PDA

View Full Version : Original Sin - What is it? Is it biblical?



TrustGzus
Dec 5th 2013, 07:01 AM
So Original Sin has become a hot topic in the essentials thread started by Scooby. Enough so that I think it deserves it's own thread. First, what is it? I will quote several sources to define it. In the process, these sources list the relevant Scripture to look at and determine if this doctrine is biblical or not biblical.

Augustine coined the phrase “original sin” for the pervasive result of Adam’s deed that infects us all. This total depravity depicts the universal effect of his rebellion against God on all his descendants (Romans 5:12, 19). Original sin does not suggest: (1) We were created sinful. God created mankind morally pure and innocent (Ecclesiastes 7:29). Or, (2) the human reproductive process is sinful. David’s comment about being “sinful from the time my mother conceived me” (Psalm 51:5) does not refer to his parents’ physical union but the sinful nature that originates at conception.


Cornish, R. (2004). 5 Minute Theologian: Maximum Truth in Minimum Time (p. 147). Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress.



Original sin The effect of the sin of our predecessors, and particularly of Adam, upon us. Affecting our behavior independent of and prior to any action of our own, original sin may include both corruption of human nature and guilt (or liability to punishment).




Erickson, M. J. (2001). In The concise dictionary of Christian theology. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.


Original sin, meaning sin derived from our origin, is not a biblical phrase (Augustine coined it), but it is one that brings into fruitful focus the reality of sin in our spiritual system. The assertion of original sin means not that sin belongs to human nature as God made it (God made mankind upright, Eccles. 7:29), nor that sin is involved in the processes of reproduction and birth (the uncleanness connected with menstruation, semen, and childbirth in Leviticus 12 and 15 was typical and ceremonial only, not moral and real), but that (a) sinfulness marks everyone from birth, and is there in the form of a motivationally twisted heart, prior to any actual sins; (b) this inner sinfulness is the root and source of all actual sins; (c) it derives to us in a real though mysterious way from Adam, our first representative before God. The assertion of original sin makes the point that we are not sinners because we sin, but rather we sin because we are sinners, born with a nature enslaved to sin.




Packer, J. I. (1993). Concise theology: a guide to historic Christian beliefs. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House.


Two things are meant by the expression “original sin”: the first sin of Adam, and the sinful nature possessed by every man since Adam, due to Adam’s first transgression. This sinful nature is called “depravity.” Depravity consists of four things which are true of every individual when he is born.

1. He is completely void of original righteousness. “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me” (Ps. 51:5).

2. He does not possess any holy affection toward God. “Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever Amen” (Rom. 1:25). “For men shall be lovers of their own selves … traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God.…” (2 Tm. 3:2–4)

3. There is nothing from without a man, that can defile him; but the things which come out of him, these are they that defile the man. “For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: all these evil things come from within, and defile the man” (Mk. 7:15, 21–23).

4. He has a continuous bias toward evil. “And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Gn. 6:5).




Duffield, G. P., & Van Cleave, N. M. (1983). Foundations of Pentecostal theology (pp. 165–166). Los Angeles, CA: L.I.F.E. Bible College.



I could quote on and on from various sources. I hope these should suffice. There is a diversity in the sources. I quote from Packer who is a Calvinist. I quote from Erickson who is harder to label. He's not a Calvinist. Some would call him a moderate Calvinist. I quoted from Guy Duffield and Norman Van Cleave who are Pentecostals.

Even Roman Catholicism agrees with Protestants on this.

How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man.” By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed”—a state and not an act.


Catholic Church. (2000). Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd Ed., p. 102). Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference.

Is it biblical? Well, the main passages are listed in the above quotes. If it's not biblical, then I think it would be good to explain what those passages are saying. A lot of times people will say things like "that passage isn't teaching that." OK, great! What is it saying? And that is the question here. What are those passages saying?

If Romans 5 isn't teaching this, what is it teaching? What is Psalm 51:5 teaching if it isn't teaching this? Is Psalm 51 saying David's mother sin in conceiving him? What does it mean if it doesn't mean David was born in sin with a sinful nature that was passed on by Adam?

TrustGzus
Dec 5th 2013, 07:32 AM
Because each person that sin's their own sin will receive death just as Adam did. Adam didn't inherit sin nor do we. Please admit the verse you posted says death passes to all but does not say sin is passed to all. That is highly important.

I did admit that is what the passage says. But I commented on that and you didn't comment on the commentary. I said the wage of sin is death. How can we inherit death if we have not inherited sin? Will God condemn a person to death who has no sin and/or no sin nature? For death to pass to all, it is necessary that sin has passed to all or God would be unjust at that point.

LookingUp
Dec 5th 2013, 07:40 AM
Babies aren't condemned to eternal death, so God is not unjust.

TrustGzus
Dec 5th 2013, 07:43 AM
Yet no scripture says we inherit anything but death when we sin. Nothing says we inherit Adam's sin, nothing says we inherit a sin nature.

I disagree. It seems that Romans 5:19 is saying we inherit a sin nature.

Romans 5:19 (NASB95)
19 For 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.

Through Adam's disobedience, the many were made sinners, i.e. it's our nature.

Christinme
Dec 5th 2013, 07:44 AM
Babies aren't condemned to eternal death, so God is not unjust.Are you saying that babies that die in infancy are condemned to eternal death?

ewq1938
Dec 5th 2013, 07:44 AM
I did admit that is what the passage says. But I commented on that and you didn't comment on the commentary. I said the wage of sin is death. How can we inherit death if we have not inherited sin?

Yes, because we receive death when we sin, and that is spiritual death not physical death.



Will God condemn a person to death who has no sin and/or no sin nature?

Which death? There are two.





For death to pass to all, it is necessary that sin has passed to all or God would be unjust at that point.

You are wrongly assuming physical death here. We don't die because we have sinned, we die because we are designed to age ad die. The second death comes because of sin, not the first death.

LookingUp
Dec 5th 2013, 07:44 AM
Romans 5:16

This says that judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation (in general) just as the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification (in general). All aren’t automatically condemned any more than all are automatically justified. People have to actually dosomething before they’re condemned and people actually have to do something before they’re justified.

Eternal condemnation is a consequence of transgressing the law (i.e. sin, cf. 1 John 3:4) and justification is a result of receiving the free gift. The individual has to "do” something in both cases.

TrustGzus
Dec 5th 2013, 07:45 AM
Babies aren't condemned to eternal death, so God is not unjust.

You are replying to an argument that I didn't make. I said if God condemns a person to death who hasn't sinned or has no sin nature, then he is unjust.

ewq1938
Dec 5th 2013, 07:46 AM
Are you saying that babies that die in infancy are condemned to eternal death?

Obviously not, just read what you quoted.

TrustGzus
Dec 5th 2013, 07:47 AM
You are wrongly assuming physical death here.

I never said physical death. That is not what I am assuming.

LookingUp
Dec 5th 2013, 07:48 AM
Are you saying that babies that die in infancy are condemned to eternal death?No. Please read my post again. Thanks.
Babies aren't condemned to eternal death, so God is not unjust.

ewq1938
Dec 5th 2013, 07:48 AM
I disagree. It seems that Romans 5:19 is saying we inherit a sin nature.

Romans 5:19 (NASB95)
19 For 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.

Through Adam's disobedience, the many were made sinners, i.e. it's our nature.

It doesn't speak to a sin nature though does it? Adam is blamed for bringing sin into the world, so when we sin, we are a sinner as he was. No sin nature inherited.

ewq1938
Dec 5th 2013, 07:50 AM
I never said physical death. That is not what I am assuming.

Contextually, you are actually...

LookingUp
Dec 5th 2013, 07:51 AM
You are replying to an argument that I didn't make. I said if God condemns a person to death who hasn't sinned or has no sin nature, then he is unjust.God will raise all the infants and babies to eternal life. How is that unjust?

TrustGzus
Dec 5th 2013, 07:59 AM
LookingUp/ewq,

I've got to get some sleep. It's been nice talking to you. We'll pick it up later. God bless.

LookingUp
Dec 5th 2013, 08:00 AM
I disagree. It seems that Romans 5:19 is saying we inherit a sin nature.

Romans 5:19 (NASB95)
19 For 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.

Through Adam's disobedience, the many were made sinners, i.e. it's our nature.
If one wants to demand that this verse means that the sin of one man automatically passed to all men and that men have no say in the matter, then one must also demand that the second half of this verse means that the righteousness of one man automatically passed to all men and that men have no say in the matter.

Christinme
Dec 5th 2013, 08:10 AM
Obviously not, just read what you quoted.Lol, thanks I did majorly misread that.

Christinme
Dec 5th 2013, 08:11 AM
No. Please read my post again. Thanks.Yes I see that now, I misread and am very sorry to everyone especially to you and the OP.

ewq1938
Dec 5th 2013, 08:14 AM
LookingUp/ewq,

I've got to get some sleep. It's been nice talking to you. We'll pick it up later. God bless.

Enjoyed the discussion, look forward to more.

Christinme
Dec 5th 2013, 08:14 AM
Adam and Eve were in the garden and they ate of the tree of good and evil before they had any children and before they ate of the tree of life. They were then banished from the garden at that point so that they could not eat from the tree of life. Adam and Eve did not eat of the tree of life and therefore did not receive their rebirth (new man). Because they were banished from the garden they and their offspring (us) could not eat of the tree of life and therefore were destined to remain the "old man" and had no manner to become reborn (the "new man"). It is the nature of the "old man" to sin, it is not the nature of the "new man" to sin. So by Adam's (and Eve's) trangression we were banished from the garden of Eden and cut off from the tree of life. That's my understanding.

Aviyah
Dec 5th 2013, 08:35 AM
If it can die, it is affected by sin. Babies can die, therefore babies are affected by sin.

LookingUp
Dec 5th 2013, 06:48 PM
Yes I see that now, I misread and am very sorry to everyone especially to you and the OP.No problem. :-)

LookingUp
Dec 5th 2013, 06:51 PM
Adam and Eve were in the garden and they ate of the tree of good and evil before they had any children and before they ate of the tree of life. They were then banished from the garden at that point so that they could not eat from the tree of life. Adam and Eve did not eat of the tree of life and therefore did not receive their rebirth (new man). Because they were banished from the garden they and their offspring (us) could not eat of the tree of life and therefore were destined to remain the "old man" and had no manner to become reborn (the "new man"). It is the nature of the "old man" to sin, it is not the nature of the "new man" to sin. So by Adam's (and Eve's) trangression we were banished from the garden of Eden and cut off from the tree of life. That's my understanding.Sounds similar to where I'm at--Adam (before he sinned) was no different than we are. He sinned for the same reason we do: desire + opportunity = temptation, and he gave into temptation and sinned. And we do the same.

LookingUp
Dec 5th 2013, 06:57 PM
If it can die, it is affected by sin. Babies can die, therefore babies are affected by sin.
Absolutely. We all feel the affects of Adam's sin. But we don't pay for his sin--we are not eternally condemned for his sin. Many believe we are "born sinners" and have an inherited sin nature that condemns us to eternal death, which would mean we pay for Adam's sin.

Christinme
Dec 5th 2013, 07:08 PM
Sounds similar to where I'm at--Adam (before he sinned) was no different than we are. He sinned for the same reason we do: desire + opportunity = temptation, and he gave into temptation and sinned. And we do the same.Agreed we appear to have similar understanding.
Absolutely. We all feel the affects of Adam's sin. But we don't pay for his sin--we are not eternally condemned for his sin. Many believe we are "born sinners" and have an inherited sin nature that condemns us to eternal death, which would mean we pay for Adam's sin.Isn't it the "old man's" nature to sin? And isn't that "old man" what we have inherited from Adam? Not saying that we pay for Adam's sin except of course that we aren't in the garden of eden. I'm glad the "old man" is condemned to death and the "new man" lives on.

TrustGzus
Dec 5th 2013, 07:30 PM
God will raise all the infants and babies to eternal life. How is that unjust?

LookingUp, you are arguing against a claim I never made. I never said babies are condemned to Hell. Ewq is saying that we are tainted with original sin but original death. What I said is God would be unjust if he sentenced death to a person who had no sin nature and/or had never sinned. The wages of sin is death. How can God allow us to be born inheriting original death if there is no sin? That's the point I am making. Babies and justification is a separate issue.

Now I believe babies are born with a sin nature. I think Scripture teaches this. No one has offered an idea at what Psalm 51:5 means from those who disagree that we are born with a sin nature. But just because a baby is born with a sin nature doesn't exclude the possibility that God can have in Christ those who never get to a point of being able to make a decision to follow (i.e. an age of accountability).

TrustGzus
Dec 5th 2013, 07:33 PM
I never said physical death. That is not what I am assuming.Contextually, you are actually...

No I didn't and here is why that would be ridiculous. If death in Romans 5 was physical death, then life in the same passage would merely mean physical life. You and I cannot have a discussion if you are going to decide what I mean and assume rather than having me tell you what I mean and assume. Dialogue cannot happen with you telling me what I'm assuming.

LookingUp
Dec 5th 2013, 07:46 PM
If Romans 5 isn't teaching this, what is it teaching? What is Psalm 51:5 teaching if it isn't teaching this? Is Psalm 51 saying David's mother sin in conceiving him? What does it mean if it doesn't mean David was born in sin with a sinful nature that was passed on by Adam?Romans 5:12
When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. And when Adam sinned, (spiritual) death entered the world. Prior to that death/decay existed…unless you don’t believe that plants die. And so, it is written, (spiritual) death began to spread to all men. Why? It is written, “because all sinned.” Compare Adam’s experience with spiritual death as a result of his personal sin with Paul’s experience with spiritual death as a result of his personal sin (Romans 7).

Romans 5:16
This says that judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation (in general) just as the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification (in general). All aren’t automatically condemned any more than all are automatically justified. People have to actually do something before they’re condemned and people actually have to do something before they’re justified.

Eternal condemnation is a consequence of transgressing the law (i.e. sin, cf. 1 John 3:4) and justification is a result of receiving the free gift. The individual has to "do” something in both cases.

Romans 5:18
If the one act of transgression automatically resulted in condemnation to ALL men (first half of the parallel), then the one act of obedience automatically resulted in justification to ALL men (second half of parallel). We must give equal fairness to both sides of the parallel.

Romans 5:19
Another parallel. If one man’s disobedience automatically made all men sinners, then one man’s obedience automatically made all men righteous. Equal fairness to both sides of the parallel.

Psalm 51:5
This entire passage is dripping with hyperbole which characteristically emerges from a heart of genuine anguish and guilt. And the use of such hyperbole was extremely common in Hebraic poetry. David is using this poetic device in order to suggest that sin had characterized his entire life. It reminds me of Job when he exaggerates his righteousness in an effort to demonstrate his genuine belief that his hardships aren't due to anything he’s done wrong. In this similar poetic section, Job says, “from my youth he grew up with me as a father, and from infancy I guided her” (Job 31:18). If we were to take this literally, we’d have to believe that Job hopped out of his mother’s womb and began guiding this widow. Do we really want to derive theology from Psalms (cf. Psalm 137:8-9)? David’s image of himself as spotless king has been crushed. A friend beautifully wrote, “From his exalted self-concept as impeccable righteous king, the pendulum swings to the other extreme: worthless sinner. His sin is so profoundly a part of him, it’s his entire identity, from his very conception.” It’s simply a hyperbolic description for effect, not some literal, theological statement. I’m willing to consider that some underlying theology that could possibly be derived from this is that mankind is bent toward sin; but we’re all “born sinners” is not what David is suggesting.


