

threebigrocks
Oct 13th 2008, 10:11 PM
John 8:34 Jesus answered them, "Most assuredly I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave to sin"

We sin because we are sinners by nature. The Bible indicates that we are in bondage to sin, and it is Christ who sets us free. Through Adam, sin entered the world:

Rom. 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spead to all men, because all sinned

So, because of Adam, we have all been brought under the bondage of sin and death. It wasn't until Adam sinned that we became enslaved to sin.

We know that we sin because we are sinners....because it is part of our fallen nature. So, then, if we sin because we are in bondage to sin, as Jesus said, then why did Adam sin?

Obviously, he was not in bondage to sin at that point.


Read a bit further in Romans 5.

Romans 5
18So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. 19For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

God said do not eat it.

Genesis 2


16The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely;
17but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."


He did anyway. The sin was the disobedience of covetousness. They had 1 commandment, and they failed. They were created by God, but were not created like any of the angels or animals. They were created of human flesh, and human flesh is open to sin.

Interesting how further in Genesis 2 Eve told the serpent they were not to eat OR touch it. Kinda tells me that she was already eying up temptation. Resisting it was there, but it won out over obedience.

Éσяєяυииєя
Oct 13th 2008, 10:17 PM
Adam sinned because he could.
He had free will.
He and Eve obviously had free will Ė because they were to obey God and not eat of the tree


Thank our loving God because of the Free will He gives to us though

There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it. 1 Corinthians 10:13

Go well

__________________
Peace, and so forth

http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/5459/natureavyty7.jpg
http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/3020/lifesigyyt9.gif

BroRog
Oct 13th 2008, 11:15 PM
Hmmm. I would think that Adam could have been created with the capacity to sin related to real choices he had to make in a garden to express love (i.e. "If you love me, obey My commandments...") as a decision based on confident trust and intimate knowledge of God and the superiority of His ways.

Adam, while uncorrupted and immortal, still lacked time and experience to cultivate that kind of relationship with God. That made him immature by nature, not sinful by nature. He lacked confident trust and intimate knowledge, IOW. That comes in process through time as one develops a "history" with God. Adam did not see that process through, and thus stumbled.

I see that as vastly different than a sin nature, by which Adam was corrupted from the beginning even prior to the fall. I disagree - it seems, according to how I understand Paul, that through one man sin entered into the world. It had a beginning point after Adam's formation, not at Adam's formation, IMO.

I agree about sin's entry point, i.e. it entered the world after Adam's formation. But wouldn't you agree that the manifestation of sin is an effect rather than a cause?

If, as James says, we are tempted by our own lust, then the lust had to be an element of Adam's nature, correct or no?

faroutinmt
Oct 14th 2008, 01:08 AM
I agree about sin's entry point, i.e. it entered the world after Adam's formation. But wouldn't you agree that the manifestation of sin is an effect rather than a cause?

If, as James says, we are tempted by our own lust, then the lust had to be an element of Adam's nature, correct or no?

You said earlier that you believe God designed the sin nature into Adam. Here you are saying that sin entered the world after Adam's formation.

I'm kind of confused about what you believe about this.


Also, I believe there are two ways to be tempted. We are tempted by sin from within because we have a sinful nature. Jesus was also tempted in all points, yet He did not have a sinful nature. He was tempted by sin from without. I believe Adam was tempted the same way as Jesus.

BroRog
Oct 14th 2008, 01:39 AM
You said earlier that you believe God designed the sin nature into Adam. Here you are saying that sin entered the world after Adam's formation.

I'm kind of confused about what you believe about this.

Paul says sin entered the world through Adam. I understand this to mean Adam brought sin into the world as a natural outcome of his sin nature. If Adam didn't have a sin nature, I see no reason why he would sin.


Also, I believe there are two ways to be tempted. We are tempted by sin from within because we have a sinful nature. Jesus was also tempted in all points, yet He did not have a sinful nature. He was tempted by sin from without. I believe Adam was tempted the same way as Jesus.

I understand your distinction. The question is, how are we to explain Adam's failure? If Adam didn't have it in him, how do we explain his failure?

To put it another way, if Adam's choice to disobey God did not truly indicate something about Adam as a person, how can God hold him accountable for it?

I think I'm failing to communicate well. :)

Let me start again. If we believe Adam had free will, what are we saying? We are saying that Adam was able to act at will, and that his actions revealed his intent.

For instance, if I hit my thumb with a hammer, it doesn't mean that I necessarily wanted to hurt myself, or that I like pain. On the contrary, it probably means that it was an accident since I did not intend to hurt myself and I do not value pain. If, on the other hand, someone else hit my thumb with a hammer, I am right to investigate whether that person willfully and with malice hit me with the hammer.

The question then becomes, did Adam act willfully and with intent to disobey? If so, the act itself reveals something broken about him. A morally perfect man would not willfully and with intent disobey God's direct order.

Why would he? That's my point.

Éσяєяυииєя
Oct 14th 2008, 01:55 AM
You said earlier that you believe God designed the sin nature into Adam. Here you are saying that sin entered the world after Adam's formation.

I'm kind of confused about what you believe about this.


Also, I believe there are two ways to be tempted. We are tempted by sin from within because we have a sinful nature. Jesus was also tempted in all points, yet He did not have a sinful nature. He was tempted by sin from without. I believe Adam was tempted the same way as Jesus.

Hi Faroutinmt,

As we read in the first chapter of Matthew:

The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, [and here begins the list] ....And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab, ....And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias; And Solomon begat Roboam...

And many of these we know some of the points they were more prone to sin, and you know; let`s say a man, is son of a drunkard, then the drunkard`s son is yet more susceptible than his father to become a drunkard.

Now I`d like to quote a paragraph from a Christian book about this matter:

" The story of Bethlehem is an exhaustless theme. In it is hidden "the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God." Rom. 11:33. We marvel at the Saviour's sacrifice in exchanging the throne of heaven for the manger, and the companionship of adoring angels for the beasts of the stall.
Human pride and self-sufficiency stand rebuked in His presence. Yet this was but the beginning of His wonderful condescension. It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man's nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life.



Satan in heaven had hated Christ for His position in the courts of God. He hated Him the more when he himself was dethroned. He hated Him who pledged Himself to redeem a race of sinners. Yet into the world where Satan claimed dominion God permitted His Son to come, a helpless babe, subject to the weakness of humanity. He permitted Him to meet life's peril in common with every human soul, to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss.



The heart of the human father yearns over his son. He looks into the face of his little child, and trembles at the thought of life's peril. He longs to shield his dear one from Satan's power, to hold him back from temptation and conflict. To meet a bitterer conflict and a more fearful risk, God gave His only-begotten Son, that the path of life might be made sure for our little ones. "Herein is love." Wonder, O heavens! and be astonished, O earth!" Desire of Ages, 48.

God bless

______________________
Peace and so forth

-"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation..."[Salvation from what?.]
-Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

(Romans 1:16; John 8:34; Jude 1:24-25.)

http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/5459/natureavyty7.jpg

http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/3020/lifesigyyt9.gif

faroutinmt
Oct 14th 2008, 02:05 AM
Hi Faroutinmt,

As we read in the first chapter of Matthew:

The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, [and here begins the list] ....And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab, ....And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias; And Solomon begat Roboam...

And many of these we know some of the points they were more prone to sin, and you know; let`s say a man, is son of a drunkard, then the drunkard`s son is yet more susceptible than his father to become a drunkard.

Now I`d like to quote a paragraph from a Christian book about this matter:

" The story of Bethlehem is an exhaustless theme. In it is hidden "the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God." Rom. 11:33. We marvel at the Saviour's sacrifice in exchanging the throne of heaven for the manger, and the companionship of adoring angels for the beasts of the stall.
Human pride and self-sufficiency stand rebuked in His presence. Yet this was but the beginning of His wonderful condescension. It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man's nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life.



Satan in heaven had hated Christ for His position in the courts of God. He hated Him the more when he himself was dethroned. He hated Him who pledged Himself to redeem a race of sinners. Yet into the world where Satan claimed dominion God permitted His Son to come, a helpless babe, subject to the weakness of humanity. He permitted Him to meet life's peril in common with every human soul, to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss.



The heart of the human father yearns over his son. He looks into the face of his little child, and trembles at the thought of life's peril. He longs to shield his dear one from Satan's power, to hold him back from temptation and conflict. To meet a bitterer conflict and a more fearful risk, God gave His only-begotten Son, that the path of life might be made sure for our little ones. "Herein is love." Wonder, O heavens! and be astonished, O earth!" Desire of Ages, 48.

God bless

______________________
Peace and so forth

-"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation..."[Salvation from what?.]
-Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

(Romans 1:16; John 8:34; Jude 1:24-25.)

http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/5459/natureavyty7.jpg

http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/3020/lifesigyyt9.gif

I'm not clear about what you're really trying to say. What heredity do you believe Jesus Christ had? Can you simplify it for me, please? :)

faroutinmt
Oct 14th 2008, 02:09 AM
Paul says sin entered the world through Adam. I understand this to mean Adam brought sin into the world as a natural outcome of his sin nature. If Adam didn't have a sin nature, I see no reason why he would sin.



I understand your distinction. The question is, how are we to explain Adam's failure? If Adam didn't have it in him, how do we explain his failure?

To put it another way, if Adam's choice to disobey God did not truly indicate something about Adam as a person, how can God hold him accountable for it?

I think I'm failing to communicate well. :)

Let me start again. If we believe Adam had free will, what are we saying? We are saying that Adam was able to act at will, and that his actions revealed his intent.

For instance, if I hit my thumb with a hammer, it doesn't mean that I necessarily wanted to hurt myself, or that I like pain. On the contrary, it probably means that it was an accident since I did not intend to hurt myself and I do not value pain. If, on the other hand, someone else hit my thumb with a hammer, I am right to investigate whether that person willfully and with malice hit me with the hammer.

The question then becomes, did Adam act willfully and with intent to disobey? If so, the act itself reveals something broken about him. A morally perfect man would not willfully and with intent disobey God's direct order.

Why would he? That's my point.

I understand what you're saying. Thank you for trying to communicate it. I just don't believe God put a sinful nature into Adam. I don't see any evidence from scripture that this happened. Do you?

Éσяєяυииєя
Oct 14th 2008, 02:33 AM
I'm not clear about what you're really trying to say. What heredity do you believe Jesus Christ had? Can you simplify it for me, please? :)

Of course Faroutinmt, :saint:

So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations. Mat. 1:17

The heredity of all this generations.

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; Hebrews 2:14

So Christ had no advantage over us... and we can over come even as He did :pp through the Gospel.

Actually as Adam didn`t partake of this kind of heredity, the same with Lucifer in the heaven.

Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. Ezekiel 28:15

God bless


______________________
Peace and so forth

-"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation..."[Salvation from what?.]
-Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

(Romans 1:16; John 8:34; Jude 1:24-25.)

http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/5459/natureavyty7.jpg

http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/3020/lifesigyyt9.gif

the rookie
Oct 14th 2008, 03:28 AM
I agree about sin's entry point, i.e. it entered the world after Adam's formation. But wouldn't you agree that the manifestation of sin is an effect rather than a cause?

If, as James says, we are tempted by our own lust, then the lust had to be an element of Adam's nature, correct or no?

I agree that the manifestation of sin is an effect not a cause, absolutely. We just happen to disagree on the cause. I personally think that the cause is the transcendence of God - the One who is Holy, eternal, infinite, and uncreated. That vast distance between Creator and creation is the ultimate "cause" whose effect was rebellion from a place of doubt, lack of trust, and room for accusation against. In other words, God's very nature as eternal, uncreated, and infinite helped Satan build a case against Him because of the relative lack of history Adam and Eve had in knowing Him.

What is the difference then, between Adam and the redeemed in incorruptible bodies? Firstly that God Himself solved the dilemma of transcendence via the incarnation; secondly the history of faithfulness and trustworthiness that He has written into our story - which is why we celebrate above all those aspects of His character in Rev. 15:3 and why the name He chooses for Himself upon His return is "Faithful and True". It would be unthinkable for a resurrected believer to sin or rebel related to the story He has written over thousands of years that marks our hearts with eternal, loyal gratitude and tenderness towards Him.

You are presenting a case for a fundamental "flaw" in Adam's "design" by God, whereas I think that he was not created with a sin nature but, again, was immature and had a capacity to choose to reject God - which is slightly different. My question to you is: did Satan and 1/3 of the angels have the same sin nature within them - or was their rebellion simply a product of choice by which, again, God's transcendent nature left a mystery that was beyond grasping and created room for doubt and accusation?

By the way, if either of us were Calvinists than this discussion would have been over about a dozen posts ago. :lol:

Teke
Oct 15th 2008, 03:58 PM
You are presenting a case for a fundamental "flaw" in Adam's "design" by God, whereas I think that he was not created with a sin nature but, again, was immature and had a capacity to choose to reject God - which is slightly different.


Hi Rookie, enjoyed reading you and BroRog's exchange/post in this thread. :)

Wanted to comment on one thing though. Adam didn't reject God, he wanted to be like God, which isn't a sin. That he thought he could do it himself (as the prodigal son did in taking his inheritance and leaving his father), ie. the teenage know-it-all rebellious stage, was a sin.

It basically relates to the ten commandments. We are to only have one God, who is our Father, and we are to honor our parents, meaning do what they tell us to.

Adam wanted to be like his Father, just as any son would want to be like their father. Fathers are figures/role models for sons. And although a father will forgive a son and not give up on him, the son still made the wrong choice. ie. prodigal son parable where the father waited for the son to return to him.

That is how I see it. :)

faithfulfriend
Oct 15th 2008, 04:22 PM
John 8:34 Jesus answered them, "Most assuredly I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave to sin"

We sin because we are sinners by nature. The Bible indicates that we are in bondage to sin, and it is Christ who sets us free. Through Adam, sin entered the world:

Rom. 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spead to all men, because all sinned

So, because of Adam, we have all been brought under the bondage of sin and death. It wasn't until Adam sinned that we became enslaved to sin.

We know that we sin because we are sinners....because it is part of our fallen nature. So, then, if we sin because we are in bondage to sin, as Jesus said, then why did Adam sin?

Obviously, he was not in bondage to sin at that point.

Adam sinned because he gave into temptation, thus bringing forth sin, and sin bringeth forth death (spiritual death).

Adam did not have the sin nature when created, but God still gives us the right to choose. You can choose to obey Him (not sin), or to disobey Him (sin).

the rookie
Oct 15th 2008, 08:29 PM
Hi Rookie, enjoyed reading you and BroRog's exchange/post in this thread. :)

Thanks! That's much appreciated, as I respect you a ton!


Wanted to comment on one thing though. Adam didn't reject God, he wanted to be like God, which isn't a sin. That he thought he could do it himself (as the prodigal son did in taking his inheritance and leaving his father), ie. the teenage know-it-all rebellious stage, was a sin.

It basically relates to the ten commandments. We are to only have one God, who is our Father, and we are to honor our parents, meaning do what they tell us to.

Adam wanted to be like his Father, just as any son would want to be like their father. Fathers are figures/role models for sons. And although a father will forgive a son and not give up on him, the son still made the wrong choice. ie. prodigal son parable where the father waited for the son to return to him.

That is how I see it. :)

I think that you have made a very precise observation. I'll mull your point over, but I like it!

It seems to me, however, that there has to be a subtle accusation against God at work in the midst as well - one that Satan could feed into quite powerfully, of course. It takes the act of rebellion and places it from the teenage rebellion angle (which is a helpful metaphor) and thrusts the act of Adam's rebellion into something more destructive, dark, and violent in nature related to where Cain takes his father's choice and where the world descends shortly after unto Genesis 6.

So I agree with your observation about Adam wanting to be like his Father - yet I feel as if the outworking of that desire had, wrapped within it, some fairly vile and dark edges working into the choice he made to violate the audible command of God to him.

Teke
Oct 15th 2008, 09:07 PM
Thanks! That's much appreciated, as I respect you a ton!

Ditto. :)


I think that you have made a very precise observation. I'll mull your point over, but I like it!

It seems to me, however, that there has to be a subtle accusation against God at work in the midst as well - one that Satan could feed into quite powerfully, of course. It takes the act of rebellion and places it from the teenage rebellion angle (which is a helpful metaphor) and thrusts the act of Adam's rebellion into something more destructive, dark, and violent in nature related to where Cain takes his father's choice and where the world descends shortly after unto Genesis 6.

So I agree with your observation about Adam wanting to be like his Father - yet I feel as if the outworking of that desire had, wrapped within it, some fairly vile and dark edges working into the choice he made to violate the audible command of God to him.

I don't even see that he had any desire until he gave into 'peer pressure' (the snake and Eve), in a manner of speaking. The sales pitch, "it's good, you know you need it, nothing else matters more". As with the prodigal, it was the "cares of the world" (the created things) which caught his attention more than his father.

Things become confusing when one steps from the lighted way into the dark alley.

"thrusts the act of Adam's rebellion into something more destructive"

Adam wasn't faced with death before he sinned. Everyone after him was/is.
Glory to Christ for changing that for us. :saint:

Equipped_4_Love
Oct 16th 2008, 03:35 AM
He did anyway. The sin was the disobedience of covetousness. They had 1 commandment, and they failed.

This is an interesting point, because at the time of Adam, there was no need for the law. The very reason that the law even exists is because we are sinners by nature.

Adam had only one commandment to follow....not the six hundred-something commandments that the law entails, which is why I don't believe that Adam was created with a sin nature. If he were, then God would have had to give him the law from the beginning.

He had the capacity to sin, but not the inclination to sin. He was not a slave to sin, as we are, but still had the capacity to sin. It is impossible for us to keep the law, but it was possible for Adam to keep that one single commandment.

Equipped_4_Love
Oct 16th 2008, 03:37 AM
Thank our loving God because of the Free will He gives to us though

There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it. 1 Corinthians 10:13

Go well

__________________
Peace, and so forth

http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/5459/natureavyty7.jpg
http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/3020/lifesigyyt9.gif

Yes, and Adam and Eve most certainly had a means of escape

Equipped_4_Love
Oct 16th 2008, 04:07 AM
I agree that the manifestation of sin is an effect not a cause, absolutely. We just happen to disagree on the cause. I personally think that the cause is the transcendence of God - the One who is Holy, eternal, infinite, and uncreated. That vast distance between Creator and creation is the ultimate "cause" whose effect was rebellion from a place of doubt, lack of trust, and room for accusation against. In other words, God's very nature as eternal, uncreated, and infinite helped Satan build a case against Him because of the relative lack of history Adam and Eve had in knowing Him.

Hi, Rookie;

Are you saying that the reason Adam and Eve sinned was because of a lack of knowledge, resulting from a lack of history? It sounds logical, except for one thing....the Bible doesn't specify how long Adam was in the Garden before Eve came on the scene. For all we know, it could have been decades. It would appear to me that they were not in the Garden together all that long before they sinned, as they didn't have children until after they were kicked out. The fact that God told them to be frutiful, and multiply....I can imagine that they probably started acting on this commandment right away.
We also know that Adam had much more of a history with God than did Eve, which I'm sure is part of the reason that God held him more accountable than Eve. Even so, I would think that when God created Eve, enough time had elapsed to where Adam knew God intimately, and he was ready to take responsibility for a wife. I don't think that God would have entrusted Adam with this kind of a responsibility if he didn't trust and understand God on a deep personal level. I do think that Adam had the knowledge to trust God, which is why God entrusted him to pass on this knowledge to his wife.

Equipped_4_Love
Oct 16th 2008, 04:12 AM
Adam wanted to be like his Father, just as any son would want to be like their father. Fathers are figures/role models for sons. And although a father will forgive a son and not give up on him, the son still made the wrong choice. ie. prodigal son parable where the father waited for the son to return to him.

That is how I see it. :)

The way I see it, Adam's choice opened a gateway for the human condition wherein 2 paths are possible......pure intimate communication with the Lord, wherein we are continually being sanctified and made like Him, or complete separation from Him.

Equipped_4_Love
Oct 16th 2008, 04:22 AM
It seems to me, however, that there has to be a subtle accusation against God at work in the midst as well - one that Satan could feed into quite powerfully, of course. It takes the act of rebellion and places it from the teenage rebellion angle (which is a helpful metaphor) and thrusts the act of Adam's rebellion into something more destructive, dark, and violent in nature related to where Cain takes his father's choice and where the world descends shortly after unto Genesis 6.

So I agree with your observation about Adam wanting to be like his Father - yet I feel as if the outworking of that desire had, wrapped within it, some fairly vile and dark edges working into the choice he made to violate the audible command of God to him.

Remember, though, that Adam ate of the fruit because Eve offered it to him. I find it ironic and worth noting that the curse didn't come into effect until after Adam ate. There was still that period of time between Eve eating the fruit, and her giving it to Adam. So, it appears that the curse only came into effect if both of them ate together.

I suspect that if Adam hadn't eaten, but had taken charge and come to God after Eve ate, and asked for God's mercy, history would have been much different. The truth is, Adam was to have dominion over his wife, and he failed.

My heart's Desire
Oct 16th 2008, 04:49 AM
Adam sinned because he gave into temptation, thus bringing forth sin, and sin bringeth forth death (spiritual death).

Adam did not have the sin nature when created, but God still gives us the right to choose. You can choose to obey Him (not sin), or to disobey Him (sin).
And yet one usually has a set of facts before they chose to do one thing or the other. There had to have been a desire in his heart about the facts that made him choose one over the other. If Adam was created perfect, what was the desire inside that made him choose to disobey and where did it come from since he was created perfect? Genesis says that after making man all He had made was very good. Is good the same as perfect?
I think that's what we're trying to discover.
What is interesting is that it wasn't until they had eaten of the tree that they knew good and evil as in Gen. 3:22. So, even if they disobeyed God, was it possible that they didn't know it was evil to do so because they didn't know good and evil until AFTER they had eaten of the tree.
It was at that point that man had become like one of the Godhead. This is why he was banished so the process would not become complete if he was to eat from the tree of life and live forever.
It was after God created Adam, and Adam sinned that sons were born after Adam's image and not God's as at the first, as Gen 5:3 tells us.
Interesting indeed.

Partaker of Christ
Oct 16th 2008, 01:29 PM
Hi Rookie, enjoyed reading you and BroRog's exchange/post in this thread. :)

Wanted to comment on one thing though. Adam didn't reject God, he wanted to be like God, which isn't a sin. That he thought he could do it himself (as the prodigal son did in taking his inheritance and leaving his father), ie. the teenage know-it-all rebellious stage, was a sin.

It basically relates to the ten commandments. We are to only have one God, who is our Father, and we are to honor our parents, meaning do what they tell us to.

Adam wanted to be like his Father, just as any son would want to be like their father. Fathers are figures/role models for sons. And although a father will forgive a son and not give up on him, the son still made the wrong choice. ie. prodigal son parable where the father waited for the son to return to him.

That is how I see it. :)

Hi Teke!

I think the issue is independence.

God is our provider, and our only provider.
Man was created to be totally dependent on God as the Father.

Before God created man [Adam], He spent 5 days providing everything that man would need to live by.
He gave him life, He then gave man a helper, and gave him dominion over the earth and every thing in the earth. Man's first day was rest.

Eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, gave man the ability to become independent.
The reason that man would die, is because the life comes from God.
Whatever 'I' do will die, because in me (that is in myself) there is not life.

I can have a form of godliness, but that denies the power [life] of God.
It is not so much about what we say and do, but the source of what we say and do. Does it come from God, who is the source of Life.

Rom 11:36 For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory forever. Amen.

The whole of all creation shall be filled with His Glory.
His Glory is in His works, and it is found in no other.

Matt 6:13b For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen.

Teke
Oct 16th 2008, 02:03 PM
The way I see it, Adam's choice opened a gateway for the human condition wherein 2 paths are possible...

I don't believe Adam, or any human for that matter, can open that particular gateway. I believe God knew the possibility when He created them/us with free choice. Just as sure as we're created with a right and left side to each one of us and He created both male and female.
And we must not forget that "there is no fear in love" and "he that feareth is not made perfect in love" 1 John 4:18


...pure intimate communication with the Lord, wherein we are continually being sanctified and made like Him,

If by this you mean an act of communion with God, such as prayer, I understand. As to "intimate", how intimate can one be with the unknowable. Albeit He created us with the desire to search out the unknowable or unknown. This desire is what can lead us into dark places without fear. ie. ...though I walk through the shadow of death, I will fear no evil for thou art with me"
Job had much to say about this subject of darkness, death and fear.

Job 10:22 A land of darkness, as darkness [itself; and] of the shadow of death, without any order, and [where] the light [is] as darkness.

Job 12:22 He discovereth deep things out of darkness, and bringeth out to light the shadow of death.

Job 24:17 For the morning [is] to them even as the shadow of death: if [one] know [them, they are in] the terrors of the shadow of death.


or complete separation from Him.

I do not believe we could ever be completely separated from Him. He created us in love and nothing can separate true love, not even our bodily death.

I would conclude that Adam had perfect love for God, because he feared not even death when he made his mistake and disobeyed his Father. He knew by love, as did Abraham (when he offered Isaac), that God would not abandon him even in death.

Herein is our faith found, in that He who is faithful remains faithful. He showed us the way in which we love, in that He loved us first, as a Father does. :)

Teke
Oct 16th 2008, 02:17 PM
Hi Teke!

I think the issue is independence.

God is our provider, and our only provider.
Man was created to be totally dependent on God as the Father.

Before God created man [Adam], He spent 5 days providing everything that man would need to live by.
He gave him life, He then gave man a helper, and gave him dominion over the earth and every thing in the earth. Man's first day was rest.

Eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, gave man the ability to become independent.
The reason that man would die, is because the life comes from God.
Whatever 'I' do will die, because in me (that is in myself) there is not life.

I can have a form of godliness, but that denies the power [life] of God.
It is not so much about what we say and do, but the source of what we say and do. Does it come from God, who is the source of Life.

Rom 11:36 For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory forever. Amen.

The whole of all creation shall be filled with His Glory.
His Glory is in His works, and it is found in no other.

Matt 6:13b For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen.
Hey Partaker!

I agree. :) I rep'd you before I saw your rep was off.

It is a matter of independence, but there needs to be a balance held by the bounds He set for us. We do need to be independent enough to seek Him and commune with Him, but not so independent we become puffed up with pride and believe it is all of us, as you pointed out.

God gives us a means to life (Himself), but not an end of itself (that which is created is not that end). That may be the matter Adam didn't understand.

Pro 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the ways of death.

Glory to God for His mercy toward us in our ignorance. Even sharing/assuming our state of being to help/save us.

Hbr 5:2 Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity.

His mercy continues forever. :hug:

BroRog
Oct 16th 2008, 02:34 PM
Ditto. :)


I don't even see that he had any desire until he gave into 'peer pressure' (the snake and Eve), in a manner of speaking. The sales pitch, "it's good, you know you need it, nothing else matters more". As with the prodigal, it was the "cares of the world" (the created things) which caught his attention more than his father.

Things become confusing when one steps from the lighted way into the dark alley.

"thrusts the act of Adam's rebellion into something more destructive"

Adam wasn't faced with death before he sinned. Everyone after him was/is.
Glory to Christ for changing that for us. :saint:

Anyone want to comment on Eve's motivations and Adam's motivations relative to his relationship to Her?

I often wondered if Adam ate from the tree in order to cast his lot with his wife, seeing that she had sealed her fate.

Something like that. :)

Teke
Oct 16th 2008, 03:00 PM
Anyone want to comment on Eve's motivations and Adam's motivations relative to his relationship to Her?

I often wondered if Adam ate from the tree in order to cast his lot with his wife, seeing that she had sealed her fate.

Something like that. :)

Excellent observation BroRog. :saint:
I've made that point before. Adam is the type which Christ is associated with in the epistles. earthly man vs spiritual man
Two sides of the same coin so to speak.

Perhaps this is what Christ is showing us, that we can give ourselves not only to Him but also in doing so give something to His creation in so doing. Since we are to be "doers" as well as hearers. James 1:22

Éσяєяυииєя
Oct 16th 2008, 09:40 PM
Anyone want to comment on Eve's motivations and Adam's motivations relative to his relationship to Her?

I often wondered if Adam ate from the tree in order to cast his lot with his wife, seeing that she had sealed her fate.

Something like that. :)

Right,

Could be, so in that case we don`t know who would God have dealt with it, if just Eve would have eaten of the tree.

About motivations maybe she thinking or imaging as being higher than before.