Is it biblical? Well, the main passages are listed in the above quotes. If it's not biblical, then I think it would be good to explain what those passages are saying. A lot of times people will say things like "that passage isn't teaching that." OK, great! What is it saying? And that is the question here. What are those passages saying?What other passages? If you could list them one at a time and give your personal commentary, then we can do the same.

LookingUp
Dec 5th 2013, 07:55 PM
LookingUp, you are arguing against a claim I never made. I never said babies are condemned to Hell. Ewq is saying that we are tainted with original sin but original death. What I said is God would be unjust if he sentenced death to a person who had no sin nature and/or had never sinned. The wages of sin is death. How can God allow us to be born inheriting original death if there is no sin? That's the point I am making. Babies and justification is a separate issue.

Now I believe babies are born with a sin nature. I think Scripture teaches this. No one has offered an idea at what Psalm 51:5 means from those who disagree that we are born with a sin nature. But just because a baby is born with a sin nature doesn't exclude the possibility that God can have in Christ those who never get to a point of being able to make a decision to follow (i.e. an age of accountability).Well, I don’t think I’m completely following the two of you correctly. Sorry about that. The wages of sin is “eternal” death. Material/natural death was in the world prior to Adam sinning. Plants decayed/died. But the gift of God is eternal life.

We all have the same nature as Adam did prior to him sinning. I guess I'd call it "human nature." Adam had normal and natural and good desires and when given a particular opportunity, he was tempted and gave into those temptations and sinned. We do nothing differently than Adam. We all have the same human nature. Scripture says all men will sin, at some point. We all have normal and natural and good desires and given enough time, we, too, will give into temptation by pursuing particular opportunities that arise. That doesn't mean we're inherently corrupt; it means we choose to follow our flesh rather than trusting that what God has provided is sufficient.

TrustGzus
Dec 5th 2013, 08:03 PM
Well, I don’t think I’m completely following the two of you correctly. Sorry about that. The wages of sin is “eternal” death. Material/natural death was in the world prior to Adam sinning. Plants decayed/died. But the gift of God is eternal life.

No apology needed. I agree with all that you said here. I don't have time at this moment to reply to your other post. Try to catch it sometime in the next few days.

dorian37grey
Dec 5th 2013, 09:17 PM
So Original Sin has become a hot topic in the essentials thread started by Scooby. Enough so that I think it deserves it's own thread. First, what is it?

There seems to be a relationship with original sin and the unpardonable sin.
Original sin separates mankind from God (IN THIS AGE)
and the bible story tells us Jesus came into this world to provide a way back for mankind.
The unpardonable sin speaks of a separation from God (IN THIS AGE this lifetimeAND IN THE NEXT the after-life)

If i may suggest; the nature of the relationship between original sin and the unpardonable sin is seen in the phrase
OUT OF THE FAMILY OF GOD

CONSIDER THE IMPLICATIONS WITH THIS ;

1- ADAM AND EVE HAVE LEFT THE FAMILY OF GOD
2- ALL WHO COME AFTER ( all whom are born) ARE ALSO THEN OUT OF THE FAMILY
3- ALL OF THESE ( where allegorically) FATHERED BY THE ACTIONS OF THE SERPENT
4- THE MISSION OF JESUS COMING INTO THIS WORLD IS TO PROVIDE ---A WAY BACK INTO THE FAMILY OF GOD

This is UN-doing the effects of original sin.

making the unpardonable sin ; leaving the RE-STORED family of God

Noeb
Dec 6th 2013, 12:47 AM
I disagree. It seems that Romans 5:19 is saying we inherit a sin nature.

Romans 5:19 (NASB95)
19 For 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.

Through Adam's disobedience, the many were made sinners, i.e. it's our nature.What does the word "made" mean?
designate/ordain
Who made (designated/ordained) you judge? Is how it is used in every case. The nature of the man did not change because he was made judge. We are designated/ordained righteous but our nature is not righteous. See the problem?
It does not mean we were made with a sin nature. It means Adam's sin made sure we would all be sinners. This was done through a change in relationship, fellowship, position, not a change in nature, although one could argue by speculation Adam had the Spirit, like Jesus did, and we are born without the Spirit, which is certainly a change in nature. However, the exclusion of the Spirit does not constitute a sin nature, though some argue that as well.

Noeb
Dec 6th 2013, 12:52 AM
What is Psalm 51:5 teaching if it isn't teaching this? Is Psalm 51 saying David's mother sin in conceiving him? What does it mean if it doesn't mean David was born in sin with a sinful nature that was passed on by Adam?His mother was yet in her sins (Eph 2) and he would follow the same path as all men do (Eph 2), being brought forth into this sick and dying world with God behind a veil (Eph 2).

ewq1938
Dec 6th 2013, 01:23 AM
LookingUp, you are arguing against a claim I never made. I never said babies are condemned to Hell. Ewq is saying that we are tainted with original sin but original death. What I said is God would be unjust if he sentenced death to a person who had no sin nature and/or had never sinned. The wages of sin is death. How can God allow us to be born inheriting original death if there is no sin?

You are confusing deaths here. Physical death is not a result of sin, it is a natural part of this life. Spiritual death is the ONLY death that comes because of sin and it's not inherited, we get that after sinning and if not forgiven, we shall die a spiritual death ie: hell etc.

TrustGzus
Dec 6th 2013, 02:41 AM
You are confusing deaths here. Physical death is not a result of sin, it is a natural part of this life. Spiritual death is the ONLY death that comes because of sin and it's not inherited, we get that after sinning and if not forgiven, we shall die a spiritual death ie: hell etc.

Once again, I am not talking about physical death. Ewq, you've got to stop pouring the meaning into the words I'm using. Perhaps you should ask which death I mean or maybe I need to use the word spiritual or physical each time because you keep assuming I mean physical and you've been mistaken each time.

ewq1938
Dec 6th 2013, 04:12 AM
Once again, I am not talking about physical death. Ewq, you've got to stop pouring the meaning into the words I'm using. Perhaps you should ask which death I mean or maybe I need to use the word spiritual or physical each time because you keep assuming I mean physical and you've been mistaken each time.

Let's see: Why do we grow old and die?

TrustGzus
Dec 6th 2013, 04:35 AM
Let's see: Why do we grow old and die?
I don't see what this has to do with original sin. Since it's off topic, let's not go down that fork in the road. Romans 5 and other relevant passages aren't talking about physical death.

ewq1938
Dec 6th 2013, 04:42 AM
I don't see what this has to do with original sin. Since it's off topic, let's not go down that fork in the road. Romans 5 and other relevant passages aren't talking about physical death.

Either answer the question or avoid it, again. It's fully on topic.

LookingUp
Dec 6th 2013, 06:20 AM
No apology needed. I agree with all that you said here. I don't have time at this moment to reply to your other post. Try to catch it sometime in the next few days.
Okay. Waiting for your response to Romans 5 and Psalm 51.

TrustGzus
Dec 6th 2013, 07:03 AM
Either answer the question or avoid it, again. It's fully on topic.
No, it is not on topic. Romans 5 isn't about physical death. None of the quotes I provided in the OP speak about physical death. The only time physical death is brought up are the times you mistaken claimed I was talking about it, which I wasn't.

If you think it is relevant why not simply make your point? I'm not avoiding. Make your point.

ewq1938
Dec 6th 2013, 07:09 AM
No, it is not on topic. Romans 5 isn't about physical death. None of the quotes I provided in the OP speak about physical death. The only time physical death is brought up are the times you mistaken claimed I was talking about it, which I wasn't.

If you think it is relevant why not simply make your point? I'm not avoiding. Make your point.

My point is that I suspect you think we grow old and die because of sin. You won't answer it so far.

TrustGzus
Dec 6th 2013, 08:27 AM
My point is that I suspect you think we grow old and die because of sin. You won't answer it so far.

What does that have to do with the definition for original sin that I provided in the other thread that Hank Hanegraaff offers or any in my OP? Since the doctrine has to do with passing on the guilt of sin and sin nature, and since I've never brought up physical death, nor have the quotes I've offered, I don't understand why you keep bringing it up and forcing it into my statements where I've never meant it nor implied it.

ewq1938
Dec 6th 2013, 08:29 AM
What does that have to do with the definition for original sin that I provided in the other thread that Hank Hanegraaff offers or any in my OP? Since the doctrine has to do with passing on the guilt of sin and sin nature, and since I've never brought up physical death, nor have the quotes I've offered, I don't understand why you keep bringing it up and forcing it into my statements where I've never meant it nor implied it.

Your refusal to answer IS an answer.


Sin DOES NOT cause physical death!

TrustGzus
Dec 6th 2013, 10:38 AM
Your refusal to answer IS an answer.


Sin DOES NOT cause physical death!

This is ridiculous. I tell you I'm not referring to physical death when you insist I am. You continue to supposedly assert what I assume but you're mistaken in your assumptions on my thoughts. You ask a question that I'm telling you has nothing to do with the quotes I offered and nothing to do with the doctrine in question and then when I don't go down your rabbit trail my unwillingness is supposedly silence that is an answer to a question in which you won't simply make your point but keep insinuating what I believe. Give me a break. What is up with this? Are you kidding me? This is the craziest thing I've seen in a thread. Let me back out of the thread and you can continue to debate with you taking my place for me since you think you know what I think and believe instead of letting me speak for myself.

Christinme
Dec 6th 2013, 11:35 AM
Adam and Eve were in the garden and they ate of the tree of good and evil before they had any children and before they ate of the tree of life. They were then banished from the garden at that point so that they could not eat from the tree of life. Adam and Eve did not eat of the tree of life and therefore did not receive their rebirth (new man). Because they were banished from the garden they and their offspring (us) could not eat of the tree of life and therefore were destined to remain the "old man" and had no manner to become reborn (the "new man"). It is the nature of the "old man" to sin, it is not the nature of the "new man" to sin. So by Adam's (and Eve's) transgression we were banished from the garden of Eden and cut off from the tree of life. That's my understanding.I wrote this without reading indepth the OP. I have never really studied original sin but from reading the OP in more depth I'm not so sure I agree with original sin as defined in all of the sources quoted in the OP.




Augustine coined the phrase “original sin” for the pervasive result of Adam’s deed that infects us all. This total depravity depicts the universal effect of his rebellion against God on all his descendants (Romans 5:12, 19). Original sin does not suggest: (1) We were created sinful. God created mankind morally pure and innocent (Ecclesiastes 7:29).


Cornish, R. (2004). 5 Minute Theologian: Maximum Truth in Minimum Time (p. 147). Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress.




The assertion of original sin means not that sin belongs to human nature as God made it (God made mankind upright, Eccles. 7:29)




Packer, J. I. (1993). Concise theology: a guide to historic Christian beliefs. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House.

I'm not so sure I agree with this. God made Adam who was pure, innocent, upright because he hadn't sinned yet but Adam was the "old man" and it was/is the "old man's" nature to sin. All of us are born the "old man" with the nature to sin.


Is it biblical? Well, the main passages are listed in the above quotes. If it's not biblical, then I think it would be good to explain what those passages are saying. A lot of times people will say things like "that passage isn't teaching that." OK, great! What is it saying? And that is the question here. What are those passages saying?

If Romans 5 isn't teaching this, what is it teaching? What is Psalm 51:5 teaching if it isn't teaching this? Is Psalm 51 saying David's mother sin in conceiving him? What does it mean if it doesn't mean David was born in sin with a sinful nature that was passed on by Adam?I'm going to attempt to flounder my way through these chapters/verses you have mentioned here to see what I see from them.

Romans 5:12,18
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned.
18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men ...(NASB)

Seems more like it is condemnation that all mankind received from the first act of sin from Adam. All mankind was under God's condemnation. "Sin entered into the world and death through sin", so is this spiritual death or physical death? I'm inclining that it is spiritual death and by that I mean our spirit is no longer in communion with God. When we are born we are innocent (we don't know right from wrong and that was when Adam lost his innocence when he ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, more on that later) and most agree that God shows mercy and does not condemn the baby that dies and I would have to say that the baby that dies has not even experienced spiritual death. When we sin we personally experience spiritual death. A man has a spirit, not the holy spirit our own spirit (Romans 8:16 The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God). When we sin our spirit is no longer in communion with God's Spirit (this is spiritual death) it is not until we are born again that we are in communion again with God's Spirit. When we are born again we receive the "new man" and the "old man" is declared dead, although we often forget that and cling onto the dead "old man".

A little more Adam's sin and God's command, God did not arbitrarily command Adam not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, eating from this tree in and of itself caused Adam and Eve to loose their innocence and it also caused them to pull away (hide) from God.

Psalms 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me. (NASB)

I had to look up iniquity here, lol. He was brought forth in this world that is not the garden of Eden, in this world where mankind is condemned by God because of Adam's sin. And I believe in the old testament that even though God may not have condemned all (even though all were under His condemnation), all where still the "old man". So his mother was still the "old man" whose nature it is to sin.

That's my understanding for what it's worth and is open to changing however at this time that is what I see.

Scooby_Snacks
Dec 6th 2013, 11:40 AM
Let's see: Why do we grow old and die?

I will answer the question as I see it.
There is nothing before Adams sin that states life has numbered years or that there is any pain in life. Growing old is painful, childbirth is painful, life in general can be painful and yet Adam and Eve had no idea what pain was until sin entered into the picture.

I believe this death from Adam's Sin was both spiritual and physical-- Separation from God (getting the boot from the Garden) and cursed with decay (physical death- returning to the earth)

Genesis 3:17-19
And to Adam he said,

“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife
and have eaten of the tree
of which I commanded you,
‘You shall not eat of it,’
cursed is the ground because of you;
in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
18 thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;
and you shall eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your face
you shall eat bread,
till you return to the ground,
for out of it you were taken;
for you are dust,
and to dust you shall return.”

The ground was Adams beginning and it became his end. What was once good, (the ground where Adam was taken from, his physical beginnings) was now cursed.

http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r118/bebi_doll101/animated_bunny_cute.gif (http://media.photobucket.com/user/bebi_doll101/media/animated_bunny_cute.gif.html)

Scooby_Snacks
Dec 6th 2013, 12:06 PM
I wrote this without reading indepth the OP. I have never really studied original sin but from reading the OP in more depth I'm not so sure I agree with original sin as defined in all of the sources quoted in the OP.

I'm not so sure I agree with this. God made Adam who was pure, innocent, upright because he hadn't sinned yet but Adam was the "old man" and it was/is the "old man's" nature to sin. All of us are born the "old man" with the nature to sin.

I am trying to understand what you mean here, so I will paraphrase what you said and tell me if it is correct or not.

What I am reading is that you believe Adam was the Old Man to begin with because he had not eaten from the tree of life.

If this is what you ARE saying I do have scripture to look at this a little more.

Romans 6:6
We know that our old self (man in the Greek) was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin.

I am asking if you believe even though God created Adam pure, he was also an old man? (Defined as old self encased in the body of sin)

Christinme
Dec 6th 2013, 12:30 PM
I am trying to understand what you mean here, so I will paraphrase what you said and tell me if it is correct or not.

What I am reading is that you believe Adam was the Old Man to begin with because he had not eaten from the tree of life.

If this is what you ARE saying I do have scripture to look at this a little more.

Romans 6:6
We know that our old self (man in the Greek) was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin.