"And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die"
The first sermon about the immortality of the soul

And in certain book once I read that Eve neither quoted God rightly:

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Gen 2:16>>


____________________ļ___________________

And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. Gen 3:2-3


Can you see? Adam and Eve had such a good memory that they could memorize every word of God as it came out of His mouth, thats why they didn`t need Bible in that time, then after sin the man marred by it, then we needed books and stuff to remember.


Another point -sorry if I got offtopic- but it burns, then the serpent "motivating" Eve said:


For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. Gen 3:5

So God is a tyrant after this version, isn`t He?

And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. Gen 3:6.

Then here we read in bold text saw, pleasant to the eyes, and so on, thus we see how the feeling ruled over the reason. And Adam who knows but as Teke said being a type of Christ, probably would have done as Christ did with the Church.

[...even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word. Ephesians]



Fareyewell

threebigrocks
Oct 17th 2008, 01:01 AM
Anyone want to comment on Eve's motivations and Adam's motivations relative to his relationship to Her?

I often wondered if Adam ate from the tree in order to cast his lot with his wife, seeing that she had sealed her fate.

Something like that. :)

He did it to please his wife, exchanged it for obedience to God.

1 Corinthian 7

32But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord;
33but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife,
34and his interests are divided. The woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
35This I say for your own benefit; not to put a restraint upon you, but to promote what is appropriate and to secure undistracted devotion to the Lord.

Teke
Oct 17th 2008, 02:21 PM
He did it to please his wife, exchanged it for obedience to God.

1 Corinthian 7

Good point and good scripture TBR.:)

Now I'm going to bring up a question for us all that came up between myself and BroMark in another thread I did a few months ago, but didn't continue on the subject without thought.
What Forerunner posted along with what you've just put forth, "exchanged it for obedience to God", brought it to mind. Because I don't really see that Adam exchanged anything. After all he was only a man, and he did what he thought he should do, which is what any man would do, right. He is head of the woman and he has to take care of her, he surely had learned that much from his Father. I'd say Adam was faced with a dilemma.

Is blind obedience sinful? Think about this in relation to sin, faith and God, three things that we cannot see with our physical eyes, meaning without God's help.

RogerW
Oct 17th 2008, 03:35 PM
You said earlier that you believe God designed the sin nature into Adam. Here you are saying that sin entered the world after Adam's formation.

I'm kind of confused about what you believe about this.

Also, I believe there are two ways to be tempted. We are tempted by sin from within because we have a sinful nature. Jesus was also tempted in all points, yet He did not have a sinful nature. He was tempted by sin from without. I believe Adam was tempted the same way as Jesus.

Greetings Farout,

I agree that God did not create Adam with a sin nature. If He had, then how could He pronounce them "very good"? That means as good as it gets! Sin nature means the exact opposite of "very good."

Adam was tempted in the same way as Jesus. Both without sin, being tempted, one falling the other remaining faithful. The source of temptation came from without not from within.


Paul says sin entered the world through Adam. I understand this to mean Adam brought sin into the world as a natural outcome of his sin nature. If Adam didn't have a sin nature, I see no reason why he would sin.

Greetings BroRog,

Prior to the fall Adam had no sin nature. Why did Adam sin? Did he have free will to choose?



I understand your distinction. The question is, how are we to explain Adam's failure? If Adam didn't have it in him, how do we explain his failure?

Christ is the Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world. Why before the foundation of the world? It seems clear to me that God knew the problem of sin must be dealt with before creation. Otherwise it makes no sense that Christ is the Lamb slain before any sin existed.

As has already been shown in this thread, the serpent is among the beasts of the field, whom God created. The serpent has the distinction of being more subtil, cunning, crafty then any other created being. Why did God make the serpent (Satan) in this way? And remember the serpent too is part of His "very good" creation.



To put it another way, if Adam's choice to disobey God did not truly indicate something about Adam as a person, how can God hold him accountable for it?

Was it possible for Adam and Eve, who have no knowledge of good or evil to resist the subtil, cunning, crafty serpent's deception? Why does God make a point of telling us the serpent was more subtil than any other creature? Did A&E have free will to choose this enviornment where God placed them?



Let me start again. If we believe Adam had free will, what are we saying? We are saying that Adam was able to act at will, and that his actions revealed his intent.

God created human without any understanding of good or evil. God also created the serpent very subtil, and able to deceive. God then brings together innocent humans and a subtil, crafty deceiving serpent. Is God surprised by the fall? Apparently not, since Christ is the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world. Can we really imagine that under these circumstances Adam and Eve had free will? Has not God providentially directed or guided what will inevidently come to pass? Since God is orchastrating all events for a specific purpose was the choosing to disobey God's command of man's free will?



For instance, if I hit my thumb with a hammer, it doesn't mean that I necessarily wanted to hurt myself, or that I like pain. On the contrary, it probably means that it was an accident since I did not intend to hurt myself and I do not value pain. If, on the other hand, someone else hit my thumb with a hammer, I am right to investigate whether that person willfully and with malice hit me with the hammer.

I think this is a pretty good analogy of the fall. Since Adam and Eve had no knowledge of either good or evil, how could they willfully choose to disobey God? Doesn't willful disobedience imply knowledge of what they were doing? I think the farthest the argument can be taken is to say they disobeyed through an outside source. How do we know they were not simply deceived into believing to be like God was neither good nor evil in their minds? Perhaps considering what being deceived means would be helpful?



The question then becomes, did Adam act willfully and with intent to disobey? If so, the act itself reveals something broken about him. A morally perfect man would not willfully and with intent disobey God's direct order.

Why would he? That's my point.

Why indeed? Had you considered that Adam and Eve were not free in the sense you imply?

Many Blessings,
RW

threebigrocks
Oct 17th 2008, 04:48 PM
Good point and good scripture TBR.:)

Now I'm going to bring up a question for us all that came up between myself and BroMark in another thread I did a few months ago, but didn't continue on the subject without thought.
What Forerunner posted along with what you've just put forth, "exchanged it for obedience to God", brought it to mind. Because I don't really see that Adam exchanged anything. After all he was only a man, and he did what he thought he should do, which is what any man would do, right. He is head of the woman and he has to take care of her, he surely had learned that much from his Father. I'd say Adam was faced with a dilemma.

Is blind obedience sinful? Think about this in relation to sin, faith and God, three things that we cannot see with our physical eyes, meaning without God's help.

Faith is the substance of things not seen. We walk by that faith. If God said don't eat it - neither Adam nor Eve should have done so. Adam did exchange his obedience - he set it aside for what would please his wife. He let the flesh rule. Even represents the flesh. Adam obeyed Eve instead of God, exchanging his priorities from the spirit to flesh.

Adam was just a man, but goodness! What we think we should do and what is pleasing to God many times are not even close to the same thing. I can say with every action I do that it is what I think is right. But does please God? Is it right before God?

Adam wasn't taking care of Eve's need when he took that fruit from her. It was simply "Hey Adam, look at this I took from that tree. It's pretty good - have a bite". And he did. Adam buckled to the desire of his wife instead of standing in obedience to God. Besides, in the garden everything was right there being provided for them. They didn't yet need to toil in order to live.

With your reasoning, it's saying that a husband ought to do whatever it takes to please his wife, to care for her, regardless of if it's the right thing before God or not. That's ridiculous. A man of God has to be able to stand strong in the Lord and love his wife enough to lead her in the right way.

Isn't that what Christ, our husband, does with his bride, the church? Marriage of two people, becoming one, is a picture if you will of Christ and His church. Would a marriage where the husband goes against a command of God to please his wife really reflect the truth of the relationship of Christ and the church?

Adam brought sin into the world. Sin in sinful flesh cannot beget that which isn't sinful. Sin begets sin. We as flesh are born into that nature.

Teke
Oct 17th 2008, 06:53 PM
Sin in sinful flesh cannot beget that which isn't sinful. Sin begets sin. We as flesh are born into that nature.

Does this mean you believe God created Adam with sinful flesh/sin in his flesh? Therefore Eve was sinful, causing Adam to sin. Eve was "beget" of Adam.

I don't know about you, but I would willingly give my life for my family, and leave God's will (judgment) up to Him in whether that was sinful or not. I'd do no less for Christ and being part of His body the Church.

Guess you can see I don't believe that sin is part of our nature (the way God created us).

I believe there is honor and dignity in facing the consequences of our actions, even when they are wrong. I don't believe God's dignity deserves any less from us. IMHO redemption is all about responsibility. Jesus said God is all about showing mercy.

Mat 12:5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?

Mat 12:7 But if ye had known what [this] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.

Mat 12:11 And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift [it] out?

We do not bear the guilt of Adam. We share in his death, same as we do with Christ.

Jesus demonstrates that the law is not absolute over human need or service to God.

1Cr 10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God [is] faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear [it].

threebigrocks
Oct 17th 2008, 07:48 PM
Does this mean you believe God created Adam with sinful flesh/sin in his flesh? Therefore Eve was sinful, causing Adam to sin. Eve was "beget" of Adam.

Very true. But sin had not yet entered the world until they shared in the fruit. They were sinless. Adam was beget of God, and Eve from Adam. I'm pretty sure that Adam didn't give birth to Eve. :rolleyes:


Guess you can see I don't believe that sin is part of our nature (the way God created us).

Then why do we need a Savoir? There is no one rightghteous, not a one.


I believe there is honor and dignity in facing the consequences of our actions, even when they are wrong. I don't believe God's dignity deserves any less from us. IMHO redemption is all about responsibility. Jesus said God is all about showing mercy.

That is a work of ourselves. We do not save, Christ does. If we shoulder the responsibility to remain righteous in the eyes of God that teke is the Law. The Law exposes the need for a Savoir. It doesn't save.


Mat 12:5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?

Mat 12:7 But if ye had known what [this] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.

Mat 12:11 And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift [it] out?

This was Christ teaching on the fact that the Law is good if used rightly.


We do not bear the guilt of Adam. We share in his death, same as we do with Christ.

We have no sin nature aside from our own thoughts, actions and deeds then? So, if we stop doing those things we are right before God? That again is salvation by our own selves, saved by our own works and not by grace through Christ.


Jesus demonstrates that the law is not absolute over human need or service to God.

1Cr 10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God [is] faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear [it].

Doctrine based on select verses without context is no doctrine at all. This is warning believers to learn from the history of errors of Israel. Don't fall into the same error that others have, stay the narrow path. Don't be led astray or into legalism to make yourself righteous. Don't worry about the meat in the market Paul goes on to say. It's a matter of the heart.

This thread is on Adam and the sin nature. If you wish to discuss that we have no sin nature which we are inheritantly born into, that's for another thread.

Teke
Oct 17th 2008, 08:35 PM
Very true. But sin had not yet entered the world until they shared in the fruit. They were sinless. Adam was beget of God, and Eve from Adam. I'm pretty sure that Adam didn't give birth to Eve. :rolleyes:

OK, let's not use confusing language. God created Adam, and then took one of Adam's ribs and created Eve. To be clear they were the same "flesh".


Then why do we need a Savoir? There is no one rightghteous, not a one.

There is none righteous apart from God. God is the only righteous ONE.


That is a work of ourselves. We do not save, Christ does. If we shoulder the responsibility to remain righteous in the eyes of God that teke is the Law. The Law exposes the need for a Savoir. It doesn't save.

It is a work of ours to show dignity for that which God created (ie. love one another). I didn't say we created such a dignity as creation. Don't twist my words.


This was Christ teaching on the fact that the Law is good if used rightly.

He still plainly said it profaned the law. So it begs the question, did Adam see it needful for Eve.


We have no sin nature aside from our own thoughts, actions and deeds then? So, if we stop doing those things we are right before God? That again is salvation by our own selves, saved by our own works and not by grace through Christ.

Are you trying to trick me with the law. The law is good and if done in faith God will find the person who does so righteous.
I am not ignorant of the law.


Doctrine based on select verses without context is no doctrine at all. This is warning believers to learn from the history of errors of Israel. Don't fall into the same error that others have, stay the narrow path. Don't be led astray or into legalism to make yourself righteous. Don't worry about the meat in the market Paul goes on to say. It's a matter of the heart.

Well, that's my point. How would you judge Adam's heart on the matter.
BTW I don't base doctrine or dogma on "select verses" or scripture alone. I am a Trinitarian Christian who is both, conciliar and autocephalus.


This thread is on Adam and the sin nature. If you wish to discuss that we have no sin nature which we are inheritantly born into, that's for another thread.

I don't see how you trying to split the subject changes anything.
What is your definition of "nature". Mine is, that which is created is nature. From which the natural passions associated with that nature arise.

Now we've come full circle again. Do you think Adam considered that he could suffer the consequences of his passion for Eve. I believe he did, because scripture says he knew what he was doing, and, scripture doesn't say that Adam sinned but that Eve did (1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression transgression means "sin"). But as Paul says, he was the earthly man, not the (spiritual man) God/man Jesus Christ. Therefore he had a limitation which Christ did not have.

"God [is] faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear [it]."
We will all still die, so apparently we can bear it, as we do so daily.

threebigrocks
Oct 17th 2008, 09:00 PM
OK, let's not use confusing language. God created Adam, and then took one of Adam's ribs and created Eve. To be clear they were the same "flesh".

Nothing confusing. I simply started out by stating that the fleshy man, who before going against the command of God, was perfect. Adam exchanged, or chose, to serve and please his wife and not God. I have no issue with that.



There is none righteous apart from God. God is the only righteous ONE.

On that, we agree.


He still plainly said it profaned the law. So it begs the question, did Adam see it needful for Eve.

Did Adam see "what" needful for Eve? The Law? Yes, it applied to them both. They had 1 law - do not covet. Flesh won out.



Now we've come full circle again. Do you think Adam considered that he could suffer the consequences of his passion for Eve. I believe he did, because scripture says he knew what he was doing, and, scripture doesn't say that Adam sinned but that Eve did (1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression transgression means "sin"). But as Paul says, he was the earthly man, not the (spiritual man) God/man Jesus Christ. Therefore he had a limitation which Christ did not have.

I believe also that Adam had a choice and he laid them out in his mind and chose to eat of the fruit instead of obey God. Eve did sin, but so did Adam. He also went against God. Eating of the fruit was forbidden of them both.


"God [is] faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear [it]."
We will all still die, so apparently we can bear it, as we do so daily.

And that way of escape is through Christ if we believe. Until our flesh is dead, there's a good chance we will sin. Without Christ we remain dead eternally. Through one sin entered, and through One we are saved.

Teke
Oct 17th 2008, 11:47 PM
Did Adam see "what" needful for Eve? The Law? Yes, it applied to them both. They had 1 law - do not covet. Flesh won out.

I believe also that Adam had a choice and he laid them out in his mind and chose to eat of the fruit instead of obey God. Eve did sin, but so did Adam. He also went against God. Eating of the fruit was forbidden of them both.


Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.



Mat 15:11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

holyrokker
Oct 18th 2008, 12:52 AM
In the third chapter of John, Jesus said that "flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit."

Romans 5:12 tells us that sin entered the world through Adam. Notice that it doesn't say that sin entered humanity.

It also goes on to tell us that the result of sin was death, and that death spread to all of humanity and the result was that all have now sinned.

Sin is not some "substance" or some "force" that inhabits mankind. Sin is an intention of the heart.

Sin is not a physical or genetic problem. It is moral.

As Jesus told Nicodemus that when we are born we are physical only: not spiritual. We are born without a connection to God.

It is only natural that we would do what pleases the physical. There is nothing inherently sinful about our physical desires. They are how God created man.

James 1:13-15 says "For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death."

My heart's Desire
Oct 18th 2008, 01:35 AM
If he didn't know the difference between good and evil until after they ate then how were they able to make a choice between good and evil. What they basicly did was to ignore what God said and they ate anyway. But as far as know it was evil how could they when they hadn't ate yet of the tree so they would know good and evil. Is it the same as when a child hits another before they know it is bad to do so?

drew
Oct 18th 2008, 01:37 AM
Sin is not some "substance" or some "force" that inhabits mankind. Sin is an intention of the heart.

Sin is not a physical or genetic problem. It is moral.
I empathize with this view, but I believe that Paul thinks otherwise. It is difficult for we 21st century products of enlightenment thinking to conceive of sin as a power or force. But my reading of Paul inclines me to think that Paul indeed did consider sin to be a real force or power in the world.

In this respect, consider some of the things that Paul writes in Romans 7:

8But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. 9Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died.

If one comes to this text without an a priori bias to believe that Paul is speaking metaphorically, the most reasonable conclusion to draw is take Paul literally and conclude that sin is indeed a power or force that can do the things described here.

This one is even more telling:

For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to doóthis I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

It is not really possible to reconcile this description of sin with the view that sin is an "intention of the heart. Note that in the above, Paul is drawing a clear distinction between himself and sin. This really only makes sense if sin is conceived to be a real force, fundamentally distinct from Paul.

And finally, we have this famous text from Romans 8:

For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man,...

God condemns sin on the cross, not Jesus. How can this be if sin is merely an intention of the heart or a moral category? No. Sin is a real power in the world that is defeated on the cross.

My heart's Desire
Oct 18th 2008, 01:53 AM
Here is another thing. If Death didn't enter the world until after Adam sinned then when God told them they would die if they ate, then how did they know what it was like to die, if there was no death yet? How could they fear something when they really didn't know what it meant, death. They didn't even know fear nor shame UNTIL they had eaten of the tree. I'm certainly not making excuses for Adam and Eve but I think these are valid questions.

I think it will have something to do with trusting God and what He says enough to just not EAT of the TREE~ Faith alone.

holyrokker
Oct 18th 2008, 02:01 AM
Here is another thing. If Death didn't enter the world until after Adam sinned then when God told them they would die if they ate, then how did they know what it was like to die, if there was no death yet? How could they fear something when they really didn't know what it meant, death. They didn't even know fear nor shame UNTIL they had eaten of the tree. I'm certainly not making excuses for Adam and Eve but I think these are valid questions.

I think it will have something to do with trusting God and what He says enough to just not EAT of the TREE~ Faith alone.
Who says that animals didn't die?

Also - why was there a Tree of Life in the garden?

My heart's Desire
Oct 18th 2008, 02:39 AM
Who says that animals didn't die?

Also - why was there a Tree of Life in the garden?

Yes, but who says "Animals did die"?
Also, we know their was a Tree of Life but we don't know they were allowed to eat from it although I suppose it is possible since God did give them the seed bearing plants to eat from.
And if they and animals could eat from the tree then they probably still didn't know death.
But that would bring up more questions. If they were allowed to eat of the tree of Life before Adam sinned then they already had life forever. And if they were eating of it before then why would God ban them from the Garden so they could not eat of it and live forever?
That just proves that not only would they die physically, they also died spiritually. Gets more interesting. Were Adam and Eve saved. Christ was slain from the foundation of the world and we do know that sacrifice (shed blood of animals) was provided to cover until Christ came. That's why Abel's offering was pleasing to God.

cdo
Oct 18th 2008, 03:27 AM
Also, we know their was a Tree of Life but we don't know they were allowed to eat from it although I suppose it is possible since God did give them the seed bearing plants to eat from.Yes Both trees were in the garden but, they were told not to eat of the tree of knowledge.

If they were allowed to eat of the tree of Life before Adam sinned then they already had life forever. And if they were eating of it before then why would God ban them from the Garden so they could not eat of it and live forever?God could not let Adam eat of the tree of life after he had ate from the tree of knowledge.because Adam would know evil and have eternal life.He couldn't let that happen.

That just proves that not only would they die physically, they also died spiritually. Gets more interesting. Were Adam and Eve saved. Christ was slain from the foundation of the world and we do know that sacrifice (shed blood of animals) was provided to cover until Christ came. That's why Abel's offering was pleasing to God.Adam & Eve both were cursed by God for their sinning.And of course they were not saved like we are through the blood of Christ during that time.God also said he would return back to dust from where he came from.So many questions not enough answers........

holyrokker
Oct 18th 2008, 03:38 AM
Yes, but who says "Animals did die"?
Also, we know their was a Tree of Life but we don't know they were allowed to eat from it although I suppose it is possible since God did give them the seed bearing plants to eat from.
And if they and animals could eat from the tree then they probably still didn't know death.
But that would bring up more questions. If they were allowed to eat of the tree of Life before Adam sinned then they already had life forever. And if they were eating of it before then why would God ban them from the Garden so they could not eat of it and live forever?
That just proves that not only would they die physically, they also died spiritually. Gets more interesting. Were Adam and Eve saved. Christ was slain from the foundation of the world and we do know that sacrifice (shed blood of animals) was provided to cover until Christ came. That's why Abel's offering was pleasing to God.
My head is starting to hurt :confused

My heart's Desire
Oct 18th 2008, 03:39 AM
Adam & Eve both were cursed by God for their sinning.And of course they were not saved like we are through the blood of Christ during that time.God also said he would return back to dust from where he came from.So many questions not enough answers........
My question is still...Why ban them from the garden SO THEY COULD NOT eat of it after they sinned if they were already eating from it to begin with? And if they were eating of it to begin with then they already had life forever. If they did already have life forever from eating of the Tree of Life before that then God wouldn't have to keep them from eating it after sin would He? :giveup: BECAUSE I'm straining my own brain on this one. :) Time for bed.

My heart's Desire
Oct 18th 2008, 03:40 AM
I think there are just some things that God is keeping silent on. :)

threebigrocks
Oct 18th 2008, 03:50 AM
Yes, but who says "Animals did die"?
Also, we know their was a Tree of Life but we don't know they were allowed to eat from it although I suppose it is possible since God did give them the seed bearing plants to eat from.
And if they and animals could eat from the tree then they probably still didn't know death.
But that would bring up more questions. If they were allowed to eat of the tree of Life before Adam sinned then they already had life forever. And if they were eating of it before then why would God ban them from the Garden so they could not eat of it and live forever?
That just proves that not only would they die physically, they also died spiritually. Gets more interesting. Were Adam and Eve saved. Christ was slain from the foundation of the world and we do know that sacrifice (shed blood of animals) was provided to cover until Christ came. That's why Abel's offering was pleasing to God.

Genesis 3

21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.
Well, since Adam and Eve were the only two there, we know the skins weren't human. ;)

Adam and Eve saved? If one who is not saved, can they have conviction of sin if they didn't understand good?

Genesis 3

10 He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid." 11 And he said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?"
Their covering was fig leaves they made themselves to cover up their nakedness. That nakedness wasn't simply physical of their bodies, but spiritual in that something was removed from them - the covering of God. Their sin removed their covering (righteousness which can only come by believing) of purity and holiness. They became dirty and needed to be made clean. The disobedience removed them from their covering of God and His righteousness.

God took an animal, killed it, and clothed them with sacrifice. Blood was shed. Right here - we have it all set in place as a shadow of things to come in Christ as man to cover us again should we believe as Adam and Even did, as a child, under His righteousness in faith.

cdo
Oct 18th 2008, 03:51 AM
Strained Brain....me too....

threebigrocks
Oct 18th 2008, 04:28 AM
My question is still...Why ban them from the garden SO THEY COULD NOT eat of it after they sinned if they were already eating from it to begin with? And if they were eating of it to begin with then they already had life forever. If they did already have life forever from eating of the Tree of Life before that then God wouldn't have to keep them from eating it after sin would He? :giveup: BECAUSE I'm straining my own brain on this one. :) Time for bed.

Sometimes - we need to stop thinking in order to think. ;)

Éσяєяυииєя
Oct 18th 2008, 04:57 AM
This one is even more telling:

For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to doóthis I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

It is not really possible to reconcile this description of sin with the view that sin is an "intention of the heart. Note that in the above, Paul is drawing a clear distinction between himself and sin. This really only makes sense if sin is conceived to be a real force, fundamentally distinct from Paul...

We can see sin as a nature, human nature is sinful, in which we are born.

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. John 8:44.

So that`s why Jesus said to Nicodemus:

Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God...
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. John 3>>




Be good

Have a nice week-end

cdo
Oct 18th 2008, 05:22 PM
[quote=My heart's Desire;1830199][quote]My question is still...Why ban them from the garden SO THEY COULD NOT eat of it after they sinned if they were already eating from it to begin with?[/quote
Last night,I was reading in the book of Genesis and it never said that Adam or Eve actually ate of the tree of life.From the way I was lead to interpret it was ((satan)) had to use the tree of good & evil only because satan didn't want eternal life for them. He only wanted death.

RogerW
Oct 18th 2008, 06:36 PM
My question is still...Why ban them from the garden SO THEY COULD NOT eat of it after they sinned if they were already eating from it to begin with? And if they were eating of it to begin with then they already had life forever. If they did already have life forever from eating of the Tree of Life before that then God wouldn't have to keep them from eating it after sin would He? :giveup: BECAUSE I'm straining my own brain on this one. :) Time for bed.

Greetings Heart's Desire,

I believe Adam and Eve had been eating from the tree of life prior to the fall. The only tree forbidden them was the tree of knowledge of good and evil. So why wouldn't they have eaten from it? They could have continued to live forever in a state of perfection and innocense. However after they ate from the fofbidden tree they became slaves of Satan and sin. God could not allow them to live forever in a state of continual evil, hence He barred the way to the tree of life, so instead of eating from it for everlasting life of immorality and corruption, He shows them another way to obtain righteousness with God. The new way would take away their sin and guilt, but the new way could only be accessed through the true tree of life, that is Christ.

Many Blessings,
RW

Teke
Oct 18th 2008, 07:38 PM
In the third chapter of John, Jesus said that "flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit."

Romans 5:12 tells us that sin entered the world through Adam. Notice that it doesn't say that sin entered humanity.

It also goes on to tell us that the result of sin was death, and that death spread to all of humanity and the result was that all have now sinned.

Sin is not some "substance" or some "force" that inhabits mankind. Sin is an intention of the heart.

Sin is not a physical or genetic problem. It is moral.

As Jesus told Nicodemus that when we are born we are physical only: not spiritual. We are born without a connection to God.

It is only natural that we would do what pleases the physical. There is nothing inherently sinful about our physical desires. They are how God created man.

James 1:13-15 says "For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death."


I empathize with this view, but I believe that Paul thinks otherwise. It is difficult for we 21st century products of enlightenment thinking to conceive of sin as a power or force. But my reading of Paul inclines me to think that Paul indeed did consider sin to be a real force or power in the world.

In this respect, consider some of the things that Paul writes in Romans 7:

8But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. 9Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died.

If one comes to this text without an a priori bias to believe that Paul is speaking metaphorically, the most reasonable conclusion to draw is take Paul literally and conclude that sin is indeed a power or force that can do the things described here.

This one is even more telling:

For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to doóthis I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

It is not really possible to reconcile this description of sin with the view that sin is an "intention of the heart. Note that in the above, Paul is drawing a clear distinction between himself and sin. This really only makes sense if sin is conceived to be a real force, fundamentally distinct from Paul.

And finally, we have this famous text from Romans 8:

For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man,...

God condemns sin on the cross, not Jesus. How can this be if sin is merely an intention of the heart or a moral category? No. Sin is a real power in the world that is defeated on the cross.

Drew, I believe you and holyrokker are in essence, in agreement. And I agree with you both. Sin is a spiritual force. Seems to me, drew, from your reply that you may have missed this part of holyrokker's post. ""force" that inhabits mankind." I don't believe sin "inhabits" us, but is a spiritual force which the serpent was quite crafty with.
I disagree that "We are born without a connection to God." Whether we realize it or not we are born to seek Him out.

Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places].

Equipped_4_Love
Oct 19th 2008, 01:38 AM
Hi, Teke;

Thanks for responding to me!!! :)


I don't believe Adam, or any human for that matter, can open that particular gateway. I believe God knew the possibility when He created them/us with free choice. Just as sure as we're created with a right and left side to each one of us and He created both male and female.


Yes, absolutely, God knew the possibility beforehand, when He created humans with free choice....but it was Adam's choice to rebel that brought this possibility into a full-fledged reality.


If by this you mean an act of communion with God, such as prayer, I understand. As to "intimate", how intimate can one be with the unknowable.

One cannot....unless the unknowable makes itself known, which is precisely what God did when he revealed Himself to us through Jesus Christ. It is the work of the Holy Spirit which makes God known to us:

1 Cor 2:14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, nor can he know them, for they are spiritually discerned

Adam may have been created perfect, but he was still a natural man. When he and Eve ate of the tree, their eyes were opened, meaning that they were able to know both good and evil, rather than just good. The down side to this was that they had to enter into a fallen state to do so.