I am asking if you believe even though God created Adam pure, he was also an old man? (Defined as old self encased in the body of sin)Yes you are understanding me correct. We are all born the "old man" we must be reborn the "new man". Adam wasn't born but he was made the "old man", Christ is the "new man". Adam/old man brings death, Christ/new man brings life.

And yes this "old man"/"new man" concept runs all through the NT, it is actually something I keep in mind when interpreting Scripture.

Scooby_Snacks
Dec 6th 2013, 01:03 PM
Yes you are understanding me correct. We are all born the "old man" we must be reborn the "new man". Adam wasn't born but he was made the "old man", Christ is the "new man". Adam/old man brings death, Christ/new man brings life.

And yes this "old man"/"new man" concept runs all through the NT, it is actually something I keep in mind when interpreting Scripture.

I do not believe God created Adam the old man, based on the scripture provided, the old man is within the body of sin which Adam did not have when he was made from the dust of the earth "good". The old man is never given a "good" stamp in scripture, but is negative.

I believe Adam became the Old Man when sin entered in and brought with it death. (spiritual-- and physical)
This is sin nature that is separated from God and is corrupted (decaying)
Adam had something no one born following his sin prior to it. Unbroken relationship with God. He may have yet to eat from the tree of life, but he had unbroken relationship--something we all need Faith in Jesus to gain.

How interesting that the term itself is one of an aged and decaying person rather than one that has continual vibrant life.

Now I do understand your reasoning...he had not yet eaten from the tree of life, therefore he was already going to die before he sinned(maybe). It is sort of like bending a branch down in order to grab the fruit. It takes more effort to see things in this manner, more creativity. It also seem to me to fall into that place of "God created Adam with a sin nature" realm, and to me to be created with it (not innocent) opposes scripture.

I said back a few threads that I believed Adam had free will, I will correct this now, it is easy for me to fall back on the term, and then remember why I do not do that. As I have mused on this for a long time, to me, Adam was did not have truly free will, but his choices were influenced, first by God and then by Eve, who was deceived. I do believe if mans will was free nothing would ever influence it. It would be in its own vacuum so to speak.

He chose the latter influence in relationship over relationship with God. Why did he do this? Was not sin already in motion before that first bite? Adam had authority over Eve to teach her the things of God and when she sinned him knowing it was against Gods command he went along with her. All of these types of questions abound when trying to figure out what really happened there? I would say Adam was being influenced slowly by Eve and less by God, but that was not sin until the choice was made to follow Eve's lead over God's command.

So my answer is God creating Adam with the ability to make choices is not a bad thing, but he was not born old/sinful-- He became that way.

Curtis
Dec 6th 2013, 01:03 PM
What we do know is that what we have in the new birth Adam never had. Adam walked with God in the cool of the day, but we have God who dwells inside us, and walks in us all day long. Adam was not the original instrument in bringing sin into the world, that goes to Lucifer, who sinned from the beginning. Sin does not become sin when we do it, but when we think it. The outward actions of sin are just the results of indwelling sin. My own personal belief is that Adam sinned when he allowed Satan to come into the Garden in which God told him to keep (guard) the garden. Lucifer sinned when he said...Isa 14:13 "You said in your heart, 'I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God I will set my throne on high; I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far reaches of the north;" Isa 14:14 "I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.' " He sinned when he thought this, not when he actually attempted it.

Christinme
Dec 6th 2013, 01:15 PM
I believe Adam became the Old Man when sin entered in and brought with it death. (spiritual-- and physical)
This is sin nature that is separated from God and is corrupted (decaying)
Adam had something no one born following his sin prior to it. Unbroken relationship with God. He may have yet to eat from the tree of life, but he had unbroken relationship--something we all need Faith in Jesus to gain.Adam did not have God in him as those reborn do, he may have communed with God but God was not in him. God is not in the "old man" God is in the "new man".

Scooby_Snacks
Dec 6th 2013, 01:48 PM
Adam did not have God in him as those reborn do, he may have communed with God but God was not in him. God is not in the "old man" God is in the "new man".

It does not say Adam did not have God in him-- Not saying he did not saying he didn't.

Adam was, however, in unbroken fellowship with God as we are today BECAUSE of Christ Jesus.
Two different situations same unbroken fellowship.

Without making Adam's beginning different than ours (who was created by God good and upright) and who was in fellowship with God when he was made by God (unlike us born separated from God) One could be saying that nothing really changed when Adam sinned.



Curtis stated:
What we do know is that what we have in the new birth Adam never had. Adam walked with God in the cool of the day, but we have God who dwells inside us, and walks in us all day long. Adam was not the original instrument in bringing sin into the world, that goes to Lucifer, who sinned from the beginning. Sin does not become sin when we do it, but when we think it. The outward actions of sin are just the results of indwelling sin. My own personal belief is that Adam sinned when he allowed Satan to come into the Garden in which God told him to keep (guard) the garden. Lucifer sinned when he said...Isa 14:13 "You said in your heart, 'I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God I will set my throne on high; I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far reaches of the north;" Isa 14:14 "I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.' " He sinned when he thought this, not when he actually attempted it.



I think it would be difficult to prove that Adam allowed Lucifer into the garden, but in fact, by allowing Eve to influence him he did allow the influence of Lucifer an "in". He allowed the destroyer to destroy.

Christinme
Dec 6th 2013, 01:59 PM
It does not say Adam did not have God in him-- Not saying he did not saying he didn't.

Adam was, however, in unbroken fellowship with God as we are today BECAUSE of Christ Jesus.
Two different situations same unbroken fellowship.

Without making Adam's beginning different than ours (who was created by God good and upright) and who was in fellowship with God when he was made by God (unlike us born separated from God) One could be saying that nothing really changed when Adam sinned.Didn't say adam did have Him in him and from all I see/read I personally have come to the conclussion that he didn't have Him in him. And I don't agree Adam was in unbroken relationship, Adam wasn't with God when he chose to eat from the tree of G/E. God wasn't "present" then, not till later. What changed when Adam sinned is mankind was removed from the garden of Eden and condemned by God, that is what changed. (Again this is just my understanding.)

Scooby_Snacks
Dec 6th 2013, 02:32 PM
Didn't say adam did have Him in him and from all I see/read I personally have come to the conclussion that he didn't have Him in him. And I don't agree Adam was in unbroken relationship, Adam wasn't with God when he chose to eat from the tree of G/E. God wasn't "present" then, not till later. What changed when Adam sinned is mankind was removed from the garden of Eden and condemned by God, that is what changed. (Again this is just my understanding.)

How could God not be in fellowship with Adam and yet speak clearly to Adam His instructions, or breathe a spirit of life into the dust of his body?
I also can see that it is more reasonable that God was not "in" Adam, but did have fellowship with him--
We born after him do not have fellowship with God the Father without Christ.
This is the difference before and after the fall.
Regardless of the ultimate plan of One Body in Christ, there was still a way to that plan, and to me it did not start out with separation from God into fellowship with God, but fellowship with God first, then separation and then the reparation of that separation. :)


Adam "hid" himself from God. He knew God, and God knew Him.

His conscience made him hide. His sin condemned (cursed) him because he did not believe God. He was not cursed or condemned prior to it, because he was without sin (Even the knowledge of it) prior to.

I guess I am wanting you to answer the problem of how is it everything was fine with Adam prior to sin, including the garden and himself being made perfect--
But with us, there is no relationship with God as Adam had that was broken by (Adam)?
With one mans sin we acquire the same broken relationship he created when he sinned.
That does not seem fair if we are created righteous like Adam, we too would be able to have relationship with God like he did without Christ.

But we do not have fellowship until we come to faith in Christ, and that still exists in a fallen world that is groaning for adoption/rebirth itself?
Genesis 1:27-31

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” 29 And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. 30 And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. 31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

And also, the breath of life was given-- So to those who believe Adam already could die physically, there was no breath of death given to him by God, but the opposite.

Christinme
Dec 6th 2013, 02:52 PM
How could God not be in fellowship with Adam and yet speak clearly to Adam His instructions, or breathe a spirit of life into the dust of his body?
I also can see that it is more reasonable that God was not "in" Adam, but did have fellowship with him--If you reread I said Adam was not in UNBROKEN relationship with God which you earlier said Adam was in UNBROKEN RELATIONSHIP with God.


We born after him do not have fellowship with God the Father without Christ.I'm not so sure that little children aren't in fellowship with God the Father. I think all innocent are in fellowship with God the Father. (another reminder this is my understanding.)


Adam "hid" himself from God. He knew God, and God knew Him.

His conscience made him hide.Yes Adam hid from God because Adam LOST HIS INNOCENCE by eating from the tree of G/E and he realized he was naked.


His sin condemned (cursed) him because he did not believe God.God condemned Adam because of his sin, the sin didn't condemn him God did.


He was not cursed or condemned prior to it, because he was without sin (Even the knowledge of it) prior to.Agreed.


I guess I am wanting you to answer the problem of how is it everything was fine with Adam prior to sin, including the garden and himself being made perfect--
But with us, there is no relationship with God as Adam had that was broken by (Adam)?
With one mans sin we acquire the same broken relationship he created when he sinned.
That does not seem fair if we are created righteous like Adam, we too would be able to have relationship with God like he did without Christ.Adam was innocent and as I said above I do believe innocent children have a relationship with God the Father however in time all will sin and that relationship will be broken. (The relationship with the Father is not Christ inside them.)

Scooby_Snacks
Dec 6th 2013, 04:07 PM
If you reread I said Adam was not in UNBROKEN relationship with God which you earlier said Adam was in UNBROKEN RELATIONSHIP with God.

Just clarifying:

You are stating that Adam had broken relationship with God before he sinned.

Yes or have I got it wrong?

I am stating that Adam had intimate fellowship and friendship with God (unbroken) before he sinned.

Christinme
Dec 6th 2013, 04:19 PM
Just clarifying:

You are stating that Adam had broken relationship with God before he sinned.

Yes or have I got it wrong?

I am stating that Adam had intimate fellowship and friendship with God (unbroken) before he sinned.Sorry, that's not what I'm saying and was probably my fault for picking up on that word unbroken and thinking it meant constant. I am trying to compare how we have constant fellowship with God through God being in us compared to how Adam did not have constant fellowship with God because God wasn't in him. When Adam chose to sin God wasn't right there, God wasn't with him at that moment, God also wasn't inside him. So to be more accurate I'm saying that Adam didn't have constant fellowship with God before Adam sinned. Once Adam sinned then his relationship with God changed, 1)He wasn't innocent anymore 2)He was removed from the Garden of Eden where he fellowshipped with God and also where the tree of life was.

And I just love how you ask for clarification to help us along, you are very good at that, thanks.

Scooby_Snacks
Dec 6th 2013, 06:39 PM
Sorry, that's not what I'm saying and was probably my fault for picking up on that word unbroken and thinking it meant constant. I am trying to compare how we have constant fellowship with God through God being in us compared to how Adam did not have constant fellowship with God because God wasn't in him. When Adam chose to sin God wasn't right there, God wasn't with him at that moment, God also wasn't inside him. So to be more accurate I'm saying that Adam didn't have constant fellowship with God before Adam sinned. Once Adam sinned then his relationship with God changed, 1)He wasn't innocent anymore 2)He was removed from the Garden of Eden where he fellowshipped with God and also where the tree of life was.

And I just love how you ask for clarification to help us along, you are very good at that, thanks.

Thank you for clarifying.
Thank you for noticing I am making an effort to communicate in a way that seems to work better-- I have tried the sarcastic and assuming ways many times and they fail to reap the results desired. This means you are a reasonable person as well because one cannot reason with a madman(person) no matter how good at communicating one is. :P
(As I scratch the wall looking for worms)
http://i344.photobucket.com/albums/p354/JoleneSjodin/tunnuskuva/JustKidding-1.gif (http://media.photobucket.com/user/JoleneSjodin/media/tunnuskuva/JustKidding-1.gif.html)

I am reading the other thread too, so this is about where that discussion is as well, and why I believe seeing the big picture is excellent but problems can arise when, trying to see the individual small brushstrokes that make up that picture. There ARE dim/unclear areas still yet to be uncovered through scripture or God and so theology exists.
I say through God because Peter knew Jesus was The Messiah by whom? By God the Father. This is confirmed through scripture and The Body after the fact.

Matthew 16:15-17
He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.

I was reading and found myself going to John 14. This is where Jesus states He is the Way, The Truth and the Life.
I was trying to connect this with Jesus being The Tree of Life, and wondering if God breathing life into Adam to become a living soul was different than God giving us The Holy Spirit through belief in Jesus.
Were Adam and Eve given a choice to eat from The Tree of Life?
Why did they avoid it when it was not forbidden as the tree of knowledge of good and evil was?
Who was walking in the Garden? Jesus? God the Father? But the two are one...God came in the flesh. (Jesus)

John 14:1-11
“Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me. In my Father’s house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you?
And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also. And you know the way to where I am going.”
Thomas said to him, “Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?” Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
If you had known me, you would have known my Father also.
From now on you do know him and have seen him.” Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me?
The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.

I think I understand your view Christinme. I will ask this: If getting the boot out of the garden is being cursed/condemned how do you align us being just like Adam at birth with the scripture that states one man (Adam) through his transgression alone---brought condemnation to all? In other words, it isn't saying that each person decides to sin and that is what condemns him, it says that he is separated from God because of the sin of Adam.

Romans 5:18-19
Therefore, as one trespassed to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.

Scooby_Snacks
Dec 6th 2013, 08:08 PM
Adam did not have God in him as those reborn do, he may have communed with God but God was not in him. God is not in the "old man" God is in the "new man".

I wante dto take this a little further. I am reading discussion in the other thread but decided to place this here as well, because it does say something about the first Adam and the 2nd (Jesus) Discussing our resurrected bodies, but it adds some information to whether we die after Adam sinned spiritually and physically or it was always that way. I will say it is after Adam sinned that it is sown (the natural body) in dishonor.

Anyways this also shows that Adam was a natural being, a living soul on earth, but Christ was sown by God (emaculalte conception) not in iniquity, and is able to die and be raised again with a body that is imperishable (as well as though who believe this resurrection are His)because of His sin free conception and birth, sinless life, death, & burial.

1 Corinthians 15:42-49
So is it with the resurrection of the dead.
What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable.
It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory.
It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power.
It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual.
The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.
As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven.
Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.

Christinme
Dec 6th 2013, 08:31 PM
I am reading the other thread tooSo I guess you read I burned dinner and had to remake it.


I was reading and found myself going to John 14. This is where Jesus states He is the Way, The Truth and the Life.
I was trying to connect this with Jesus being The Tree of Life, and wondering if God breathing life into Adam to become a living soul was different than God giving us The Holy Spirit through belief in Jesus.I think so. Somewhere here I quoted about Romans 8:16 "The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God". So I think we have a spirit apart from the Holy Spirit. Also if it was the same Adam would have Christ in him and I don't think so, I don't think Adam was the "new man" who became the "old man".


Were Adam and Eve given a choice to eat from The Tree of Life?It was there.

Why did they avoid it when it was not forbidden as the tree of knowledge of good and evil was?I don't know why and haven't thought a lot about it.

Who was walking in the Garden? Jesus? God the Father? But the two are one...God came in the flesh. (Jesus)Another I don't know, haven't really contemplated much about that.


I think I understand your view Christinme. I will ask this: If getting the boot out of the garden is being cursed/condemned how do you align us being just like Adam at birth with the scripture that states one man (Adam) through his transgression alone---brought condemnation to all? In other words, it isn't saying that each person decides to sin and that is what condemns him, it says that he is separated from God because of the sin of Adam.Mankind was condemned, not just Adam and mankind was banished from the garden. Maybe I didn't make that clear earlier.

LookingUp
Dec 6th 2013, 08:36 PM
In the opening post, TrustGzus listed some Scriptures that he feels demonstrates the doctrine of original sin. In post #28, I went over each Scripture and showed how they do NOT demonstrate the doctrine of original sin. Does anyone want to comment on that?

Additionally, if that’s all we've got on the subject, why do we continue “chatting” and giving opinions without supporting our view directly from Scripture?

What passages demonstrate the doctrine of original sin?

LookingUp
Dec 6th 2013, 08:41 PM
My point is that I suspect you think we grow old and die because of sin. You won't answer it so far.Do you believe the tree of life gave eternal physical life or eternal spiritual life?

Christinme
Dec 6th 2013, 08:56 PM
In the opening post, TrustGzus listed some Scriptures that he feels demonstrates the doctrine of original sin. In post #28, I went over each Scripture and showed how they do NOT demonstrate the doctrine of original sin. Does anyone want to comment on that?

Additionally, if that’s all we've got on the subject, why do we continue “chatting” and giving opinions without supporting our view directly from Scripture?

What passages demonstrate the doctrine of original sin?Are you trying to say that SS and I are chatting and not supporting our opinions with Scripture???

Scooby_Snacks
Dec 6th 2013, 09:12 PM
So I guess you read I burned dinner and had to remake it.

DOH! I'm sorry that happened.

I have soup on that has to cook for a long time, so safe here, but need to get some things at the store so I hope to continue this in a bit.

Scooby_Snacks
Dec 6th 2013, 09:16 PM
In the opening post, TrustGzus listed some Scriptures that he feels demonstrates the doctrine of original sin. In post #28, I went over each Scripture and showed how they do NOT demonstrate the doctrine of original sin. Does anyone want to comment on that?

Additionally, if that’s all we've got on the subject, why do we continue “chatting” and giving opinions without supporting our view directly from Scripture?

What passages demonstrate the doctrine of original sin?

I have posted a few but you would have to read the rest of my post to see the interpretation of them.
#58 and #59, I will have to look back to find if I posted any others.

LookingUp
Dec 6th 2013, 09:16 PM
Are you trying to say that SS and I are chatting and not supporting our opinions with Scripture???Sorry...that did come off like that, didn't it? It's not that you aren't supporting your opinions (actually, I largely agree with what you've been posting), it's that this particular line of discussion will never get us to answering the original post in the most DIRECT way possible, and somewhere along the way, the most helpful posts will be lost in the pages and any seekers who come upon the thread will give up long before they get to the pages that answer their question. I guess I'm tainted by all the rabbit trails I see on these threads, and it's a shame because some topics are rather important. So, the question is: "Is the doctrine of original sin BIBLICAL?" It would seem that the most direct way to answer that question would be to put up the specific Scriptures people use to support the doctrine and then see if those Scriptures are being interpreted properly.

What you guys are discussing, although interesting, is more of the peripheral stuff surrounding the doctrine of original sin. And it boils down to whose opinion is more well supported rather than Scripture directly teaching a doctrine or Scripture directly opposing a doctrine.

Christinme
Dec 6th 2013, 09:23 PM
Sorry...that did come off like that, didn't it? It's not that you aren't supporting your opinions (actually, I largely agree with what you've been posting), it's that this particular line of discussion will never get us to answering the original post in the most DIRECT way possible, and somewhere along the way, the most helpful posts will be lost in the pages and any seekers who come upon the thread will give up long before they get to the pages that answer their question. I guess I'm tainted by all the rabbit trails I see on these threads, and it's a shame because some topics are rather important. So, the question is: "Is the doctrine of original sin BIBLICAL?" It would seem that the most direct way to answer that question would be to put up the specific Scriptures people use to support the doctrine and then see if those Scriptures are being interpreted properly.

What you guys are discussing, although interesting, is more of the peripheral stuff surrounding the doctrine of original sin. And it boils down to whose opinion is more well supported rather than Scripture directly teaching a doctrine or Scripture directly opposing a doctrine.Sometimes the most direct way is not the most illuminated way. And most of us are usually just giving our interpretation of Scripture anyways, although some may think their interpretation is always the truth. I'll check out your post again for the third time and see what comments I have on it.

LookingUp
Dec 6th 2013, 09:25 PM
If getting the boot out of the garden is being cursed/condemned how do you align us being just like Adam at birth with the scripture that states one man (Adam) through his transgression alone---brought condemnation to all? In other words, it isn't saying that each person decides to sin and that is what condemns him, it says that he is separated from God because of the sin of Adam.No, it doesn’t say he is separated from God; it says he is separated from the Garden. We feel the effects of Adam’s sin (i.e. no Garden), but we don’t experience spiritual death until we, personally, sin (cf. Rom. 7).


Romans 5:18-19
Therefore, as one trespassed to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. Romans 5:18
If the one act of transgression automatically resulted in condemnation to ALL men (first half of the parallel), then the one act of obedience automatically resulted in justification to ALL men (second half of parallel). We must give equal fairness to both sides of the parallel.

Romans 5:19
Another parallel. If one man’s disobedience automatically made all men sinners, then one man’s obedience automatically made all men righteous. Equal fairness to both sides of the parallel.


1 Corinthians 15:42-49
This simply compares the dead to the raised. This says nothing on the doctrine of original sin.

LookingUp
Dec 6th 2013, 09:30 PM
Sometimes the most direct way is not the most illuminated way.But...it's the most biblical way. In other words, we need to be able to offer specific Scripture which answers these questions rather than giving our overall perception of what we think may be going on in Scripture.

Christinme
Dec 6th 2013, 09:32 PM
Romans 5:12
When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. And when Adam sinned, (spiritual) death entered the world. Prior to that death/decay existed…unless you don’t believe that plants die. And so, it is written, (spiritual) death began to spread to all men. Why? It is written, “because all sinned.” Compare Adam’s experience with spiritual death as a result of his personal sin with Paul’s experience with spiritual death as a result of his personal sin (Romans 7).

Romans 5:16
This says that judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation (in general) just as the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification (in general). All aren’t automatically condemned any more than all are automatically justified. People have to actually do something before they’re condemned and people actually have to do something before they’re justified.

Eternal condemnation is a consequence of transgressing the law (i.e. sin, cf. 1 John 3:4) and justification is a result of receiving the free gift. The individual has to "do” something in both cases.

Romans 5:18
If the one act of transgression automatically resulted in condemnation to ALL men (first half of the parallel), then the one act of obedience automatically resulted in justification to ALL men (second half of parallel). We must give equal fairness to both sides of the parallel.

Romans 5:19
Another parallel. If one man’s disobedience automatically made all men sinners, then one man’s obedience automatically made all men righteous. Equal fairness to both sides of the parallel.

Psalm 51:5
This entire passage is dripping with hyperbole which characteristically emerges from a heart of genuine anguish and guilt. And the use of such hyperbole was extremely common in Hebraic poetry. David is using this poetic device in order to suggest that sin had characterized his entire life. It reminds me of Job when he exaggerates his righteousness in an effort to demonstrate his genuine belief that his hardships aren't due to anything he’s done wrong. In this similar poetic section, Job says, “from my youth he grew up with me as a father, and from infancy I guided her” (Job 31:18). If we were to take this literally, we’d have to believe that Job hopped out of his mother’s womb and began guiding this widow. Do we really want to derive theology from Psalms (cf. Psalm 137:8-9)? David’s image of himself as spotless king has been crushed. A friend beautifully wrote, “From his exalted self-concept as impeccable righteous king, the pendulum swings to the other extreme: worthless sinner. His sin is so profoundly a part of him, it’s his entire identity, from his very conception.” It’s simply a hyperbolic description for effect, not some literal, theological statement. I’m willing to consider that some underlying theology that could possibly be derived from this is that mankind is bent toward sin; but we’re all “born sinners” is not what David is suggesting.

What other passages? If you could list them one at a time and give your personal commentary, then we can do the same.Well I pretty much agree with this, probably why I didn't comment in the first place.

Christinme
Dec 6th 2013, 09:33 PM
But...it's the most biblical way. In other words, we need to be able to offer specific Scripture which answers these questions rather than giving our overall perception of what we think may be going on in Scripture.Now this is a real rabbit trail. Who says the most direct way is the biblical way, I would think the biblical way is the way that illuminates the most ...

Curtis
Dec 6th 2013, 10:28 PM
Because of Adam's sin the whole world has been tainted with sin. It is a disease that lays dormant in its place of abode, until the Word of God exposes it for what it is. As the Apostle Paul said. Rom 7:7 "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet." Rom 7:8 " But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead." Rom 7:9 "For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died." This disease is undetectable to those who have it until the light of God's Word reveals it's location in the heart of its victims. Once it has been exposed it revives back to life. Where does sin get it's strength, and right to condemn? 1Co 15:56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. God's Word is sins right, and strength to condemn man in his fallen nature. God's Kingdom is a Kingdom of laws that God him self can not go back on. The penalty for sin must be paid, for there is no other way to get out from under it hold on man. Man must die for being a sinner. We did die on the cross with Christ. I am crucified with Christ nevertheless I live yet not I but Christ that lives in me. We have died to the law so that we can be married to another.

LookingUp
Dec 6th 2013, 10:54 PM
Curtis,
Your post above is opinion. Scripture does not say sin is a disease. Scripture says sin is transgression of the law (1 John 3:4).

LookingUp
Dec 6th 2013, 10:59 PM
Now this is a real rabbit trail. Who says the most direct way is the biblical way, I would think the biblical way is the way that illuminates the most ...Christinme, I'm saying that direct Scripture clearly defining doctrine is more biblical than opinion. If you feel your well-thought-out opinions are more enlightening than direct Scripture, so be it.

Do you notice the difference between post #72 and post #73? Post #72 gives a great deal of rhetoric trying to show us how he comes to the conclusion that sin is a disease. Post #73 simply gives a verse to show what sin is. I'm not saying commentary is never needed. I'm just saying why muddy something up when it's already clear?

Christinme
Dec 6th 2013, 11:05 PM
Christinme, I'm saying that direct Scripture clearly defining doctrine is more biblical than opinion. If you feel your well-thought out opinions are more enlightening than direct Scripture, so be it.I gave a number of direct scripture however AGAIN most of us including you are giving our interpretation of those Scriptures. The doctrine isn't easily clearly disproved or clearly proved. If it was then everyone would be in instant agreement.

Curtis
Dec 6th 2013, 11:12 PM
Curtis, Your post above is opinion. Scripture does not say sin is a disease. Scripture says sin is transgression of the law (1 John 3:4). If the Apostle said that sin killed him is that not a disease?

LookingUp
Dec 6th 2013, 11:29 PM
If the Apostle said that sin killed him is that not a disease?No, that doesn't mean it's a disease. Lots of things kill that aren't diseases. If we wanted to compare sin metaphorically to something, I'd go more along the lines of it being a weapon, since it’s compared to the “sting” of death (1 Cor. 15:56). Metaphorically, death is our adversary out to kill us and he does so with his sting, which is sin. According to this verse, this weapon, called "sin," gets its power through the law. Where there is no law, sin loses its power. Again, 1 John 3:4 tells us that sin is transgression of the law. Death is sometimes personified in Scripture, such as, "I looked, and behold, an ashen horse; and he who sat on it had the name Death; and Hades was following him. Authority was given to them over a forth of the earth, to kill...".

Scooby_Snacks
Dec 7th 2013, 12:07 AM
No, it doesn’t say he is separated from God; it says he is separated from the Garden. We feel the effects of Adam’s sin (i.e. no Garden), but we don’t experience spiritual death until we, personally, sin (cf. Rom. 7).

Romans 5:18
If the one act of transgression automatically resulted in condemnation to ALL men (first half of the parallel), then the one act of obedience automatically resulted in justification to ALL men (second half of parallel). We must give equal fairness to both sides of the parallel.

I don't see a problem to giving equal fairness. :hmm:

What did Adam sow? Sowing is action. What action did Adam take (sin) and what did it bring about?(corruption/death)
And if what He sowed condemned all men, what is that condemnation? That a person can still have fellowship with God, just not in the garden?
I have to say no, it was completely broken relationship which was spiritual, and perhaps even physical, meaning that they heard God walking in the Garden. This is a physical sense.

I guess I am not understanding how you personally connect condemnation to not being spiritual and physical death, so I will re-read the entire thread.


Romans 5:19
Another parallel. If one man’s disobedience automatically made all men sinners, then one man’s obedience automatically made all men righteous. Equal fairness to both sides of the parallel.

I believe this "fairness" issue is dealt with in verses 15-17.
My interpretation:
It is unfair for all to be condemned through Adam's one sin, and even more unfair for many more to receive justification for multiple transgressions through One man's lack thereof. (Christ).

But the free gift is not like the trespass.
For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.
And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin.
For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification.
For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.



This simply compares the dead to the raised. This says nothing on the doctrine of original sin.
Speaking of 1 Corinthians 15, I believe it does give an answer:

If God created/made man upright: Adam. How is it Adam sowed righteousness in His children from His corrupted state?
It is not the act of conception or birth, or the manner of having sexual relations that are given by God, but the sin that is within each person already that makes the body full of iniquity, or dishonor.
What Adam sowed (sin) in the garden brought death and condemnation to all men.
Condemnation = spiritual separation from God, and sin= corruption/death at the root of what God created.

I believe, at least it is my opinion that this scripture states that what is sown concerning our physical bodies that are as Adam's physical body, yet not created by God from the dust but sown after Adam's sin are: v43 sown in dishonor and sown in weakness;v44"It is sown a natural body"--

Regardless of whether it has to do with resurrection or not, it still shows that after Adam all others were sown rather than created.
Gods hand is always in creation, but this does coincide with Psalm 51, anyways.

What I did notice is that this being a part of the essentials is more than difficult to include because there is such division concerning it. :P

LookingUp
Dec 7th 2013, 01:06 AM
I don't see a problem to giving equal fairness. If you’re a universalist (where one believes all men will be saved unconditionally), then it won’t be a problem; because if all men are automatically/unconditionally condemned (according to Rom. 5:18) because of one act of transgression, then all men are automatically/unconditionally justified by one act of obedience.


What did Adam sow? Sowing is action. What action did Adam take (sin) and what did it bring about?(corruption/death) Adam’s action (transgression) brought about condemnation. When we disobediently transgress the law, we are condemned. Jesus’ action (obedience) brought about justification. When we obediently put our faith in Jesus, we are justified. Condemnation is no more automatic and unconditional than justification is. We have to actually DO something to be condemned and we have to actually DO something to be justified.


And if what He sowed condemned all men, what is that condemnation?If what Adam sowed universally and unconditionally condemned all men to eternal death, then what Jesus sowed universally and unconditionally justified all men unto eternal life. Again, the two men, Adam and Jesus, are placed in parallel positions in these passages. If we’re are going to command that one half of the verse means “universal condemnation” then we must also be willing to say that the other half is truly parallel: universal justification. I’m not willing to do that, since I know Scripture opposes that teaching.