This fallen condition is what necessitated the death of Christ and the ushering in of the Holy Spirit, through whom we are able to know God intimately. There is a deeper knowledge of God, and I believe a deeper communication with Him, than could have been possible had Adam not sinned.

The fall of Adam and Eve was the starting point for what was to be the work of the Holy Spirit in humanity.


I do not believe we could ever be completely separated from Him. He created us in love and nothing can separate true love, not even our bodily death.

If we die without Christ, we will be eternally and completely separated from Him.

Equipped_4_Love
Oct 19th 2008, 01:44 AM
Anyone want to comment on Eve's motivations and Adam's motivations relative to his relationship to Her?

I often wondered if Adam ate from the tree in order to cast his lot with his wife, seeing that she had sealed her fate.

Something like that. :)

Are you sure that her fate was sealed at this point?

Could it be possible, if Adam hadn't eaten, but instead come to God with Eve, that God might have forgiven her?

Equipped_4_Love
Oct 19th 2008, 02:04 AM
Prior to the fall Adam had no sin nature. Why did Adam sin? Did he have free will to choose?

I believe he did.




Was it possible for Adam and Eve, who have no knowledge of good or evil to resist the subtil, cunning, crafty serpent's deception? Why does God make a point of telling us the serpent was more subtil than any other creature? Did A&E have free will to choose this enviornment where God placed them?

You bring up an interesting point. The fact that they had no knowledge of good and evil, yet God initiated this one commandment. I think if we look at the situation, we can deem some very practical truths.....that being that God expects obedience, even where understanding is lacking.

While Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil, they were still expected to obey God's commandment. God expects perfect obedience from us, despite our imperfect understanding.

Perfect obedience was a legitimate command, and they were perfectly capable of obeying, simply because they had no knowledge of good or evil.....they had no internal drive to sin. Our knowledge of evil is precisely why our nature is sinful, and why perfect obedience is impossible for us unless we have the Holy Spirit.

Perfect obedience was possible for Adam, but impossible for us. That is why Christ, who lived a perfect life of perfect obedience, had to come. The difference between He and Adam was that, unlike Adam, Christ was both perfect, with the full knowledge of good and evil.


I think this is a pretty good analogy of the fall. Since Adam and Eve had no knowledge of either good or evil, how could they willfully choose to disobey God? Doesn't willful disobedience imply knowledge of what they were doing?

Not necessarily.
Suppose a parent tells a child not to touch a hot stove. The only knowledge that child has is the instruction of the parent not to touch it, and the freewill to obey or disobey. That child has no knowledge of the evil of having his/her hand burned, but knows that the parent told him/her not to touch the stove. Once the child touches the stove, he/she knows first-hand why the parent instructed him/her not to touch the hot stove.
In the same sense, Adam and Eve knew what would happen if they were to disobey God, but they did not have knowledge of the full ramification of their actions, until after they ate of the tree, and it was too late. At that point, they knew evil, and likewise, it became a part of their very nature, thus distorting God's otherwise beautiful and lovely creation.

My heart's Desire
Oct 19th 2008, 03:30 AM
Genesis 3
Well, since Adam and Eve were the only two there, we know the skins weren't human. ;)

Adam and Eve saved? If one who is not saved, can they have conviction of sin if they didn't understand good?

Genesis 3
Their covering was fig leaves they made themselves to cover up their nakedness. That nakedness wasn't simply physical of their bodies, but spiritual in that something was removed from them - the covering of God. Their sin removed their covering (righteousness which can only come by believing) of purity and holiness. They became dirty and needed to be made clean. The disobedience removed them from their covering of God and His righteousness.

God took an animal, killed it, and clothed them with sacrifice. Blood was shed. Right here - we have it all set in place as a shadow of things to come in Christ as man to cover us again should we believe as Adam and Even did, as a child, under His righteousness in faith.
The animals were killed After Adam sinned though, not before.
And it still doesn't explain "did Adam have a sin nature before or that convinced him to eat of the fruit.

My heart's Desire
Oct 19th 2008, 03:41 AM
I propose that Adam and Eve were created and God saw them as good. I believe they were innocent as children not having much experience and when God told them not to eat of the tree and gave the consequences, they didn't know what death was nor knew to fear it to keep them from eating. It also seems that if they up till the time they ate didn't know good from evil then they didn't know it was evil to do what God told them not to do. How could they if they didn't have a conscience of what was good or evil UNTIL they ate of the tree? And we know that it did something to their minds AFTER eating because they were ashamed, being naked whereas they were not ashamed before eating.

Even though I think they were innocent as children not knowing evil and good, I still think that they disbelieved what God said about dying (even if they didn't know what dying was). I think that was the BIG lesson here, not that they had evil in their hearts BEFORE disobeying God.

Anyway, wasn't the point of the thread asking if Adam had a sin nature that made him disobey before they had knowledge of good and evil which came from eating of the tree?

What if they had never eaten of the tree. Would they have eternally never known what good and evil was?
I got to quit here though because going further seems to go outside the bounds of what God has actually let us know.

Teke
Oct 19th 2008, 03:00 PM
Hi, Teke;

Thanks for responding to me!!! :)


Yes, absolutely, God knew the possibility beforehand, when He created humans with free choice....but it was Adam's choice to rebel that brought this possibility into a full-fledged reality.



Hey Welder. :)

As I pointed out in post 72 with the Ephesians verse, rebellion didn't come from within Adam. It was a spiritual force that came from "high places".
I believe Adam and Eve were in the same condition we are, in that they would still have to deal with spiritual wickedness, which is something we can't see with our eyes. I do agree that we are to be obedient, but we are to have compassion for others as well.

Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places].

Since God is aware of spiritual wickedness (knowing the angels), He knew what could happen, but He also knew that He would be able to provide an escape from such.

Equipped_4_Love
Oct 19th 2008, 06:50 PM
Hey Welder. :)

As I pointed out in post 72 with the Ephesians verse, rebellion didn't come from within Adam. It was a spiritual force that came from "high places".


I believe Adam and Eve were in the same condition we are, in that they would still have to deal with spiritual wickedness, which is something we can't see with our eyes.

Or you talking about how they were in their pre-fallen, or post-fallen condition?
While I do agree that Adam and Eve would still have to deal with spiritual wickedness, I do not believe that, in their pre-fallen condition, they were the same as we are, for sin was not inherent in them, as it is in us.


Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places].

James 4:1 Where do wars and fights come from among you? Do they not come from your desires for pleasure that war within your members?

1 Peter 2:11 Beloved, I beg you as sojourners and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul

Gen. 6:5 Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually

According to James, we have an internal war going on. According to Peter, it is a war between the flesh and the spirit.
Adam and Eve did not have this war waging inside of them, as we do. Instead, their temptation came externally, from the enemy himself. We have this temptation, also, but we also have the propensity towards sin, which they did not have.


Since God is aware of spiritual wickedness (knowing the angels), He knew what could happen, but He also knew that He would be able to provide an escape from such.

Yes....we are in agreement.

holyrokker
Oct 19th 2008, 10:10 PM
While I do agree that Adam and Eve would still have to deal with spiritual wickedness, I do not believe that, in their pre-fallen condition, they were the same as we are, for sin was not inherent in them, as it is in us.

I don't see that Scripture teaches that sin is inherent to mankind. I think the difference between Adam and us is that Adam was both physical and spiritual. He died spiritual through sin.

Ever since then, all mankind is born physically, but spiritual birth comes through Christ.

As Jesus told Nicodemus: "Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit."

Equipped_4_Love
Oct 19th 2008, 11:25 PM
I don't see that Scripture teaches that sin is inherent to mankind.

Really? You're right that the word inherent doesn't occur specifically in Scripture, but the concept is still there:

Rom. 7:18,19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.

Rom. 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

Even though we may be saved, and walk in the Spirit, the truth is, the law of sin still exists in us. John himself said that if we deny this, we are deceiving ourselves. The capacity to sin will always be there, which is why we must crucify the old man on a daily basis.


I think the difference between Adam and us is that Adam was both physical and spiritual. He died spiritual through sin.

Yes....and it is this spiritual death (separation from God) that goes hand-in-hand with our sinful nature.

holyrokker
Oct 19th 2008, 11:50 PM
Really? You're right that the word inherent doesn't occur specifically in Scripture, but the concept is still there:

Rom. 7:18,19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.

Rom. 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

Even though we may be saved, and walk in the Spirit, the truth is, the law of sin still exists in us. John himself said that if we deny this, we are deceiving ourselves. The capacity to sin will always be there, which is why we must crucify the old man on a daily basis.



Yes....and it is this spiritual death (separation from God) that goes hand-in-hand with our sinful nature.
None of those verses imply that sin is inherent to mankind.

Equipped_4_Love
Oct 20th 2008, 12:00 AM
None of those verses imply that sin is inherent to mankind.

Really?!

Perhaps our disagreement lies in our definition of inherent.....I'm thinking that we're on 2 different wavelengths.

Here's the definition that I was thinking of:

inherent: existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute:

Éσяєяυииєя
Oct 20th 2008, 01:10 AM
Not sure if I get the point about your chat.

But according to the way I was taught or heard the gospel by the grace of God, the man of Romans 7 is yet a slave of sin, whlle the man of the book of Romans is now a re-born man, by the power of God.

Be good fellows

holyrokker
Oct 20th 2008, 01:18 AM
Really?!

Perhaps our disagreement lies in our definition of inherent.....I'm thinking that we're on 2 different wavelengths.

Here's the definition that I was thinking of:

inherent: existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute:

I don't believe that people are born with sin.

My heart's Desire
Oct 20th 2008, 02:01 AM
I don't believe that people are born with sin.Could it be that as babes we are born innocent with the sin nature making itself shown, when babes began to know the different between right and wrong, good and evil? Just like Adam who didn't know good and evil UNTIL they ate of the tree? After disobeying and eating of the tree they became accountable.
If people are born without a nature to sin, then they would not need a Savior.

holyrokker
Oct 20th 2008, 02:43 AM
If people are born without a nature to sin, then they would not need a Savior.
Everyone who sins needs a Savior. And since everyone sins, everyone needs a Savior.

cdo
Oct 20th 2008, 04:23 AM
With all due respect to the posters, which have very good explanations and opinions to this thread as it is.The fact being by one man (Adam) sin entered the world as the word says.The second (Adam) who is Jesus Christ paid in full for our sins through His blood that was shed at Calvary for once and all.God's plan for Adam was to live in paradise in God's Garden with his mate Eve.But with satan appearing as a 'snake' to Eve was nothing unusual to her,since they were over all the creatures of the world.Even if the 'snake' was not the physical body of satan to deceive her.But,by her she did it unknowingly(deceived) which is satan's goal for everyone who does not know his schemes and are caught unaware.So if she had never offered it to Adam because Adam is the one who God made a covenant with; not Eve.Then Adam took of 'the fruit' and sin entered by one man as in God's word. But as you can see God had a plan even for that.Which is His Son Jesus Christ.
With this in mind,no matter how many reasons and opinions we might have concerning this topic, we will not know until God chooses to make us aware of these questions we have until the Holy Spirit enlightens us.
This is just my opinion;)

My heart's Desire
Oct 20th 2008, 04:38 AM
Everyone who sins needs a Savior. And since everyone sins, everyone needs a Savior.Ok so if they are not born in sin, when do they sin (miss God's mark)? You said we are not born that way, so if we were not, then we become sinners the first time we sin? God said that ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God. He didn't seem to give a time frame or event, He just says that ALL have sinned.
I somehow believe that we are all born with the Adamic Nature that leans to sin otherwise all would have to be born without that ability to sin but would have to learn it. But All have sinned.

But to understand what you're saying, you think people are not sinners, but we become so when we do sin and all will sin so therefore need a Savior? Am I understanding rightfully?

cdo
Oct 20th 2008, 04:54 AM
When the fall of Adam happened, sin entered the world as by one man (Adam) and when Eve conceived in child birth 'sin' was passed through from seed to seed through the generations even until now.So we are all conceived in sin at birth from that time forward and are born with sin.This was the purpose of Jesus coming to this earth to condemn sin and death and reunite us with the All Mighty God.

holyrokker
Oct 20th 2008, 04:55 AM
Ok so if they are not born in sin, when do they sin (miss God's mark)? You said we are not born that way, so if we were not, then we become sinners the first time we sin? God said that ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God. He didn't seem to give a time frame or event, He just says that ALL have sinned.
I somehow believe that we are all born with the Adamic Nature that leans to sin otherwise all would have to be born without that ability to sin but would have to learn it. But All have sinned.

All are born physically alive but spiritually dead. We do not have the Holy Spirit at birth. (John 3:6 "Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.")

Since we do not have the Holy Spirit to guide and direct us into what the Spirit desires, we naturally do what the body desires.

Now in saying this, I do not mean to say that the natural desires of the body are, in and of themselves, sinful. God made us in such a way that we get hungry and tired, etc.

James 1:13-15 says "For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death."

I reject the idea of sin being "inborn" because that would make it genetic (physical) and thereby making the death of Christ futile.

Éσяєяυииєя
Oct 20th 2008, 05:40 AM
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: Romans 8:3


Cya

holyrokker
Oct 20th 2008, 05:56 AM
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: Romans 8:3


Cya

Part of one of the most beautiful passages in the entire Bible:

"There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to Godís law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you."

Teke
Oct 20th 2008, 05:59 PM
Or you talking about how they were in their pre-fallen, or post-fallen condition?
While I do agree that Adam and Eve would still have to deal with spiritual wickedness, I do not believe that, in their pre-fallen condition, they were the same as we are, for sin was not inherent in them, as it is in us.

James 4:1 Where do wars and fights come from among you? Do they not come from your desires for pleasure that war within your members?

1 Peter 2:11 Beloved, I beg you as sojourners and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul

Gen. 6:5 Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually

According to James, we have an internal war going on. According to Peter, it is a war between the flesh and the spirit.
Adam and Eve did not have this war waging inside of them, as we do. Instead, their temptation came externally, from the enemy himself. We have this temptation, also, but we also have the propensity towards sin, which they did not have.

Yes....we are in agreement.

This thread is really going all over the place. To put this in perspective, we all have to look at it from the person of Jesus Christ/God. Especially if we're talking about Adam in relationship to mankind.

In the simplest terms, "sin" means to fall short. In comparison to God, meaning our nature compared to God's nature (He being our only righteousness as He is the only One righteous), all of mankind is in a state of "sin" by the definition of "falling short".
We all "fall short" of God. We are not greater than God in any way, shape or form. That is the point that scripture is making. We are never to forget that we are sinners in the sense that we are not God.

This is important to understand if we are to understand or contemplate what Christ did by His being God Incarnate of our humanity/flesh and blood.
By the Incarnation, He assumed our "fallen short" state of being and assumed it with His righteousness. This was God's plan from the beginning when He created us, which is before anything else that happened later. NOTHING COULD STOP GOD'S PLAN. To bring us into an intimate relationship with Him.

There is no need to make any more of this than it is. The devil, nor sin (our fallen short state of being/existence) could stop this from happening.
The truth that God accomplished this is made plain to us in the person of Jesus Christ the Son of God.

This is where terms like "Adam's fallen state" come from. Adam was created in a fallen state because he was only flesh and blood, and not a spirit like God who is Spirit. The spirit Adam has as we have, is life, and he didn't get life from himself, it came from that which is Life, that Being God.
This also negates that we can be physically alive and spiritually dead. As to be physically alive entails having the spirit of life.

cdo
Oct 20th 2008, 06:49 PM
[quote]This thread is really going all over the place. To put this in perspective, we all have to look at it from the person of Jesus Christ/God. Especially if we're talking about Adam in relationship to mankind.
Teke,Well said !!

Teke
Oct 20th 2008, 07:58 PM
[quote=Teke;1833322]
Teke,Well said !!

Thank you. :hug:
While I know we love to share our opinions, we can't get so opinionated (caught up in our personal thoughts) that we loose sight of Christ.

2Cr 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

cdo
Oct 20th 2008, 08:49 PM
[quote]Thank you. :hug:
While I know we love to share our opinions, we can't get so opinionated (caught up in our personal thoughts) that we loose sight of Christ.

2Cr 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
This is one of the reason's,I just could not understand about this thread.God our Lord and Savior is the only sight we should never under estimate His Power and Reason for His Purpose of His word. Even as we all have questions about scriptures and try to add our opinions to the "what if" or "??".We still must take Him at His word and know that He has All Things in Control for His Children.
There are many question we would like to know the answer to but,we have to believe the Holy Spirit will reveal those things to us in time.
I agree, we at times will let our flesh control 'things' that where we might rely on our on thoughts and opinions.But,let us all look to God for His wisdom and understanding first and fore most.
2 Cor.10:5 says it all.
Thanks teke,

faroutinmt
Oct 21st 2008, 01:44 AM
This thread is really going all over the place. To put this in perspective, we all have to look at it from the person of Jesus Christ/God. Especially if we're talking about Adam in relationship to mankind.

In the simplest terms, "sin" means to fall short. In comparison to God, meaning our nature compared to God's nature (He being our only righteousness as He is the only One righteous), all of mankind is in a state of "sin" by the definition of "falling short".
We all "fall short" of God. We are not greater than God in any way, shape or form. That is the point that scripture is making. We are never to forget that we are sinners in the sense that we are not God.

This is important to understand if we are to understand or contemplate what Christ did by His being God Incarnate of our humanity/flesh and blood.
By the Incarnation, He assumed our "fallen short" state of being and assumed it with His righteousness. This was God's plan from the beginning when He created us, which is before anything else that happened later. NOTHING COULD STOP GOD'S PLAN. To bring us into an intimate relationship with Him.

There is no need to make any more of this than it is. The devil, nor sin (our fallen short state of being/existence) could stop this from happening.
The truth that God accomplished this is made plain to us in the person of Jesus Christ the Son of God.

This is where terms like "Adam's fallen state" come from. Adam was created in a fallen state because he was only flesh and blood, and not a spirit like God who is Spirit. The spirit Adam has as we have, is life, and he didn't get life from himself, it came from that which is Life, that Being God.
This also negates that we can be physically alive and spiritually dead. As to be physically alive entails having the spirit of life.

But, this isn't how the bible defines sin. Sin, biblically defined, is not simply being less than God, or not a spirit like God. Sin is transgression of God's Law.

"Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness." 1 John 3:4 Adam wasn't created by God to commit lawlessness.

"Whoever sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning." 1 John 3:8 Adam wasn't created by God to be of the devil.

Sin is the opposite of God's Law, His nature. Where God's law says to love Him, sin says to rebel against Him. Where God's law says we should love our neighbor, sin says to defraud, lie to, steal from, hate our neighbor.

My heart's Desire
Oct 21st 2008, 05:05 AM
But, this isn't how the bible defines sin. Sin, biblically defined, is not simply being less than God, or not a spirit like God. Sin is transgression of God's Law.

"Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness." 1 John 3:4 Adam wasn't created by God to commit lawlessness.

"Whoever sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning." 1 John 3:8 Adam wasn't created by God to be of the devil.

Sin is the opposite of God's Law, His nature. Where God's law says to love Him, sin says to rebel against Him. Where God's law says we should love our neighbor, sin says to defraud, lie to, steal from, hate our neighbor.
That's kind of how I take it. Sin is to miss the mark. God has set the mark for righteousness and we all miss it, UNTIL Christ becomes OUR righteousness. We have no righteousness until then and even then it is still Christ's righteousness and not our own.

My heart's Desire
Oct 21st 2008, 05:08 AM
All are born physically alive but spiritually dead. We do not have the Holy Spirit at birth. (John 3:6 "Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.")

Since we do not have the Holy Spirit to guide and direct us into what the Spirit desires, we naturally do what the body desires.

Now in saying this, I do not mean to say that the natural desires of the body are, in and of themselves, sinful. God made us in such a way that we get hungry and tired, etc.

James 1:13-15 says "For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death."

I reject the idea of sin being "inborn" because that would make it genetic (physical) and thereby making the death of Christ futile.

Not sure I TOTALLY agree but I understand what you mean a little better. That explaination still takes us back to Adam and the point when he and his seed after him became spiritually dead. Thanks for explaining.

Teke
Oct 21st 2008, 01:21 PM
But, this isn't how the bible defines sin. Sin, biblically defined, is not simply being less than God, or not a spirit like God. Sin is transgression of God's Law.

Really. Let's see. For the OT your likely using the Hebrew to English translation. In Hebrew there are 15 words translated to English words in referring to sin. Here they are...


1. chat'a, to sin; to miss the mark (as in Judg. 20:16). Also of the feet, to stumble and fall (Prov. 19:2). Hence, morally, a coming short, blameworthiness -- not necessarily willful. An act of thought, word, or deed, not a condition. Usually (but by no means always) rendered sin, and other words also so rendered.

2. 'asham, trespass, to sin through error or ignorance. Cp. Lev. 4:13; 5:2, 3. Num. 5:6, 7. Judg. 21:22. 1Chron. 21:3. 2Chron. 19:10; 28:10, 13. 'Asham is a breach of commandment, done in ignorance, but, when the guilt is proved, requiring atonement.

3. 'aven, iniquity, specially connected with idolatry. Used because an idol is nothing and vanity (cp. Hos. 4:15; 5:8; 10:5, 8. Amos 5:5, marg.). Hence, 'aven comes to mean vanity (cp. Job 15:35. Ps. 10:7. Prov. 22:8, &c.). The word has many renderings, which are pointed out in the passages when it occurs. 'Aven is rather a course of bad conduct flowing from the evil desires of fallen nature, that breaches of the law as such.

4. 'avah, perverseness, from the root to be bent, or crooked. English wrong, i.e. wrung out of course, expresses it (cp. 1Sam. 20:30. 2Sam. 19:19. 1Kings 8:47. Job 33:37, &c.).

5. 'amal, trouble, labor, toil. Sin viewed in the light of the trouble it causes; and of its burden; and its grievousness (Isa. 10:1. Hab. 1:3). Often rendered perverseness (Num. 23:21), also mischief (Job 15:35).

6. 'aval, unjust, unfairness, sin in its nature as deceitful, dishonesty, that which is not equal and right, unfairness in dealings. Rendered unjust (Ps. 43:1; 82:2. Prov. 29:27. Isa. 26:10), unrighteous (Lev. 19:15, 35).

7. 'abar, to pass beyond, transgress. Hence, transgression (Ps. 17:3. Hos. 6:7; 8:1).

8. ra'a', wicked, injurious. From its root, which indicates its nature as breaking up all that is good or desirable; injurious to all others. In Greek poneros, evil, or kakos, bad. Hence especially of moral depravity and corruption, and lewdness. English "good-for-nothing" (1Sam. 17:28), naughty (2Kings 2:19. Prov. 20:14. Jer. 24:2).

9. pash'a, revolt, rebellion. Sin against lawful authority. Often rendered transgression (Ps. 51:13. Prov. 28:21. Isa. 43:27). In Prov. 10:12 the action of love or mercy shown stands in strong contrast to this character of the sin.

10. rasha', wickedness, in the sense of the restless activity of fallen nature (Job 3:17. Isa. 53:9; 57:20, 21); where it refers to the activity of the impious and ungodly, or robbers.

11. ma'al, treachery, unfaithfulness, breach of trust, often rendered trespass and transgression. It is used of Achan (Josh. 7:1; 22:20). Cp. Josh. 22:16. 2Chron. 26:18; 28:22; 33:19. Ezra 9:2, 4. Neh. 13:27, &c.

12. shagag, erring from imprudence, rashness, being deceived, not willfully; and shagah, erring willfully through passion or wine, hence, to go astray. As sin it is to be distinguished from presumptuous or high-handed sin. Cp. Lev. 4:13. Num. 15:22, &c., with Num. 15:30. Ps. 119:21.

13. zimmah, meditated, wickedness, plotted, planned, and designed; wicked, or lewd purpose, especially of sins of unchastity.

14. chasad = shameful. A Homonym, meaning (1) Here, and Job 37:13 (where it is rendered "mercy" in A.V. and R.V.). But "lightning" is not "mercy" but chastisement. (2) The other meaning is mercy, lovingkindness, or grace. See note on Lev. 20:14.

15. shal, fault, committed inadvertently through negligence.

from KJV Companion bible appendix 44



Now let's look at the Greek.


# The Verb.

hamartano = to miss the mark or aim; then, to miss or wander from the right path; to go, or do, wrong.

# The Noun.

1. hamartia = a failing to hit the mark; aberration from prescribed law (connected with and resulting from the above). In N.T. always in a moral sense = a sin, whether by omission or commission, in thought, word, or deed. Also used in connection with the sin-offering (Heb. 10:6, 8, 18; 13:11, as in Ps. 40:6, cp. Lev. 5:8).

2. hamartema = the actual sin. The evil principle in action; the sinful act or deed.

3. paraptoma = a falling aside, when one should have stood upright. Hence (morally) a fall, a falling aside from truth and equity; a fault, or trespass.

from KJV Companion bible appendix 128


"Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness." 1 John 3:4 Adam wasn't created by God to commit lawlessness.

"Whoever sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning." 1 John 3:8 Adam wasn't created by God to be of the devil.

John is speaking to believers who should know the law. A "transgression" is a sin of ignorance which can be forgiven.
Your right, "Adam wasn't created by God to commit lawlessness", he was created in the "image and likeness" of God to be righteous "like" God, not "as" God. Nothing created can be "as" God is. God is not created, He is uncreated.
The bible most assuredly makes this clear distinction between us and God.


Sin is the opposite of God's Law, His nature. Where God's law says to love Him, sin says to rebel against Him. Where God's law says we should love our neighbor, sin says to defraud, lie to, steal from, hate our neighbor.

Scripture doesn't say that the "law" IS God's "nature". We only know something of God's "nature" by Jesus Christ. God is unknowable to us in that we cannot fully know all about Him. However, He reveals some of Himself to us in Jesus Christ, and we can participate with Him, be in a communion with HIm, through His energies or virtues, such as righteousness, mercy, love, faithfulness etc. But no man has ever beheld the fullness (aka in the Hebrew as the Shekinah, meaning full glory) of God.

Exd 33:22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
The Son is the rock and the hand. The rock revealing the mystery of the Incarnation, the hand reveals Jesus one essence with the Father.
Even Moses only saw His back in reference to His glory, because that was all he was capable of seeing. No man is capable of seeing the full glory.

Psa 62:7 In God [is] my salvation and my glory: the rock of my strength, [and] my refuge, [is] in God.

Isa 2:10 Enter into the rock, and hide thee in the dust, for fear of the LORD, and for the glory of his majesty.

Jesus helps us because of our inability/falling short, because we will never be as morally good as God is especially in our created state, we will never be God Himself.

Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

faroutinmt
Oct 21st 2008, 01:44 PM
In the simplest terms, "sin" means to fall short. In comparison to God, meaning our nature compared to God's nature (He being our only righteousness as He is the only One righteous), all of mankind is in a state of "sin" by the definition of "falling short".
We all "fall short" of God. We are not greater than God in any way, shape or form. That is the point that scripture is making. We are never to forget that we are sinners in the sense that we are not God.

.
The scriptures you just listed all suggest that sin is much more than not being like God. You actually just proved my point.

You had stated above that our sin simply means that we are not greater than God, that we are not God. I was trying to point out that sin is a moral transgression of God's law.

I apologize for my grammar, as I did not mean to say that God's law was His nature. I just meant that sin is against God's nature as well as His law.

So, I guess from the scriptures you listed and the definitions you provided, we both agree that sin is not simply being unlike God or lesser than God. We obviously both agree that sin is missing the mark, and that mark is God's moral law. Sin is missing the mark of and transgressing the mark of God's moral law. Sin, as defined by the law would be things like lying, idolatry, blasphemy, adultery, covetousness, etc.

You did say that Adam was created in a fallen state. In the context of your writing you seemed to suggest that this fallen state was sin. Now that we agree that sin is a moral transgression of God's law, I know you could not possibly have meant that God created Adam in a sinful state.

Teke
Oct 21st 2008, 02:42 PM
The scriptures you just listed all suggest that sin is much more than not being like God. You actually just proved my point.

You had stated above that our sin simply means that we are not greater than God, that we are not God. I was trying to point out that sin is a moral transgression of God's law.

I apologize for my grammar, as I did not mean to say that God's law was His nature. I just meant that sin is against God's nature as well as His law.

So, I guess from the scriptures you listed and the definitions you provided, we both agree that sin is not simply being unlike God or lesser than God. We obviously both agree that sin is missing the mark, and that mark is God's moral law. Sin is missing the mark of and transgressing the mark of God's moral law. Sin, as defined by the law would be things like lying, idolatry, blasphemy, adultery, covetousness, etc.