That a person can still have fellowship with God, just not in the garden? That’s conjecture. Scripture says they were removed from the Garden. They continued to fellowship with God after they were removed from the Garden—we see God interacting with men all throughout the OT.


I believe this "fairness" issue is dealt with in verses 15-17.
My interpretation:
It is unfair for all to be condemned through Adam's one sin, and even more unfair for many more to receive justification for multiple transgressions through One man's lack thereof. (Christ).Romans 5:18 says that His one act resulted justification of life to ALL men. Since we know this is not automatic and unconditional (i.e. we must DO something for that to happen—put our faith in Jesus), then we KNOW that Paul is not speaking universally here. Condemnation is no more automatic and unconditional than justification is. We have to give equal weight to the parallel. If we don’t, we aren’t being true to the parallel.


If God created/made man upright: Adam. How is it Adam sowed righteousness in His children from His corrupted state? What corrupted state? What does that mean? And where is that in Scripture? Upright men make mistakes all the time. “There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job; and that man was blameless, upright, fearing God and turning away from evil” (Job 1:1).


the sin that is within each person already that makes the body full of iniquity, or dishonor.Sin is an action, not a noun. It’s not literally “in” someone like some kind of disease. It’s simply transgression of the law (1 John 3:4).


What Adam sowed (sin) in the garden brought death and condemnation to all men. You get that from Romans 5, right? So, then, to be fair with that passage, what Jesus sowed (obedience) on the cross brought life and justification to ALL men, universally and unconditionally. You can’t have the first half of the parallel mean what you’d like it to mean and have the second half of the parallel mean something different. That’s simply not giving equal fairness to the text.


it still shows that after Adam all others were sown rather than created. Huh? No, it doesn’t. That’s reading an awful lot into the text that just isn’t there. Adam died. This passage is about the resurrection of the dead and that includes Adam.

Curtis
Dec 7th 2013, 01:23 AM
The Garden in which Adam Eve lived was the environment in which they communed with the Lord. Any enemy who wants to destroy someone must first destroy their command and control where they get there orders from. Adam received his orders form the Lord. Satan knew this so he found a away into the garden so he could deceive Eve. Adam's first disobedience was not in eating from the tree that God commanded him not to, but in his not obeying God in keeping (guarding) the garden from intruders. If Adam was obedient in this there would not have been a temptation to sin for them both.

LookingUp
Dec 7th 2013, 01:44 AM
Curtis,
Although there may be some truth to what you say above, there is simply no way to know, since it's not written in such a way in Scripture.

Again, the opening post wants to know if original sin is biblical? If so, Scripture, please.

ewq1938
Dec 7th 2013, 02:07 AM
Psalms 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me. (NASB)

I had to look up iniquity here, lol. He was brought forth in this world that is not the garden of Eden, in this world where mankind is condemned by God because of Adam's sin. And I believe in the old testament that even though God may not have condemned all (even though all were under His condemnation), all where still the "old man". So his mother was still the "old man" whose nature it is to sin.

That's my understanding for what it's worth and is open to changing however at this time that is what I see.

Keep in mind that scripture is David speaking solely about himself, no one else.

ewq1938
Dec 7th 2013, 02:15 AM
I will answer the question as I see it.
There is nothing before Adams sin that states life has numbered years or that there is any pain in life.

Nothing says he is immortal and won't feel pain either. His job is to work in a garden tilling etc. That's not easy work. It's farming.



Growing old is painful, childbirth is painful, life in general can be painful and yet Adam and Eve had no idea what pain was until sin entered into the picture.

Why do you think child birth wouldn't be painful before their sin? God said he would INCREASE pain of childbirth, so it was already meant to be painful.



I believe this death from Adam's Sin was both spiritual and physical-- Separation from God (getting the boot from the Garden) and cursed with decay (physical death- returning to the earth)

Scripture states Adam would die the day he sinned, and he did not die physically so that is clear evidence the death given to him was a spiritual death not a physical one. Nothing is stated his human body would die as punishment for sin.





Genesis 3:17-19
And to Adam he said,

“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife
and have eaten of the tree
of which I commanded you,
‘You shall not eat of it,’
cursed is the ground because of you;
in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
18 thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;
and you shall eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your face
you shall eat bread,
till you return to the ground,
for out of it you were taken;
for you are dust,
and to dust you shall return.”

Comparing this to the death he died when he sinned, which wasn't death, we should conclude physical death as being a normal result of the end of a lifetime. His punishment is the hard life he would live, not death which ends the punishment of a hard life. Death is a reward for those who live such hard lives.






[COLOR=#000000]The ground was Adams beginning and it became his end. What was once good, (the ground where Adam was taken from, his physical beginnings) was now cursed.

Symbolic language. God didn't literally curse the ground since the ground is not capable of sinning nor dd anything wrong. It just means growing food out of the ground, and general life of a farmer would be very difficult.

ewq1938
Dec 7th 2013, 02:22 AM
Do you believe the tree of life gave eternal physical life or eternal spiritual life?


(GW) Then the LORD God said, "The man has become like one of us, since he knows good and evil. He must not reach out and take the fruit from the tree of life and eat. Then he would live forever."


According to God, it's living forever and God does not want Adam to be able to live forever.

LookingUp
Dec 7th 2013, 02:29 AM
Okay, thanks for the clarification, ewq.

By the way, I'm enjoying your logical responses in this thread and your insistence that things be supported directly with Scripture.

ewq1938
Dec 7th 2013, 02:39 AM
It is a disease that lays dormant in its place of abode, until the Word of God exposes it for what it is.


That's like saying bank robbery is a disease some people are born with.

ewq1938
Dec 7th 2013, 02:42 AM
Okay, thanks for the clarification, ewq.

By the way, I'm enjoying your logical responses in this thread and your insistence that things be supported directly with Scripture.


You have made very solid arguments, especially like the equal parallel part for that one verse.

Scooby_Snacks
Dec 7th 2013, 03:12 AM
Hey I am glad LookingUp and ewq are getting along superbly!
Even if we do not agree-- and I listen and read very carefully, this is still a very good conversation.
I will respond to you a little later ewq, I have this very long response to LookingUp atm.


If you’re a universalist (where one believes all men will be saved unconditionally), then it won’t be a problem; because if all men are automatically/unconditionally condemned (according to Rom. 5:18) because of one act of transgression, then all men are automatically/unconditionally justified by one act of obedience.

Adam’s action (transgression) brought about condemnation. When we disobediently transgress the law, we are condemned. Jesus’ action (obedience) brought about justification. When we obediently put our faith in Jesus, we are justified. Condemnation is no more automatic and unconditional than justification is. We have to actually DO something to be condemned and we have to actually DO something to be justified.


If what Adam sowed universally and unconditionally condemned all men to eternal death, then what Jesus sowed universally and unconditionally justified all men unto eternal life. Again, the two men, Adam and Jesus, are placed in parallel positions in these passages. If we’re are going to command that one half of the verse means “universal condemnation” then we must also be willing to say that the other half is truly parallel: universal justification. I’m not willing to do that, since I know Scripture opposes that teaching.

You are very strong in your convictions. There is nothing wrong with that. Since this is truly a debate, I will give (hopefully my last bit) on the subject, knowing just how very little I have looked at it thus far, it seems scripture lines up to me regarding original sin more than not.

I understand you are unwilling, but I do not agree to add to the verses as you described giving them completely different meaning.
If we are all in Adam, or in other words: we all agree that sin brings death, and we all sin, without hope not to sin, regardless of how hard anyone tries no one has accomplished this except for Jesus who was Born of God, and not of man.
This is logical in that it shows that it is impossible not to sin as a natural man which is what we all are from Adam.
We sin from youth, which tells me that accountability is pretty much a shoe in-- we have to learn right from wrong (law) before we know we have committed sin, but that does not mean that sins committed before knowing the law are also erased. They become active once we understand right from wrong, not inactive.

Jesus dying for all is true. The free gift must be accepted when it is offered.
It would not be a gift if we earned it in any way through obedience--We are saved by Grace.
He did die to justify all- But not all will accept this gift, thus condemning themselves.


That’s conjecture. Scripture says they were removed from the Garden. They continued to fellowship with God after they were removed from the Garden—we see God interacting with men all throughout the OT.


Interacting from a distance, but not intimately as they were in the garden.
He did not stop loving us, but we had nothing to bridge the gap of death sin left between us.
I do believe there is a difference.
Jesus did not really have to die to bring us back into spiritual life from spiritual death, if in fact, someone would be capable and just obey God--which never did and never was going to happen.
God did not make us to fail, we failed Him after He made us.
We decided, whether it was influence from Satan or a mate, the relational influence of someone other than God was stronger than God’s influence, and so He was upset He made us. He is a jealous God!

And that one mans failure secured the rest of mankind in the same. We do not pay for the sin of Adam. It isn’t like paying for the sins of our fathers who are now held accountable for their own actions. It is more far reaching to have a nature that has been corrupted (or changed from it’s original perfect state) because sin entered one man and brought His death. He can no longer pass on life to his children if he himself is dead.


What corrupted state? What does that mean? And where is that in Scripture? Upright men make mistakes all the time. “There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job; and that man was blameless, upright, fearing God and turning away from evil” (Job 1:1).

Corruption is going from one state to another in a negative sense, from serving its function, to being dysfunctional.
God did not create Adam to sin, but gave him the ability to choose who to serve. He did not chose God.
God did not allow his Holy One (Jesus) to see corruption. His Glory is the opposite of it.
Jobs uprightness came from having Faith in God (He believed God) which justified him.
Faith comes from hearing God and believing what He says. Job sinned, but was justified by faith.


Sin is an action, not a noun. It’s not literally “in” someone like some kind of disease. It’s simply transgression of the law (1 John 3:4).

Sin brought death. Adam went from life to death in one day. He could not bring himself back to life in order for his children to be brought into life, or their children etc.


Huh? No, it doesn’t. That’s reading an awful lot into the text that just isn’t there. Adam died. This passage is about the resurrection of the dead and that includes Adam.

I do not believe I read into the text, (I did not add to it) but found something I had not seen already in it before.

Scooby_Snacks
Dec 7th 2013, 03:47 AM
Nothing says he is immortal and won't feel pain either. His job is to work in a garden tilling etc. That's not easy work. It's farming.




Why do you think child birth wouldn't be painful before their sin? God said he would INCREASE pain of childbirth, so it was already meant to be painful.

Consider this: Eve had yet to have children. She had no idea what if any pain childbirth might bring, let alone feeling the pain over her sin, God rebuking her sharply in His Holy displeasure, along with this pain He added to her shame and God's curse an increased pain of having rebellious murdering children and morning over the death of them at their own hands.





Scripture states Adam would die the day he sinned, and he did not die physically so that is clear evidence the death given to him was a spiritual death not a physical one. Nothing is stated his human body would die as punishment for sin.

He did eventually die physically, (and I fully agree he died spiritually that day) and life has become shorter and shorter over time.
In regard to the physical death as part of the sin (which is death none the less) I will continue to seek this, however, I am not convinced just yet.







Comparing this to the death he died when he sinned, which wasn't death, we should conclude physical death as being a normal result of the end of a lifetime. His punishment is the hard life he would live, not death which ends the punishment of a hard life. Death is a reward for those who live such hard lives.


Not when it is eternal condemnation! One would wish to live longer, I would think.





Symbolic language. God didn't literally curse the ground since the ground is not capable of sinning nor dd anything wrong. It just means growing food out of the ground, and general life of a farmer would be very difficult.

But the earth has been groaning for it's adoption ever since the fall?

"For we know that the whole creation groans and travails in pain together until now. And not only they—but ourselves also who have the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, namely, the redemption of our body!" Romans 8:22- 23

ewq1938
Dec 7th 2013, 04:27 AM
Consider this: Eve had yet to have children. She had no idea what if any pain childbirth might bring, let alone feeling the pain over her sin, God rebuking her sharply in His Holy displeasure,

You miss my point. Childbirth was never going to be painless, even in the garden. Only being cast from it, was pain of childbirth INCREASED to more pain than it would have been. You claimed there would be no pain in the garden, that cannot be true.




along with this pain He added to her shame and God's curse an increased pain of having rebellious murdering children and morning over the death of them at their own hands.


They didn't murder anyone. No one has died a physical death because of what they did, not even them.




He did eventually die physically, (and I fully agree he died spiritually that day) and life has become shorter and shorter over time.

As soon as we mortal being begin to live, we also begin to age and die. It was true for Adam as well.



In regard to the physical death as part of the sin (which is death none the less) I will continue to seek this, however, I am not convinced just yet.

Death is cessation of life. When we die a physical death, only our body dies but nothing else does so it's only a partial death. True death is cessation of all life, like when people are cast into the lake of fire.



Not when it is eternal condemnation! One would wish to live longer, I would think.

Hard to know unless you are facing eternal death when you die physically.




But the earth has been groaning for it's adoption ever since the fall?

No. The Earth has no emotions and is not alive in the sense animals and humans are.

LookingUp
Dec 7th 2013, 05:57 AM
Hey I am glad LookingUp and ewq are getting along superbly!Well, I don’t know about “getting along” but his reasoning does resonate with my logical approach. :-)


Even if we do not agree—Oh, you will end up agreeing with us. …just kidding.


and I listen and read very carefully, this is still a very good conversation.Yeah, it is pretty good, actually.


I will respond to you a little later ewq, I have this very long response to LookingUp atm.Yay! My turn! :-)


You are very strong in your convictions.Some. I think the way I write does come off that way, though.


There is nothing wrong with that. Since this is truly a debate, I will give (hopefully my last bit) on the subject, knowing just how very little I have looked at it thus far, it seems scripture lines up to me regarding original sin more than not.Okay, I’m going to do my best to read the Scripture you offer and truly see if I can honestly see how it demonstrates the doctrine of original sin.


I understand you are unwilling, but I do not agree to add to the verses as you described giving them completely different meaning.This sentence is unclear to me. I’m saying that if you choose to not give equal weight to both sides of the parallel, you end up changing the meaning of the verse.


If we are all in Adam, or in other words: we all agree that sin brings death,Personal sin brings spiritual death, right? And spiritual death culminates in eternal condemnation, right? Are we agreed on those two things?


and we all sin, without hope not to sin, regardless of how hard anyone tries no one has accomplished this except for Jesus who was Born of God, and not of man.
This is logical in that it shows that it is impossible not to sin as a natural man which is what we all are from Adam.Agreed. But you’re using a lot of unnecessary jargon, in my opinion, which complicates it. We all sin because we have a human nature (i.e. natural man) just like Adam did before (& after) he sinned. We’re all human like Adam. He had desires and when given a particular opportunity, he was tempted and he gave into that temptation and sinned. We do nothing differently than Adam did.


We sin from youth, which tells me that accountability is pretty much a shoe in-- we have to learn right from wrong (law) before we know we have committed sin, but that does not mean that sins committed before knowing the law are also erased. They become active once we understand right from wrong, not inactive.Adam also sinned from youth, as far as we can tell. In other words, it was not long after he was created that he sinned, which is similar to how we behave. But here’s the thing. As you say, we have to know right from wrong (law) before we know we have committed sin. Paul mentions this in Romans 7 when he says that when he became aware of the law, he realized he broke it and, at that moment, sin became alive and he died. I suppose that this means that one can sin and not know it (i.e. young children), but the point Paul makes is that it’s CONSCIOUS sin that killed him. So, even if young children sin, it can’t kill them until they are conscious they are transgressing the law. If no law whatsoever had been introduced to Adam (i.e. “Do not eat from the tree”), then Adam would not have been killed (i.e. spiritually died) through the law by his sin. Oh, maybe he would have been "innocently" sinning as children do, but this "innocent" sin would be powerless, because it's only through the law that sin has any power to kill.