You did say that Adam was created in a fallen state. In the context of your writing you seemed to suggest that this fallen state was sin. Now that we agree that sin is a moral transgression of God's law, I know you could not possibly have meant that God created Adam in a sinful state.

I wouldn't say that sin is "against" God's nature. The nature of God is untouchable by sin. To say it is "against' God's nature suggests that it could actually go against God. And that wouldn't be possible.

I don't mean that the "fallen state" WAS sin, but that being in such a state will equate to sin. And I mean sin in the sense of "transgression", which is to sin in ignorance. The sin of Eve is defined in scripture as a "transgression", meaning a sin of ignorance/without full knowledge. Adam is the one who is charged with fully knowing what he did. Which is why I also previously posted that redemption consists of responsibility, which is why Jesus called for repentance, which is a call to responsibility/accountability. Responsibility or accountability is a moral obligation. So although Adam sinned he also accepted the moral responsibility in doing so. Which includes the consequences. Seems to me this takes quite a bit of faith in God.

Why do you think I paralleled this with Jesus words on how the priests break the law and are blameless. Adam was as a priest before God. Which is why he is accountable. Eve is as the church, which sins by "transgression"/ignorance. Using Christ as our model of the perfect High Priest, He is who we refer to on this subject. It is evident from all the OT models that the priest is responsible to intercede with God on behalf of the people/church. Adam did no less. This is not to say that there is no consequence for sin, even when we take responsibility for it by repentance.

This still brings us to the conclusion that sin and it's consequences are not eternal as God is, and therefore are of no consequence with God, only with us in our imperfect state we are created in. Which is also why our weakness is our strength.

Do you follow what I'm relating?

faroutinmt
Oct 22nd 2008, 09:22 PM
I wouldn't say that sin is "against" God's nature. The nature of God is untouchable by sin. To say it is "against' God's nature suggests that it could actually go against God. And that wouldn't be possible.

I don't mean that the "fallen state" WAS sin, but that being in such a state will equate to sin. And I mean sin in the sense of "transgression", which is to sin in ignorance. The sin of Eve is defined in scripture as a "transgression", meaning a sin of ignorance/without full knowledge. Adam is the one who is charged with fully knowing what he did. Which is why I also previously posted that redemption consists of responsibility, which is why Jesus called for repentance, which is a call to responsibility/accountability. Responsibility or accountability is a moral obligation. So although Adam sinned he also accepted the moral responsibility in doing so. Which includes the consequences. Seems to me this takes quite a bit of faith in God.

Why do you think I paralleled this with Jesus words on how the priests break the law and are blameless. Adam was as a priest before God. Which is why he is accountable. Eve is as the church, which sins by "transgression"/ignorance. Using Christ as our model of the perfect High Priest, He is who we refer to on this subject. It is evident from all the OT models that the priest is responsible to intercede with God on behalf of the people/church. Adam did no less. This is not to say that there is no consequence for sin, even when we take responsibility for it by repentance.

This still brings us to the conclusion that sin and it's consequences are not eternal as God is, and therefore are of no consequence with God, only with us in our imperfect state we are created in. Which is also why our weakness is our strength.

Do you follow what I'm relating?

Well, you and I definitely have a different perspective on how the scriptures define sin.

I see that sin is a moral crime which is "against" God. In psalm 51 David says to God, "Against You, and You only, have I sinned."

In Psalm 78:17 it says, "But they sinned even more against Him by rebelling against the Most High in the wilderness." This was most certainly not ignorant sin.

There are many other passages which speak of sin as "against" God.

God clearly describes sin as something which deserves punishment. Over and over again in scripture God punishes people for their sin. This is a judicial aspect of sin. Sin is not something which is unlike God, but it is a criminal act against Him.

Teke
Oct 22nd 2008, 11:56 PM
Well, you and I definitely have a different perspective on how the scriptures define sin.

I see that sin is a moral crime which is "against" God. In psalm 51 David says to God, "Against You, and You only, have I sinned."

In Psalm 78:17 it says, "But they sinned even more against Him by rebelling against the Most High in the wilderness." This was most certainly not ignorant sin.

There are many other passages which speak of sin as "against" God.

God clearly describes sin as something which deserves punishment. Over and over again in scripture God punishes people for their sin. This is a judicial aspect of sin. Sin is not something which is unlike God, but it is a criminal act against Him.

Well, if something isn't "for" it's "against".

Mar 9:40 For he that is not against us is on our part.

Luk 9:50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid [him] not: for he that is not against us is for us.

That's fine if you see a judicial aspect. I see consequences. Rather than me say that God punishes me because I'm a sinner, I say I suffer because I'm a sinner. It wouldn't make sense, to me anyway, to say that I'm a Christian because God punishes me for being a criminal.

Teke
Oct 24th 2008, 03:32 PM
Sin is also described like an illness in scripture. Couple of examples being the parable of the Samaritan Luke 10, and illness of body of Isaiah 1:6. IOW a weakness or weakening in that which God created. IMHO this is what happened to all humanity from Adam onward.

When an attack is mounted (such as the devil's in Genesis) it is aimed at the weakest point (in humanity that would be our passions/emotions) of that which is being attacked. In which such a case an attack can trigger any number of responses.

cdo
Oct 24th 2008, 08:04 PM
Yes,
even to this day satan works his deceivings to all of us
in and at our weakest point in our flesh.What I call deceiving us through our 'mind's'.That why we should always keep our mind on God firstly and take those thoughts into captive.

ShardikSon
Oct 25th 2008, 01:34 AM
Please pardon the presumption of a newbie, but this has been one of my pet themes, of late, so after reading this discussion, I wish to offer the following for your consideration.
The bible quotes are Genesis 3 (KJV)
What was Adamís sin?

I have been thinking on the original sin thing for a while.

Several conversations about this and more reading, and praying have led me to these thoughts.


Firstly, when Adam was established in Eden, God tells him,
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it. For in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die."
He then goes about bringing Eve to Adam, and they live in the Garden and all is well.
Then, The Serpent comes along:
1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, "Yea, hath God said, `Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden'?"
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden, 3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, `Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it,lest ye die.'"
(Notice the bolded line. What did God tell Adam?)
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, "Ye shall not surely die; 5 for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

So, Eve decides to eat, and tastes the fruit of this tree.
She does not die. And she then gives it to Adam, who now sees that Eve did not die.
But,Ö
7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves things to gird about.
8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God, walking in the garden in the cool of the day. And Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. 9 And the LORD God called unto Adam and said unto him, "Where art thou?"10 And he said, "I heard Thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself."
11And He said, "Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?"

Now here is the really interesting part, I think:
12And the man said, "The woman whom Thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate."

So now God asked the woman.
13And the LORD God said unto the woman, "What is this that thou hast done?" And the woman said, "The serpent beguiled me, and I ate."

So then God curses the Serpent, and tosses Adam and Eve from the Garden with the curse.

Why all that from just eating a fruit?

Two things come to mind.
Firstly, throughout the Bible, we see a pattern in the people of Israel, and even before.

Abraham learns to trust the Lord, and is rewarded greatly, And even more so when he trusts the Lord when asked to sacrifice Isaac.
Jacob Trusts the Lord.
Joseph trusts the Lord, and becomes all BUT the ruler of Egypt.
His family then falls into servitude there for many generations.

Moses Trusts in the Lord and liberates the Children of Israel.

Now comes the fun part.
God frees the people from bondage, leads them away, and rescues them from the Pharoah, again, at the Red Sea.
THEN, He leads them through the desert. Right away they start whining and complaining, and even after the quail, and the manna, and after the water from the rock, and after the tablets with the commandments, and after the defeat of the Amalekytes, the people still cannot get through a day without failing to trust God.

It seems to me, that the great sin is to fail to trust God. Adam added to the instructions from God, when he passed them on to Eve, probably to impress on her how important it was. (You know how us guys can be.)
He then probably figured that, since Eve didn't die, God must have been wrong about that part, so then it must be OK. He did not trust God enough.


Secondly, and this is related, When asked about the fruit, what was Adamís reply?
"The woman whom Thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate."

Blame it on the woman. Adam could not accept responsibility for his action. And Eve blames it on the Serpent.

So now what is it that saves us?
Confess, Repent, and Believe.
Take responsibility for our sins, ask forgiveness, and trust in God.
These are the things that Adam failed to do, leading to the fall, and these are things that through Jesus lead us to salvation.

cdo
Oct 25th 2008, 02:49 AM
Hey ShardikSon,

Very good post and a very good point:)
~~Darlene~~

Equipped_4_Love
Oct 26th 2008, 05:35 AM
With all due respect to the posters, which have very good explanations and opinions to this thread as it is.The fact being by one man (Adam) sin entered the world as the word says.The second (Adam) who is Jesus Christ paid in full for our sins through His blood that was shed at Calvary for once and all.God's plan for Adam was to live in paradise in God's Garden with his mate Eve.But with satan appearing as a 'snake' to Eve was nothing unusual to her,since they were over all the creatures of the world.Even if the 'snake' was not the physical body of satan to deceive her.But,by her she did it unknowingly(deceived) which is satan's goal for everyone who does not know his schemes and are caught unaware.So if she had never offered it to Adam because Adam is the one who God made a covenant with; not Eve.Then Adam took of 'the fruit' and sin entered by one man as in God's word. But as you can see God had a plan even for that.Which is His Son Jesus Christ.
With this in mind,no matter how many reasons and opinions we might have concerning this topic, we will not know until God chooses to make us aware of these questions we have until the Holy Spirit enlightens us.
This is just my opinion;)


Ya....I completely agree, which is why I think it's wise to approach any subject like this with a huge dose of humility, and the understanding that we do not have all of the answers, and may never come to a solid conclusion.....It's not about who's right and wrong, but about what the Holy Spirit teaches us through our discourse.

Thanks for that reminder!!! ;)

Equipped_4_Love
Oct 26th 2008, 05:44 AM
[quote=Teke;1833485]
This is one of the reason's,I just could not understand about this thread.God our Lord and Savior is the only sight we should never under estimate His Power and Reason for His Purpose of His word. Even as we all have questions about scriptures and try to add our opinions to the "what if" or "??".We still must take Him at His word and know that He has All Things in Control for His Children.
There are many question we would like to know the answer to but,we have to believe the Holy Spirit will reveal those things to us in time.
I agree, we at times will let our flesh control 'things' that where we might rely on our on thoughts and opinions.But,let us all look to God for His wisdom and understanding first and fore most.
2 Cor.10:5 says it all.
Thanks teke,

I'm sorry, cdo, but I'm a little offended. Are you implying that, by starting this thread, I have lost sight of Christ, or that I am not trusting in the Holy Spirit, because that is certainly not what I was intending. In fact, if you would go back and read my original post, you will see that the question that I asked was in light of a direct statement that Jesus Christ Himself made (that He who commits sin is a slave to sin), so I don't think I was neglecting Him.
Again, I am sorry if that was the impression that I gave, and I am truly sorry if I threw you off. Please know that I am not questioning things in spite of Christ, but in light of Him.

cdo
Oct 26th 2008, 05:32 PM
[quote]I'm sorry, cdo, but I'm a little offended. Are you implying that, by starting this thread, I have lost sight of Christ, or that I am not trusting in the Holy Spirit, because that is certainly not what I was intending. In fact, if you would go back and read my original post, you will see that the question that I asked was in light of a direct statement that Jesus Christ Himself made (that He who commits sin is a slave to sin), so I don't think I was neglecting Him.
Again, I am sorry if that was the impression that I gave, and I am truly sorry if I threw you off. Please know that I am not questioning things in spite of Christ, but in light of Him.

No,no,W4C,
I was repling to one of your post and I agreed with you on your stance. I'll have to find the post,I commented on of yours.You supplied the verse 2Chr 10:5 ..I believe.
I'm sorry you were offended but,that's not the way I meant it.
No you were not neglating our Lord . 'Sin is bondage'
I'm sorry and apologize about this.Sometimes the words might not come out the right way.
in Christ~~Darlene~~

cdo
Oct 26th 2008, 05:43 PM
Hi W4C,
I'm sorry... I have found the post.It was a post when I was posting to teke.I'm sorry.But in no way I meant to offend anyone (( in reference )) to this last post to you.I hope everything is ok now.:hug:
in Christ ~~Darlene~~

Foghorn
Oct 26th 2008, 06:57 PM
John 8:34 Jesus answered them, "Most assuredly I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave to sin"

We sin because we are sinners by nature. The Bible indicates that we are in bondage to sin, and it is Christ who sets us free. Through Adam, sin entered the world:

Rom. 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spead to all men, because all sinned

So, because of Adam, we have all been brought under the bondage of sin and death. It wasn't until Adam sinned that we became enslaved to sin.

We know that we sin because we are sinners....because it is part of our fallen nature. So, then, if we sin because we are in bondage to sin, as Jesus said, then why did Adam sin?

Obviously, he was not in bondage to sin at that point.Adam had a choice, we do not. Adam was not created in sin, but had a choice to sin; We, who are born into sin (original sin) cannot help but sin.

Chimon
Oct 26th 2008, 08:58 PM
I'd like to point out that 'we' are not in bondage to sin. nonchristians are in bondage to sin. We (Christians) are free in Christ.

holyrokker
Oct 26th 2008, 09:26 PM
Adam had a choice, we do not. Adam was not created in sin, but had a choice to sin; We, who are born into sin (original sin) cannot help but sin.
We also face the choice to sin. Sin is not something that we are born with.
The differences between Adam and us are:

A) Sin was not in the world when God created Adam

Adam was aware of the choices he was making

Adam had fellowship with God.

B) We are born into a world where sin exists.

We are not aware, as small children, of the choices we make.

We are born physical beings, without a spiritual connection with God.

Foghorn
Oct 26th 2008, 09:52 PM
We also face the choice to sin. Sin is not something that we are born with.
The differences between Adam and us are:

A) Sin was not in the world when God created Adam

Adam was aware of the choices he was making

Adam had fellowship with God.

B) We are born into a world where sin exists.

We are not aware, as small children, of the choices we make.

We are born physical beings, without a spiritual connection with God.
Ok, argue this with scripture.

Eph 2:1-5 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.
Among them we too all (formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.
But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us,
even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ by grace you have been saved),



Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.