Jesus dying for all is true.Romans 5 doesn’t say Jesus died for all; it says that his one act of obedience resulted in justification to all men (Rom. 5:18).


The free gift must be accepted when it is offered. Agreed. We actually have to DO something to be justified—we have to accept the gift.


It would not be a gift if we earned it in any way through obedience--We are saved by Grace.It is an act of obedience when we accept the gift of grace (cf. Romans 1:5; 16:25-26). That doesn’t mean we earn it.


He did die to justify all- But not all will accept this gift, thus condemning themselves.Romans 5:18 says that his one act of obedience resulted in justification to ALL men. Now, you’re absolutely right—we must accept the gift in order for His justification to become effective for us. BUT we are obligated to treat the other half of the parallel in THE SAME MANNER. It is dishonest with the text to say, “Well, we have to accept the gift in order for his justification to apply to us, but in that other half of the verse, it doesn’t mean that at all. It means we don’t have to do anything in order to be condemned…oh, no, man is simply universally and unconditionally condemned because of the transgression of one man."

“So then as through one transgression there resulted in condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men” (Rom. 5:18).

We must treat both sides of the parallel equally.

We know Paul did not mean that all men are universally justified by one act of obedience. And, equally so, we know that Paul did not mean that all men are universally condemned by one act of transgression.

Are you willing to give equal weight to both sides of the parallel? Or will you continue to say that the first half means that men must accept the gift before being justified but the second half means that men are condemned without doing anything at all?


Interacting from a distance, but not intimately as they were in the garden.Moses was face to face with God. How much more intimate can one get? Adam was removed from the pleasure and ease of the Garden and placed in a more difficult situation. He still had fellowship with God.


And that one mans failure secured the rest of mankind in the same. We do not pay for the sin of Adam. It isn’t like paying for the sins of our fathers who are now held accountable for their own actions. It is more far reaching to have a nature that has been corrupted (or changed from it’s original perfect state) because sin entered one man and brought His death. He can no longer pass on life to his children if he himself is dead.I’m trying to see what you’re seeing, but I just can’t reconcile the character of God with the idea that a man can pass on spiritual life or spiritual death. Spiritual death is the result of personal sin, so how can you pass that on? Spiritual life is the result of personal faith, so how can you pass that on?

Babies are no more corrupt than Adam before Adam sinned. He did nothing differently than we do. He sinned when tempted. We sin when tempted. Given enough time and opportunity, a human creature will act on the desires that are aroused by the opportunity and he/she will sin, because we choose to follow our flesh (as Adam did) rather than trust the sufficiency of God.


Corruption is going from one state to another in a negative sense, from serving its function, to being dysfunctional. By this definition, Adam was created corrupt, because he went from one state (obedience) to another (disobedience) from serving his function to being dysfunctional.


God did not create Adam to sin,But he did sin. Was he corrupt? No! But he was still able to sin, just as we do.


but gave him the ability to choose who to serve. And we are given the same ability: “Choose this day whom you will serve…but for me and my house, we will serve the LORD” (Joshua 24:15).

LookingUp
Dec 7th 2013, 06:00 AM
You have made very solid arguments, especially like the equal parallel part for that one verse.
Why, thank you. I guess Scooby is right, we are getting along superbly. LOL! No worries. Given enough time, I'm sure we'll find something to disagree on. ;-)

ewq1938
Dec 7th 2013, 06:04 AM
Why, thank you. I guess Scooby is right, we are getting along superbly. LOL! No worries. Given enough time, I'm sure we'll find something to disagree on. ;-)

I was gonna offer to buy lunch until I saw you do agree we're getting along lol

We disagree on some things but I know we agree on far more. Anyways, on this subject you got it right lol *wink*

ewq1938
Dec 7th 2013, 06:08 AM
Moses was face to face with God.

Actually, it was face to hand...and then face to, uh, backside (clothed of course). God is not a nudist lol

Christinme
Dec 7th 2013, 07:05 AM
And that one mans failure secured the rest of mankind in the same. We do not pay for the sin of Adam. It isn’t like paying for the sins of our fathers who are now held accountable for their own actions. It is more far reaching to have a nature that has been corrupted (or changed from it’s original perfect state) because sin entered one man and brought His death. He can no longer pass on life to his children if he himself is dead.This caught my eye here the part I bolded. Does that mean a born again Christian will pass on life to his children IN BIRTH because the parent is alive? I don't think so, the children born to those who are already born again and the children born to those who aren't born again ... both "types" of children are the same, they have to go through the same process, both types are still the "old man" and must become born again to receive the "new man". Such life cannot be passed on from birth. Again I see this as how God design things.

1 Corinthians 15:47 The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven. (NASB)

Adam/first/"old man" compared to Christ/second/"new man". Again I don't see Adam being created the "new man" who then became the "old man". I see him being created the "old man" whose nature it was to sin. We are born the "old man" even if our parents are born again Christians and have LIFE in them. Such life is not passed on through birth. That's how I see it.

Scooby_Snacks
Dec 7th 2013, 02:04 PM
This sentence is unclear to me. I’m saying that if you choose to not give equal weight to both sides of the parallel, you end up changing the meaning of the verse.

I disagree. The fairness issue is dealt with in the same chapter prior to in the verses as I previously described.
One man (Jesus) dying for quantum leaps of sins is not unfair compared to the one sin of one man(Adam) condemning all. Certainly there is a reason this clarification, and the word fairness was even used

Either Paul is being sarcastic (and I do not believe he is doing that here) or the scripture reads as it reads.
To state it cannot read this way, it must read this way is to change it.
It may seems fair to you and fits with your doctrinal position, but it changes what the scripture says.
I understand your position, but that does not mean it lines up, it means it is logical to you.



Personal sin brings spiritual death, right? And spiritual death culminates in eternal condemnation, right? Are we agreed on those two things?

Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Each person is still held accountable for their own personal sin.


Agreed. But you’re using a lot of unnecessary jargon, in my opinion, which complicates it. We all sin because we have a human nature (i.e. natural man) just like Adam did before (& after) he sinned. We’re all human like Adam. He had desires and when given a particular opportunity, he was tempted and he gave into that temptation and sinned. We do nothing differently than Adam did.


Yes I was trying to use the terms in order to bring understanding to my point.
As in 1 Corinthians 15, which I still believe connects, Adam, the very first human had absolutely no sin.
He was pure. I understand you agree with this purity, but disagree on what God's Word states about his sin effecting the rest of creation.

Romans 5:14
Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

This scripture places Adam as a type of Jesus, and so even without complete understanding what that means, I can say without a doubt this makes Adam not exactly the same of each one of us, (as is your position) or we too would be types of Jesus.
I believe it is because Adams beginnings were absolutely unblemished, unlike ours.
Even the state of our earth is blemished by sin, but Adam had also been raised and was growing in an atmosphere of purity and perfection, unlike us.
Just as Jesus beginning and end was absolutely unblemished, but he did this within an atmosphere that was riddled with evil and sin.




Adam also sinned from youth, as far as we can tell. In other words, it was not long after he was created that he sinned, which is similar to how we behave.

I would say that he and Eve were mature enough to understand God's speech toward them regarding childbirth, and that tells me they were young adults.


But here’s the thing. As you say, we have to know right from wrong (law) before we know we have committed sin. Paul mentions this in Romans 7 when he says that when he became aware of the law, he realized he broke it and, at that moment, sin became alive and he died. I suppose that this means that one can sin and not know it (i.e. young children), but the point Paul makes is that it’s CONSCIOUS sin that killed him. So, even if young children sin, it can’t kill them until they are conscious they are transgressing the law. If no law whatsoever had been introduced to Adam (i.e. “Do not eat from the tree”), then Adam would not have been killed (i.e. spiritually died) through the law by his sin.

That is what I stated.
We already have the law, and Adam would not have "died" if God had not given them the directive to abstain or die.


Oh, maybe he would have been "innocently" sinning as children do, but this "innocent" sin would be powerless, because it's only through the law that sin has any power to kill.

He would not have been sinning at all with no law/directive.
It is different because we do have laws today.



Romans 5 doesn’t say Jesus died for all; it says that his one act of obedience resulted in justification to all men (Rom. 5:18).

I may have misquoted, but the fullness of the scripture still remains unchanged.
One man was disobedient, and Jesus fixed (all of that one things consequences) by doing one obedient thing.


Agreed. We actually have to DO something to be justified—we have to accept the gift.

It is an act of obedience when we accept the gift of grace (cf. Romans 1:5; 16:25-26). That doesn’t mean we earn it.

By not accepting the gift does not mean the blood of Jesus stops justifying all, it means the blood is rejected.


Romans 5:18 says that his one act of obedience resulted in justification to ALL men. Now, you’re absolutely right—we must accept the gift in order for His justification to become effective for us. BUT we are obligated to treat the other half of the parallel in THE SAME MANNER. It is dishonest with the text to say, “Well, we have to accept the gift in order for his justification to apply to us, but in that other half of the verse, it doesn’t mean that at all. It means we don’t have to do anything in order to be condemned…oh, no, man is simply universally and unconditionally condemned because of the transgression of one man."

“So then as through one transgression there resulted in condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men” (Rom. 5:18).

We must treat both sides of the parallel equally.


The fairness issue discussed is not being applied in your view, but discarded as unacceptable because it will not line up with free will.


We know Paul did not mean that all men are universally justified by one act of obedience. And, equally so, we know that Paul did not mean that all men are universally condemned by one act of transgression.

Are you willing to give equal weight to both sides of the parallel? Or will you continue to say that the first half means that men must accept the gift before being justified but the second half means that men are condemned without doing anything at all?

I will say that the scripture stands as it is written and I will not re-write it for the sake of a doctrine.


Moses was face to face with God. How much more intimate can one get? Adam was removed from the pleasure and ease of the Garden and placed in a more difficult situation. He still had fellowship with God.

This is our loving and long suffering, merciful God. God blessed us at the same time he cursed us. Instead of killing Adam physically and cutting off the human race right then, He spoke to them gently at first, communicating. He was with them in their shame. (Love, Grace and Mercy) He made coverings for them, (Provision) He made a way of justice toward them and plan of destruction for the serpent, a promise of retribution and victory. (Justice) He protected them from themselves by cursing them and casting them out of the garden that they would not live eternally damned. (Protection)
God can do as He wishes, if it is show Himself to Moses and be a guide to His people through the wilderness He can.
He can speak when He wants to through and to show His Sovereign will.
Abraham, Job, The Prophets....etc.



I’m trying to see what you’re seeing, but I just can’t reconcile the character of God with the idea that a man can pass on spiritual life or spiritual death. Spiritual death is the result of personal sin, so how can you pass that on? Spiritual life is the result of personal faith, so how can you pass that on?

It is rather like Oregongrown Thread states: You can't give away what you don't have. Spiritual condemnation for the entire human race cannot be fixed through birth, it continues it. The only thing that fixed it was Jesus.


Babies are no more corrupt than Adam before Adam sinned. He did nothing differently than we do. He sinned when tempted. We sin when tempted. Given enough time and opportunity, a human creature will act on the desires that are aroused by the opportunity and he/she will sin, because we choose to follow our flesh (as Adam did) rather than trust the sufficiency of God.

Disagree. Adam was different than us as He was a type of the One to come (Jesus)


By this definition, Adam was created corrupt, because he went from one state (obedience) to another (disobedience) from serving his function to being dysfunctional.

But he did sin. Was he corrupt? No! But he was still able to sin, just as we do.

Im not getting your meaning above. Let me put it this way. Adam perfectly created pure and innocent to live eternally (spiritually or other)
Adam sins and dies.
He no longer can serve his original purpose. He is broken and cannot be fixed. He is corrupted by sin and it's effects.


And we are given the same ability: “Choose this day whom you will serve…but for me and my house, we will serve the LORD” (Joshua 24:15).

Gods Word is perfect and infallible, He gives direction, and some will hear Him. He blesses those who believe what He says. In the O.T. the blood of Jesus Christ was hoped for, those who waited were justified by faith. Today Jesus Christ has risen. We believe on His completed work, not on the hope of Him. The law has been fulfilled, we live in grace.

Scooby_Snacks
Dec 7th 2013, 02:21 PM
This caught my eye here the part I bolded. Does that mean a born again Christian will pass on life to his children IN BIRTH because the parent is alive? I don't think so, the children born to those who are already born again and the children born to those who aren't born again ... both "types" of children are the same, they have to go through the same process, both types are still the "old man" and must become born again to receive the "new man". Such life cannot be passed on from birth. Again I see this as how God design things.

1 Corinthians 15:47 The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven. (NASB)

Adam/first/"old man" compared to Christ/second/"new man". Again I don't see Adam being created the "new man" who then became the "old man". I see him being created the "old man" whose nature it was to sin. We are born the "old man" even if our parents are born again Christians and have LIFE in them. Such life is not passed on through birth. That's how I see it.

Looking into the terms old man and new man, I see it this way. The old man is our relative natural state, our new man is our new way of life in Christ. There is not a problem here to me, to say that I no longer wish to relate the way I used to when in my natural state. That does not make Adam the same as us to begin with and that is really what the thread is about when it comes down to it. A few of you believe we are exactly the same as Adam, and I disagree.


The scriptures still stand that one mans transgression condemned all as I explained to LookingUp.
Adam cannot undo the brokeness to the rest of the human race through his one sin. What was pure is now no longer.
There was nothing to erase his sin.
What Adam sowed was sowed in dishonor. And for each one sown after him the same result.
The fabric of the being is corrupt, (changed from it's original purpose and function it can no longer think to ever be capable of functioning that way again. This fits with scripture in that all are condemned for the sin of the first man.
Today we have provision through Christ. Original sin did not end, but Christ has risen.
Adam is a type of the one to come (Jesus) and different than us.
If we were all the same we would all be types of the One to come.

Adam is natural, and so are we.
Jesus spiritual and now by grace through faith, so are were first born naturally and we born again spiritually.

Christinme
Dec 7th 2013, 03:19 PM
Looking into the terms old man and new man, I see it this way. The old man is our relative natural state, our new man is our new way of life in Christ.

...

Adam is natural, and so are we.
Jesus spiritual and now by grace through faith, so are were first born naturally and we born again spiritually.Adam being natural and we being natural is how I see us being the same as Adam. Anyways enjoyed the discussion, not going to burn dinner tonight, lol.

the Seeker
Dec 7th 2013, 03:50 PM
Looking into the terms old man and new man, I see it this way. The old man is our relative natural state, our new man is our new way of life in Christ. There is not a problem here to me, to say that I no longer wish to relate the way I used to when in my natural state. That does not make Adam the same as us to begin with and that is really what the thread is about when it comes down to it. A few of you believe we are exactly the same as Adam, and I disagree.


The scriptures still stand that one mans transgression condemned all as I explained to LookingUp.
Adam cannot undo the brokeness to the rest of the human race through his one sin. What was pure is now no longer.
There was nothing to erase his sin.
What Adam sowed was sowed in dishonor. And for each one sown after him the same result.
The fabric of the being is corrupt, (changed from it's original purpose and function it can no longer think to ever be capable of functioning that way again. This fits with scripture in that all are condemned for the sin of the first man.
Today we have provision through Christ. Original sin did not end, but Christ has risen.
Adam is a type of the one to come (Jesus) and different than us.
If we were all the same we would all be types of the One to come.

Adam is natural, and so are we.
Jesus spiritual and now by grace through faith, so are were first born naturally and we born again spiritually.

Again, I apologize for arriving late to the party. I admit that I did not read all seven pages of this thread, because originally, I did not think I would be adding my two cents worth into this discussion. But a door opened, and here I am. Tah-Duh! (booing is heard from the crowd from End Times Chat... just kidding).


I have a completely different interpretation of the terms, Spiritual and Natural man. In Adam, we have the curse. I do not believe that the curse of sin and death is hereditary, since stars, galaxies, and everything around us dies. I believe that there is more to the story, and I have given my reasons at post 55 on the thread, "Why Do We Sin?" When Adam sinned against God, he corrupted not only the earth, but the universe as well. He introduced Death into our reality. As a result of Adam's sin, all life dies.

Consider this, sin is a virus, like Aids. The first aspect of Sin is separation from God. From there, sin drains all aspects of God from men, which includes the very spirits that make up a man. When the human body is completely drained of the power of God, we die. The Spirit goes to God, since our lives exist due to His power in the first place, and the body does what Death has it do, decompose. But that is not all that sin does. Sin, after Adam used it, spread to encompass the earth, the stars, and the universe. (I may be reaching there, but it still makes sense to me.) Everything dies now because of Adam's sin. Sin drains life from all that it infects, and unlike a virus, sin only strengthens as it kills more things and people. It does not spread from person to person, like a virus because it infects life itself.

If we go back to the Genesis account, we find that Adam and Eve were in the same bodies that we have now. When Adam sinned, our bodies because susceptible to sin, because the effects of sin started to spread. The idea of nakedness is based on one of the effects of sin. That weakness was passed on from generation to generation, and Satan made sure it did. (Again, consult post 55 of "Why Do We Sin" for more information).

Here was the problem that God had after Adam disobeyed Him. He had to figure out a way to rescue mankind, who had no idea what sin was until after they disobeyed God, from the effects of sin, which is death. The catch about sin is that one cannot just sin without knowing it. Sin is consciously disobeying God. It takes a decision to be made. One has to choose to sin against God. Well, with a steward who is "living the life" due to Mankind's continual sinning against God, breaking the curse has proven to be impossible without God's intervention. Sin goes contrary to what God has planned for mankind, something that the Bible only briefly touches on, and as a result, the Lord had to find a way to reverse the effects of sin and provide a means to save the very beings He created. So, the concept is that if a man sins, he deserves death for it, and sin serves as the vehicle to drain the power of God out of the body of a man. If a man dies, however, without sinning, then the cycle of sin and death can be broken, since someone died without sinning. This provides the opportunity that God wanted in order to save mankind. When Christ died, His natural body died with Him, yet three days later, something happens to that body. The corruption that He successfully fought daily while on earth transformed. When that transformation happened, Jesus' body went from being susceptible to sin to a body that sin has absolutely no power over. So, from the point that Jesus rose from the dead, Jesus lost the ability to sin against His Father. (And yes, Jesus could have sinned before that point, and Satan does his best in infect Jesus before He began His ministry. The body He has cannot sin against God. This is the consequence for dying without sinning once. Once that power was shown to humanity, through the Disciples, the process of freeing humanity from Satan began en masse.

So God began His mission to rescue humanity from the effects of Sin. However, He cannot just give this gift to just anybody, unless he wants to live in eternity, eternally battling people who decided to sin and turn their glorified backs on Him. Salvation, like Sin, can be passed on by the decisions we make. In order for humanity to be completely freed from the effects of sin and death, each individual who has sinned must confess that they have sinned to God and ask for forgiveness. God then leaps at the opportunity and takes man into Himself. Another problem becomes apparent at that point. How can a sinful man live with a sinless God? Without God's guidance, the man who asks for forgiveness would not know how to live in a way that is pleasing to Him.

Well God has an answer for that as well. Paul reveals to us the idea of man having a natural and spiritual body, co-existing and cohabitating the human body. The spiritual body is the same human, but it is not corrupted, like we are today. That body will be where we will live out our eternities later. That means that the individual who has thrown himself at the mercy of God has to learn how to live with Him. Not only that, that person has to learn how to defeat sin for himself. God aids us with all of that, if we choose to listen to Him. He will cause us to grow and mature in Him, practicing the science of perfecting oneself until the day comes when either the Lord wants to take you to Him to complete your training, (death), or the Lord comes to collect us all, (Second Advent). The shackles of death are released to us, just like they were released from Jesus's earthly body. Until that day happens, the believers train while in corruptible bodies to withstand and overcome temptation and the sins that comes with it, so that when we receive our incorruptible bodies, we will not make the same mistakes that we made in our lifetimes, with the added benefit of not having the desire anymore to sin against God. When that happens, God's plan to save mankind will be complete, and this planet, which has been infected by sin, as well as heaven, goes the way of the dodo in a fiery finale.

So, the Spiritual Man is just the spirit of God in men, (the souls of the men themselves), being strengthened by listening, honoring, and lovingly obeying His commands. When this period of training is complete, we will then die and come back to life in incorruptible bodies, having the experiences of living under the grips of sin behind them, they can live on in Eternity to find out Gods actual plan for humanity, which the Bible ha not mentioned yet, other than the fact the God wanted more children.

Scooby_Snacks
Dec 7th 2013, 03:53 PM
Adam being natural and we being natural is how I see us being the same as Adam. Anyways enjoyed the discussion, not going to burn dinner tonight, lol.

Yes in this aspect we are the same, and yet the scripture concerning Adam being a type of one to come causes me to believe that there is that particular difference, his beginnings.
He was created as Christ was created by God specifically, and not through the process God introduced for the rest of the human race.

Christinme
Dec 7th 2013, 04:00 PM
Yes in this aspect we are the same, and yet the scripture concerning Adam being a type of one to come causes me to believe that there is that particular difference, his beginnings.
He was created as Christ was created by God specifically, and not through the process God introduced for the rest of the human race.Yes Adam was the first.

Curtis
Dec 7th 2013, 04:18 PM
The original sinner was Lucifer, and we can see what happened to him and all of his buddies for their sin's. It even brought the destruction of the earth, if you believe in the "word that was" that is clearly taught in scriptures. What effect Lucifer's sin had on the universe is unknown, at least to me it is. I am sure it had some kind of effect on it. Adam's sin was so great it even brought defilement to things in the heavenly Kingdom of God.

Heb 9:22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.
Heb 9:23 Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

Oregongrown
Dec 7th 2013, 04:41 PM
Yes in this aspect we are the same, and yet the scripture concerning Adam being a type of one to come causes me to believe that there is that particular difference, his beginnings.
He was created as Christ was created by God specifically, and not through the process God introduced for the rest of the human race.

Thanks Scooby, I never connected the dots on this, but that is an important observation. I have sort of glossed over that part about the first Adam. I think that is a super topic!
1 Corinthians 15:35-48 ESV
42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”;[a] the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. 47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven.

Scooby_Snacks
Dec 7th 2013, 06:27 PM
Thanks Scooby, I never connected the dots on this, but that is an important observation. I have sort of glossed over that part about the first Adam. I think that is a super topic!
1 Corinthians 15:35-48 ESV
42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”;[a] the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. 47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven.

I do agree with LookingUp that the area is scripture is specific to the resurrection of the spiritual body, there was only a couple parts of those specifics that caused me to think that it connected with original sin, and so in and of itself, (resurrection) it is a great topic, especially for those who look forward to receiving a spiritual body and the end of this one.

Noeb
Dec 7th 2013, 06:44 PM
The spiritual body is still physical, which causes me to be baffled that so many say the death at the fall and in Romans 5 was and is not physical. Clearly it is in view. His physical death gives him and us a new spiritual body in Romans 5. We should not throw out the baby with the bath water and say it's only spiritual death. That ignores everything we know about the past, present, and future.

LookingUp
Dec 7th 2013, 07:34 PM
It may seems fair to you and fits with your doctrinal position, but it changes what the scripture says. No, it didn’t fit my doctrinal position which was the doctrine of original sin, so I had to change the doctrine I always assumed was true to fit Scripture.

First off, you and I are talking about two different things here. You may understand my overall “position” but your post does not reflect that you understand what I’m saying in regards to Romans 5. I’m not talking about what’s theologically fair or unfair; I’m saying we need to be reliable to the text and give equal weight to both sides of any parallel we come across in Scripture (not just these in Romans 5).

We agree that Paul in Romans 5:15 is comparing the transgression of one man to the grace of one man. While the transgression of one led to the death of many, the grace of one led to the grace and gift abounding to many. I get that this is not “theologically unfair,” but that’s not at all what I’m talking about.

In Romans 5:16 we’ve got another parallel. What is Paul comparing now? Paul writes that judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation just as the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. So, in Romans 5:16 we have Paul comparing judgment with free gift and how both of those things led to something (condemnation & justification) for... “all?” (btw, verse 18 tells us it’s “all.”) So, it’s a parallel, and we must be reliable to the text and give equal weight to both sides of ANY parallel we come across in Scripture.

In Romans 5:17 we’ve got another parallel. What is Paul comparing now? It’s a complement parallel to v. 15. Paul is comparing the transgression of one man to the grace of one man. While the transgression of one led to “death reigning,” the grace of one man led to “righteousness reigning.” Again, I get that this is not “theologically unfair.” On the contrary, Paul is pointing out how grace is magnified in the face of transgressions. “But where sin increased, grace increased all the more” (Rom. 5:20).

In Romans 5:18 we’ve got another parallel. It’s a complement parallel to v. 16. (So, v. 15 & 17 go together and v. 16 & 18 go together). Paul writes that one act of transgression resulted in condemnation to all men, even as one act of obedience resulted in justification to all men. Paul compares one act of transgression with one act of obedience and how both of these things led to something (condemnation & justification) for ALL. It’s a parallel. We must be reliable to the text and give equal weight to both sides of ANY parallel we come across in Scripture. Thus, if we want to say that since Paul wrote that ALL men were condemned by one man's act of transgression, then this means all men were universally condemned by Adam's one act, we must also concede that since Paul wrote that ALL men were justified by one man's act of obedience, then this means that all men were universally justified by Jesus' one act.

In Romans 5:19 we’ve got another parallel. Paul writes that one man’s disobedience made many sinners and one man’s obedience made many righteous. If we want to say that this means that Adam's disobedience automatically made many sinners, we must also concede that this means that Jesus' obedience automatically made many righteous. Again, this approach is reliable to the text and gives equal weight to both sides of the parallel.

Simplified:
v. 15
transgression of one led to death of many
grace of one led to gift abounding to many
v. 16
judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation
free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification
v. 17
transgression of one led to death reigning
grace of one led to righteousness reigning
v. 18
one act of transgression resulted in condemnation to ALL
one act of obedience resulted in justification to ALL
v. 19
one man’s disobedience made many sinners
one man’s obedience made many righteous

So, what’s this all about? Why all these parallels? And is Paul making a theological statement about original sin (i.e. universal condemnation)? Paul is simply magnifying the beauty of eternal life by God’s grace through Christ as he places it next to the backdrop of death by sin through the Law. So, then, verse 20: “The Law came in SO THAT the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded ALL THE MORE. And verse 21: “SO THAT, as sin reigned in death, EVEN SO grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

Romans 5 says no more about all men being universally condemned than it says about all men being universally justified. Again, if one demands that Romans 5 declares ALL men are universally condemned, one must also concede that ALL men are universally justified.

LookingUp
Dec 7th 2013, 09:38 PM
Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Each person is still held accountable for their own personal sin. So, are saying that Romans 6:23 speaks of “spiritual” death? In other words, the wages of (personal) sin is spiritual death culminating in eternal death? If this is not how you’d word it, how would you?


As in 1 Corinthians 15, which I still believe connects, Adam, the very first human had absolutely no sin…Well…until he sinned. :-) And, by the way, sin isn’t something you have (it’s not a noun); it’s something you do (it’s an action). 1 John 3:4: “sin is the transgression of the law.”


He was pure.He was innocent.


I understand you agree with this purity, but disagree on what God's Word states about his sin effecting the rest of creation.I don’t disagree with that. He (& thus all his descendants) was removed from the ease and comfort of the Garden as a result of his sin.


…This scripture places Adam as a type of Jesus, and so even without complete understanding what that means, I can say without a doubt this makes Adam not exactly the same of each one of us, (as is your position) or we too would be types of Jesus.
I believe it is because Adams beginnings were absolutely unblemished, unlike ours.In Romans 5:14 Paul is not saying that Adam is “special” in that he was created innocent like Christ. That’s simply not in view at all. Verse 14 is among all those parallels that lead up to Paul’s magnification of the beauty of eternal life in Christ as compared to death in Adam. Paul is saying that Adam is a type, or pattern, of Christ. We are redeemed in Christ in the same way we are lost in Adam. Are all unconditionally redeemed in Christ? No. Are all unconditionally condemned in Adam. No. Just as we die in Adam by way of transgression of Law (i.e. sin), we live in Christ by way of obedience of faith. “…through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name…” (Rom. 1:5).

1 Corinthians 15, also, is not speaking of Adam’s innocence but alludes to this pattern. Adam is the first of the physically living race. His origin is from the earth (i.e. natural/physical). Christ is the first of the spiritually living race . His origin is from heaven (i.e. spiritual). Just as Adam was the first of humanity, Christ is the first of those who will be raised from the dead, the new humanity.

1 Cor. 15 resurrection of dead
v. 42 it is sown a perishable body (like Adam), it is raised an imperishable body (like Christ)
v. 43 it is sown in dishonor (like Adam), it is raised in glory (like Christ)
it is sown in weakness (like Adam), it is raised in power (like Christ)
v. 44 it is sown a natural body (like Adam), it is raised a spiritual body (like Christ)
v. 49 just as we have borne the image of the earthly (like Adam), we will also bear the image of the heavenly (like Christ)


He would not have been sinning at all with no law/directive.
It is different because we do have laws today. The concept of right and wrong existed before God spoke any directive. But it wasn’t until Adam was consciously aware of right and wrong that he could willfully act wrongly. Thus, IF Adam sinned before being aware of right and wrong, it wasn’t willful disobedience. This is just how it is with infants, babies, young children, and those cognitively impaired. IF you think these little ones sin before being aware of right and wrong, so be it, but they do not willfully disobey. Paul told us in Romans 7 that sin did not kill him though the law until he became consciously aware of the commandment.


By not accepting the gift does not mean the blood of Jesus stops justifying all, it means the blood is rejected.
Either a person is justified leading to eternal life or a person is condemned leading to eternal condemnation.

Justified people are not condemned to eternal condemnation. Thus, not all are justified.

So, when Paul writes, “through the one act of righteousness there resulted justification to all men” Paul is not speaking of universal justification. Just as one has to “do” something to be justified (i.e. have faith), one has to “do” something to be condemned (i.e. sin/transgress the Law).