Unless you are an exception, you have no case.

Foghorn
Oct 26th 2008, 10:04 PM
We also face the choice to sin. Sin is not something that we are born with.
The differences between Adam and us are: Before we are born again, we can do nothing but sin. The only righteousness we have is Christ's.


A) Sin was not in the world when God created Adam

Adam was aware of the choices he was making

Adam had fellowship with God.
I agree.

B) We are born into a world where sin exists.
Yes, in the fallen nature, original sin, which no one can escape.

We are not aware, as small children, of the choices we make.We don't have to be, Adam made that choice for us all. Show me in scripture where it teaches this? As Psalm 51:5 says: Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.
No one can escape original sin.

We are born physical beings, without a spiritual connection with God.Yes, and actually, we are spiritually dead, not spiritually sick.

holyrokker
Oct 26th 2008, 10:23 PM
Ok, argue this with scripture.

Eph 2:1-5 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.
Among them we too all (formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.
But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us,
even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ by grace you have been saved),



Psalm 51:5Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.

Unless you are an exception, you have no case.


I won't argue with Bible verses, nor will I argue with you.

I do, however, disagree with your assumption that those verses "prove" the doctrine of "original sin"

Foghorn
Oct 26th 2008, 10:32 PM
I won't argue with Bible verses, nor will I argue with you.

I do, however, disagree with your assumption that those verses "prove" the doctrine of "original sin"
There are perhaps verses that better fit, but I do believe these suffice.
I do not care to argue either, but scripture says to be ready in and out of season. Also, these are not assumptions, please, look into them. :)

God Bless

Teke
Oct 26th 2008, 10:41 PM
Secondly, and this is related, When asked about the fruit, what was Adamís reply?
"The woman whom Thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate."

Blame it on the woman. Adam could not accept responsibility for his action. And Eve blames it on the Serpent.

So now what is it that saves us?
Confess, Repent, and Believe.
Take responsibility for our sins, ask forgiveness, and trust in God.
These are the things that Adam failed to do, leading to the fall, and these are things that through Jesus lead us to salvation.

What I'd like to know, is how do you know that Adam's reply isn't those three things? It sounds like a simple statement of truth to me, that is what confession is. He takes responsibility in his admission/confession.

holyrokker
Oct 26th 2008, 10:47 PM
Let's look at Psalm 51:5
"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
and in sin did my mother conceive me."

First: This is not a theological statement concerning the state of humanity at conception.

The doctrine of "original sin" must first be accepted as truth, then applied to this verse. That is called "eisegesis". It is not a viable form of Biblical study.

Second: If anything, David is speaking of his mother's sin here. "in sin did my mother conceive me"

Now let's look at Psalm 139:13 (also written by David)
"For you formed my inward parts;
you knitted me together in my motherís womb."

If we were to take your assumption that Psalm 51:5 teaches that all humans are born sinful, then Psalm 139:13 would necessarily mean that God has intentionally created all humans as sinful creatures, making God the author of sin.

Foghorn
Oct 27th 2008, 12:33 AM
Let's look at Psalm 51:5
"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
and in sin did my mother conceive me."


First: This is not a theological statement concerning the state of humanity at conception.It isn't?


The doctrine of "original sin" must first be accepted as truth, then applied to this verse. That is called "eisegesis". It is not a viable form of Biblical study.Yes it is sad some people study scripture this way. This can also be the opposite, the doctrine of original sin can also be looked at as un-scriptural, then overlooked and un-excepted, this is also eisegesis.


Second: If anything, David is speaking of his mother's sin here. "in sin did my mother conceive me" This is your opinion, and I do believe not many Christians share your view here. Lets look at it again, but for the sake of context, lets go back to vs:1: Psalm 51:1-5 Be gracious to me, O God, according to Your lovingkindness;
According to the greatness of Your compassion blot out my transgressions.
Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity And cleanse me from my sin.
For I know my transgressions,
And my sin is ever before me.
Against You, You only, I have sinned
And done what is evil in Your sight,
So that You are justified when You speak
And blameless when You judge.
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.
David understands original sin, "For I know my transgressions,
And my sin is ever before me." ........What does this mean to you? "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity," Look it up; notice the words: "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity," Who is David talking about? Himself or his mother here? Obviously himself, since he uses the word "I".
"And in sin my mother conceived me." How would you understand this to be his mothers sin? That wouldn't even fit the context; read again vs: 1-5.

You see, David not only confess his sin in this action with Bathsheba, but, in general also by reason of the corrupt nature through original sin, which has passed into him from his birth, as if to say, I have not only sinned, but I am also wicked by nature.
John 3:6 says: That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Paul writes: Eph 2:3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.

Respectfully, how can you not see original sin here?



Now let's look at Psalm 139:13 (also written by David)
"For you formed my inward parts;
you knitted me together in my motherís womb."Ok.


If we were to take your assumption that Psalm 51:5 teaches that all humans are born sinful, then Psalm 139:13 would necessarily mean that God has intentionally created all humans as sinful creatures, making God the author of sin.This is your conclusion from misinterpretation of scripture, not mine.

Here is mine.
Psalm 139:13
"For you formed my inward parts;
you knitted me together in my motherís womb."

To acquire a good understanding of this verse we should look at the entire Psalm:
psalm 139:1-24
1O lord, thou hast searched me, and known me.
2Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off.
3Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways.
4For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O LORD, thou knowest it altogether.
5Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me.
6Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it.
7Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?
8If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.
9If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea;
10Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.
11If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me.
12Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.
13For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.
14I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
15My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
16Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.
17How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them!
18If I should count them, they are more in number than the sand: when I awake, I am still with thee.
19Surely thou wilt slay the wicked, O God: depart from me therefore, ye bloody men.
20For they speak against thee wickedly, and thine enemies take thy name in vain.
21Do not I hate them, O LORD, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee?
22I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies.
23Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts:
24And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.

David is calling upon God announcing he is innocent of all charges against him. David with this in mind meditates on God's character, His wisdom, omniscience, and His greatness as the creator. There is no place to hide from God, He knows all. He praises God as his creator: 14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
15My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
16Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them. : He praises God here.

I hope you see the difference, and understand the conclusion you came to is error. David's psalms, 51 and 139 are about two entirely different subjects.

Listen, I do not wish to argue with you about who is right and who is wrong. Scripture (God's word) is correct, and we all learn daily. Not all of us at every time has the correct interpretation, but some things are quite obvious, where I am wrong please correct me, I humbly ask, but where the truth is obvious, or possible, please pray and study into it. It is not safe to do otherwise.

holyrokker
Oct 27th 2008, 01:31 AM
Second: If anything, David is speaking of his mother's sin here. "in sin did my mother conceive me"This is your opinion
"my mother" is the subject of the sentence - the "doer" of the action "in sin did conceive me" is the predicate - the action.
conceive is the verb, me is the direct object of the verb, in sin is a prepositional phrase indicating the state in which the subject of the sentence was in at the time of the action.

So, the mother conceived the son while in a state of sin.

No, it's not a matter of my "opinion". It's analyzing the sentence grammatically. I don't understand how someone could come to any other conclusion.

Foghorn
Oct 27th 2008, 01:37 AM
"my mother" is the subject of the sentence - the "doer" of the action "in sin did conceive me" is the predicate - the action.
conceive is the verb, me is the direct object of the verb, in sin is a prepositional phrase indicating the state in which the subject of the sentence was in at the time of the action.

So, the mother conceived the son while in a state of sin.

No, it's not a matter of my "opinion". It's analyzing the sentence grammatically. I don't understand how someone could come to any other conclusion.Well all I can say is good luck, you are standing, probably and hopefully, alone against historical Christianity.

http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p195/Dennis1177/beating-a-dead-horse.gif

holyrokker
Oct 27th 2008, 01:38 AM
Listen, I do not wish to argue with you about who is right and who is wrong. Scripture (God's word) is correct, and we all learn daily. Not all of us at every time has the correct interpretation, but some things are quite obvious, where I am wrong please correct me, I humbly ask, but where the truth is obvious, or possible, please pray and study into it. It is not safe to do otherwise.

I hope you don't take this discussion as an argument.

holyrokker
Oct 27th 2008, 01:41 AM
Well all I can say is good luck, you are standing, probably and hopefully, alone against historical Christianity.
I am by no means standing alone against historical Christianity.

http://www.dividingword.net/Original%20Sin/biblically_refuted.html

http://preachersfiles.com/the-argument-against-the-doctrine-of-original-sin

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/the_myth_of_original_sin_i.html

http://www.firesofrevival.com/bornsin.htm

http://www.ntslibrary.com/Online-Library-The-Doctrine-of-Original-Sin.htm

Foghorn
Oct 27th 2008, 02:45 AM
I hope you don't take this discussion as an argument.No, I just hope you do not. I hope we can agree to disagree.

Foghorn
Oct 27th 2008, 02:50 AM
I am by no means standing alone against historical Christianity.

http://www.dividingword.net/Original%20Sin/biblically_refuted.html

http://preachersfiles.com/the-argument-against-the-doctrine-of-original-sin

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/the_myth_of_original_sin_i.html

http://www.firesofrevival.com/bornsin.htm

http://www.ntslibrary.com/Online-Library-The-Doctrine-of-Original-Sin.htm
But you are standing against historical Christianity. I skimmed through some of these sites, a few, like the first one don't hold any water, the others are nothing new under the sun, these arguments go all the way back to Pelagious, whom Augustine debated, later Joseph Arminius around the time of the Reformation, did you ever read about the Council of Dort? Your entitled to your opinion, I will stick with the scriptures and Historical Christianity.

God Bless.

holyrokker
Oct 27th 2008, 03:39 AM
But you are standing against historical Christianity. I skimmed through some of these sites, a few, like the first one don't hold any water, the others are nothing new under the sun, these arguments go all the way back to Pelagious, whom Augustine debated, later Joseph Arminius around the time of the Reformation, did you ever read about the Council of Dort? Your entitled to your opinion, I will stick with the scriptures and Historical Christianity.

God Bless.

I do hope you give them more than just a glance. The doctrine of "original sin" was actually introduced by Augustine. There is no evidence from Church history that it was discussed or taught at any time prior to Augustine.

Calvin was heavily influenced by Augustine.

The Synod of Dort was held after the deaths of both Arminius and Calvin. It was billed as an examination of the theology of the Remonstrants, but it was a one-sided gathering, that was more politically motivated than concerned with Biblical truth.

It's a topic that I've spent considerable time studying over the past 20 years.

I have no reason to doubt your sincerity in pursuing truth. I strongly suspect, however, that you've been unduly influenced by "Reformed" doctrine, and have allowed your study of Scripture to be tainted by it.

I challenge you to carefully examine , with an open mind, the links I previously posted.

Equipped_4_Love
Oct 27th 2008, 03:40 AM
Hi W4C,
I'm sorry... I have found the post.It was a post when I was posting to teke.I'm sorry.But in no way I meant to offend anyone (( in reference )) to this last post to you.I hope everything is ok now.:hug:
in Christ ~~Darlene~~

Hi, Darlene;

I am so glad that I did not offend you. Thank you for clarifying that.
I know that sometimes I tend to get carried away, and I appreciate it when people correct me, but I just want to make sure that my intentions here are not misconstrued. I completely agree with you....when discussing something like this, Christ must be central; otherwise, it's all religious filabuster, as far as I'm concerned.

Thanks so much for responding, and clarifying. Many blessings!!!

ShardikSon
Oct 27th 2008, 04:17 AM
Originally Posted by ShardikSon http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1839903#post1839903)
Secondly, and this is related, When asked about the fruit, what was Adam’s reply?
"The woman whom Thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate."

Blame it on the woman. Adam could not accept responsibility for his action. And Eve blames it on the Serpent.

So now what is it that saves us?
Confess, Repent, and Believe.
Take responsibility for our sins, ask forgiveness, and trust in God.
These are the things that Adam failed to do, leading to the fall, and these are things that through Jesus lead us to salvation.
What I'd like to know, is how do you know that Adam's reply isn't those three things? It sounds like a simple statement of truth to me, that is what confession is. He takes responsibility in his admission/confession.
Well, look at the response.
Paraphrased:
The woman That YOU gave to be my companion gave me the fruit, so I ate it.It sounds to me like he is laying the blame back on God. "You sent me this woman, and she ate it and said it was all right."
The woman, of course, says, "The devil made me do it."

You will often see this kind of redirection from kids caught doing something they were told not to.
I certainly do not see any repentance, or apology, in those responses.
Nor a request for forgiveness.

Teke
Oct 27th 2008, 02:46 PM
Well, look at the response.
Paraphrased: It sounds to me like he is laying the blame back on God. "You sent me this woman, and she ate it and said it was all right."
The woman, of course, says, "The devil made me do it."

You will often see this kind of redirection from kids caught doing something they were told not to.
I certainly do not see any repentance, or apology, in those responses.
Nor a request for forgiveness.

Your imposing your own judgment on the text. Adam and Eve both made factual statements which the rest of scripture upholds. The woman did give him the fruit to eat, that is a factual truth, not a denial of truth. Eve said the serpent beguiled/deceived her, that is a factual truth, not a denial of truth.

Kids aren't necessarily redirecting anything. People, whether they are children or not, explain things the way they see and experience them.

What you should see is what is practical. For example, I'll use a child like analogy to demonstrate. If I tell a child not to run in the road or a car will run over them, I have simply told them what the consequences of such an action will produce. If they disobey they will be run over by a car.

So the practical application is, if we will in our disobedience, to do that which is contrary to God's will, there will be consequences for such actions. That is simply a natural law of cause and effect, and will never change.

People, humanity, is capable of doing good, although since Adam the bondage of death and the influence of the devil can dull their perception of what is good and lead them into all kinds of evil.

It's not a matter of guilt. To understand the fall, it's best to understand in light of God's mercy. Rather than death become our end, God makes it a benefit. A benefit, in that death, which cuts off sin, keeps evil from being everlasting.

Mankind is only inclined toward sin now because of death (fear of death, Heb. 2:15).
If anything, this story should teach one to be careful who they listen to, even if it sounds very good. Deception is very subtle.
It should also teach us that our soul is neutral in that it can do good or bad. So for instance, when we direct our desire toward God it is good, and when we direct it toward evil then it's bad.

cdo
Oct 27th 2008, 04:22 PM
Hi W4C,
Thanks also.....
~~Darlene~~