This is our loving and long suffering, merciful God. God blessed us at the same time he cursed us. Instead of killing Adam physically and cutting off the human race right then, He spoke to them gently at first, communicating. He was with them in their shame. (Love, Grace and Mercy) He made coverings for them, (Provision) He made a way of justice toward them and plan of destruction for the serpent, a promise of retribution and victory. (Justice) He protected them from themselves by cursing them and casting them out of the garden that they would not live eternally damned. (Protection)
God can do as He wishes, if it is show Himself to Moses and be a guide to His people through the wilderness He can.
He can speak when He wants to through and to show His Sovereign will.
Abraham, Job, The Prophets....etc.Exactly. So, fellowship was not broken as a result of being removed from the Garden as you’ve suggested in post #78. The idea of broken “spiritual” fellowship is not only unsupported with Scripture, Scripture (as you’ve shown above) demonstrates the opposite of that view.


It is rather like Oregongrown Thread states: You can't give away what you don't have. Spiritual condemnation for the entire human race cannot be fixed through birth, it continues it. The only thing that fixed it was Jesus. Your view is imbalanced. You say eternal death passes unconditionally to all men through one man but you deny that eternal life passes unconditionally to all men through one man.


Disagree. Adam was different than us as He was a type of the One to come (Jesus)Again, type doesn’t mean innocent. Type means pattern.

Do you concede that Adam BEHAVED no differently than we do? In other words, Adam sinned and we sin. What’s the difference in BEHAVIOR? Adam became cognitively aware of God’s directive and he chose to disobey. Children grow up and become cognitively aware of God’s directives (through conscience, etc.) and choose to disobey.

LookingUp
Dec 7th 2013, 10:14 PM
The spiritual body is still physical, which causes me to be baffled that so many say the death at the fall and in Romans 5 was and is not physical. Clearly it is in view. His physical death gives him and us a new spiritual body in Romans 5. We should not throw out the baby with the bath water and say it's only spiritual death. That ignores everything we know about the past, present, and future.It's spiritual death leading to physical death culminating in eternal death. One must walk through the door of physical death to get to eternal death. But one does not have to walk through the door of spiritual death to get to physical death. Thus, spiritual death doesn't "cause" physical death.

Scooby_Snacks
Dec 7th 2013, 10:26 PM
LookingUp states:
Romans 5 says no more about all men being universally condemned than it says about all men being universally justified. Again, if one demands that Romans 5 declares ALL men are universally condemned, one must also concede that ALL men are universally justified.

And btw, I do apologize if I assumed you were positioning around free will, if you were not.

It looks like we both have our final answers. I believe in the fall of mankind from one mans sin-- and I believe scripture more than covers the doctrine, but it is okay that you do not believe the same.

To me it says the same thing over and over again, to you it says the same thing over and over again.
We do not see it the same way, and I do not believe in universalism either.

Adam made a choice to sin, and we make a choice to accept the free gift.
It is even.

:) All is well.

Curtis
Dec 7th 2013, 11:36 PM
Romans 5:14 states that Adam is a type, or pattern, of Christ. We are redeemed in Christ in the same way we are lost in Adam. Are all unconditionally redeemed in Christ? No. Are all unconditionally condemned in Adam. No. Just as we die in Adam by way of transgression of Law (i.e. sin), we live in Christ by way of obedience of faith. “…through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name…” (Rom. 1:5). It takes only one act of willful sin to conclude a man in a state of condemnation and it takes only one act of genuine faith to conclude a man in a state of justification.

In Romans 5:15 Paul is comparing the transgression of one man to the grace of one man. While the transgression of one led to the death of many, the grace of one led to the grace and gift abounding to many.

In Romans 5:16 we’ve got another parallel. Paul writes that judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation just as the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. So, here we have Paul comparing the emergence of judgment with the emergence of the free gift and how both of those things led to condemnation and justification, respectively.

In Romans 5:17 we’ve got another parallel. What is Paul comparing now? It’s a complement parallel to v. 15. Paul is comparing the transgression of one man to the grace of one man. While the transgression of one led to “death reigning,” the grace of one man led to “righteousness reigning.”

In Romans 5:18 we’ve got another parallel. It’s a complement parallel to v. 16. (So, v. 15 & 17 go together and v. 16 & 18 go together). Paul writes that one act of transgression resulted in condemnation to all men, even as one act of obedience resulted in justification to all men. Paul compares one act of transgression with one act of obedience and how both of these things led to condemnation and justification, respectively, for ALL. It’s a parallel. We must be reliable to the text and give equal weight to both sides of ANY parallel we come across in Scripture. Thus, if we want to say that since Paul wrote that ALL men were condemned by one man's act of transgression, then this means all men were UNIVERSALLY condemned by Adam's one act, we must also concede that since Paul wrote that ALL men were justified by one man's act of obedience, then this means that all men were UNIVERSALLY justified by Jesus' one act.

In Romans 5:19 we’ve got another parallel. Paul writes that one man’s disobedience made many sinners and one man’s obedience made many righteous. If we want to say that this means that Adam's disobedience automatically (without any say-so of those made sinners) made many sinners, we must also concede that this means that Jesus' obedience automatically (without any say-so of those made righteous) made many righteous. Again, this approach is reliable to the text and gives equal weight to both sides of the parallel.

Simplified:
v. 15
transgression of one led to death of many
grace of one led to gift abounding to many
v. 16
judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation
free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification
v. 17
transgression of one led to death reigning
grace of one led to righteousness reigning
v. 18
one act of transgression resulted in condemnation to ALL
one act of obedience resulted in justification to ALL
v. 19
one man’s disobedience made many sinners
one man’s obedience made many righteous

So, what’s this all about? Why all these parallels? And is Paul making a theological statement about original sin (i.e. universal condemnation)? Paul is simply magnifying the beauty of eternal life by God’s grace through Christ as he places it next to the backdrop of death by sin through the Law. So, then, verse 20: “The Law came in SO THAT the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded ALL THE MORE. And verse 21: “SO THAT, as sin reigned in death, EVEN SO grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

Romans 5 says no more about all men being universally condemned than it says about all men being universally justified. Again, if one demands that Romans 5 declares ALL men are universally condemned, one must also concede that ALL men are universally justified.

I do not believe in "universal salvation" even though Jesus died for all men, and all men could be justified because of what Jesus did. The fact still remains that we each have the choice to either except what Jesus did for us or stay in disobedience which is sin which is death.

Nick
Dec 7th 2013, 11:42 PM
The idea of total depravity is that we are all born into Adam's physical family, which leads to death. It was Adam's disobedience that made us all sinners. Paul makes it fairly clear in v.17 that only those who receive God's gift are spared from this and belong to Christ. The way I understand that is only those who have faith in Christ will be justified. Faith in Christ is a gift from God just like salvation. God enables the entire process for those He chooses. I don't see universalism in Rom 5.17-18

Nick
Dec 8th 2013, 12:30 AM
I do not believe in "universal salvation" even though Jesus died for all men, and all men could be justified because of what Jesus did. The fact still remains that we each have the choice to make to either except what Jesus for us or stay in disobedience which is sin which is death.

Do you really think we have the power to make that choice? God is Omniscient and Sovereign, which to me, means He is in complete control and knows everything. Why do people choose Christ? Something speaks to them, right? There is a spirit so powerfully convicting on the inside that we can't help but choose Christ. Free will to choose, which I believe we have, is really more a function of how someone defines and interprets free will.

On the surface, that may seem contradictory but I believe our free will is boxed just like Satan's power is limited to what God allows. Put another way, once the person is elected and receives the gift of salvation that person is sealed by the Holy Spirit - Eph 1:13-14 "In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory."

Noeb
Dec 8th 2013, 12:42 AM
It's spiritual death leading to physical death culminating in eternal death.
Whatever combo....
Point was, the fall and Romans 5 are indeed talking about physical death and there's really no way one can justify saying they are not.


One must walk through the door of physical death to get to eternal death. But one does not have to walk through the door of spiritual death to get to physical death. Thus, spiritual death doesn't "cause" physical death.
Not for us, but.....I include God being behind a veil for us in spiritual death, so for me, all "have to walk through the door of spiritual death" because all are sold into carnality by the first sin. No one has "to walk through the door of spiritual death to get to physical death" because we are born mortal. Sinning doesn't make us mortal anymore than it made Adam mortal. He was created mortal. He had "to walk through the door of spiritual death to get to physical death", being kept from the tree of life the day he sinned.

Curtis
Dec 8th 2013, 12:47 AM
Do you really think we have the power to make that choice? God is Omniscient and Sovereign, which to me, means He is in complete control and knows everything. Why do people choose Christ? Something speaks to them, right? There is a spirit so powerfully convicting on the inside that we can't help but choose Christ. Free will to choose, which I believe we have, is really more a function of how someone defines and interprets free will. On the surface, that may seem contradictory but I believe our free will is boxed just like Satan's power is limited to what God allows.

The Lord has done every thing he can to protect our rights to choose who ever we will serve. Either rightiousness or sin. We can go to hell if we want to. God never overthrows someones right to choose. But he did tell us what we should choose so we could live. He has set before us life and death, blessing or cursing, there fore you choose life so you and your seed may live. How anybody can reject what God offers us is byound understanding to those who know Jesus. God is not in controll of every thing as it is written, "We know the whole world lieth in wickedness and is under the control of the wicked one." (NIV) (1 John 5:19)

ewq1938
Dec 8th 2013, 12:54 AM
Romans 5:14
Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

This scripture places Adam as a type of Jesus, and so even without complete understanding what that means



Disagree. Adam was different than us as He was a type of the One to come (Jesus)

Just a side comment.....Adam was not a type of Jesus. The verse is speaking about Moses, who was a type of Jesus. He said it and Jesus said it. Adam is the anti-type of Jesus.

Noeb
Dec 8th 2013, 12:56 AM
Do you really think we have the power to make that choice?If we don't, Jesus is a liar.

ewq1938
Dec 8th 2013, 01:03 AM
Your view is imbalanced. You say eternal death passes unconditionally to all men through one man but you deny that eternal life passes unconditionally to all men through one man.

Yes. In order to receive the same condemnation Adam received, we have to sin as he did. In order to receive eternal life, we must accept and believe upon Christ. Neither the condemnation nor the life comes automatically to all. There are stipulations on both. The two parallels must be equal in this way or the verse makes no consistent sense.

LookingUp
Dec 8th 2013, 01:57 AM
Yes. In order to receive the same condemnation Adam received, we have to sin as he did. In order to receive eternal life, we must accept and believe upon Christ. Neither the condemnation nor the life comes automatically to all. There are stipulations on both. The two parallels must be equal in this way or the verse makes no consistent sense.Yes, exactly. :-)

LookingUp
Dec 8th 2013, 02:05 AM
Whatever combo....
Point was, the fall and Romans 5 are indeed talking about physical death and there's really no way one can justify saying they are not.If personal sin causes physical death, why do babies die?


Not for us, but.....I include God being behind a veil for us in spiritual death, so for me, all "have to walk through the door of spiritual death" because all are sold into carnality by the first sin. No one has "to walk through the door of spiritual death to get to physical death" because we are born mortal. Sinning doesn't make us mortal anymore than it made Adam mortal. He was created mortal. He had "to walk through the door of spiritual death to get to physical death", being kept from the tree of life the day he sinned.Like I said, “spiritual death doesn’t cause physical death.” Also, babies don’t spiritually die, because that takes conscious, willful sin.

Noeb
Dec 8th 2013, 02:27 AM
I didn't say sin is the cause physical death. I said "the fall and Romans 5 are indeed talking about physical death".

ewq1938
Dec 8th 2013, 02:31 AM
I didn't say sin is the cause physical death.

Then what does cause physical death if sin doesn't?

Neanias
Dec 8th 2013, 02:46 AM
Romans 5 says no more about all men being universally condemned than it says about all men being universally justified. Again, if one demands that Romans 5 declares ALL men are universally condemned, one must also concede that ALL men are universally justified.

Yes! :)

Religious men like to take the contrasts made by the apostles between light and darkness, the condemned and the justified, and make everything out to be black or white. This is true with God, that is, God is perfectly light and in him there is no darkness.

But with men, this would be simplistic. The bible speaks of holy men, and calls us to be holy as he is holy. But it also speaks of the simple humility and love of men as the Publican and the Samaritan. It would not be wise to start judging other men and condemning other men based on a flawed understanding of the Word and it's call to holiness.

Scooby_Snacks
Dec 8th 2013, 02:49 AM
Just a side comment.....Adam was not a type of Jesus. The verse is speaking about Moses, who was a type of Jesus. He said it and Jesus said it. Adam is the anti-type of Jesus.

I disagree, but here's a "just for fun" list comparing Adam and Jesus: Take or leave...




The first Adam turned from the Father in the garden of Eden; the last Adam turned to the Father in the garden of Gethsemane.

The first Adam was naked & unashamed in the garden; the last Adam was naked & bore our shame on the cross.
The first Adam’s sin brought us thorns; the last Adam wore a crown of thorns.
The first Adam substituted himself for God; the last Adam was God substituting Himself for us.
The first Adam sinned at a tree; the last Adam bore our sins on a tree.
The first Adam died as a sinner; the last Adam died for sinners.
The first Adam lost the tree of life; the last Adam is the tree of life.
The first Adam was the head of the old creation; the last Adam is the head of the new creation.
The first Adam was created in God’s image; the last Adam is God’s image.
The first Adam was to reign over all the earth; the last Adam will reign over all the earth forever and ever.
The first Adam was the first husband; the last Adam will be the ultimate, eternal husband.
The first Adam was put to sleep to produce Eve; the last Adam was put to death to produce the church.
The first Adam came out from the ground; the last Adam fell into the ground.
The first Adam became a living soul; the last Adam became a life-giving Spirit.
The first Adam died & returned to the ground; the last Adam died & returned to heaven.
The first Adam’s side was opened; the last Adam’s side was pierced.
Eve was taken out of the first Adam; the church was taken out of the last Adam.
Eve was brought to the first Adam without sin; the church will be presented to the last Adam without sin.
Eve was the same as the first Adam in life, nature, & expression; the church is the same as the last Adam in life, nature, & expression.
The first Adam & Eve became one flesh; the last Adam & the church have become one spirit.


Credits:
The list comes from in part:
Mark Driscoll’s current series on Ephesians and Watchman Nee’s classic
The Glorious Church.

Nick
Dec 8th 2013, 02:59 AM
If we don't, Jesus is a liar.

"You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you."

ewq1938
Dec 8th 2013, 03:02 AM
I disagree, but here's a "just for fun" list comparing Adam and Jesus: Take or leave...

Lol, most of these are either demonstrating anti-types not types, or comparing unimportant things, or things that aren't even scriptural.

A type is something similar. A type of Christ would have been someone who was a Messiah type figure in major parts/areas of their life. That would be Moses, not Adam. The verse is merely been misread for a long time.


Joh_5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.

Moses wrote of Christ!

Deu 18:15 The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;

Moses said Christ, the Messiah, would be like him! That means Moses knew the Messiah would be a type of him, although naturally to a much greater extent.

BrianW
Dec 8th 2013, 03:11 AM
I've merged the two threads on Original sin/Total depravity into one.

We've never liked multiple threads on a single topic here and that isn't changing anytime soon. I'm sorry if it upsets anyone but it came down to a choice of close one or merge them. I hate closing threads unless it's absolutely necessary so...the merge.

Scooby_Snacks
Dec 8th 2013, 03:39 AM
Lol, most of these are either demonstrating anti-types not types, or comparing unimportant things, or things that aren't even scriptural.

A type is something similar. A type of Christ would have been someone who was a Messiah type figure in major parts/areas of their life. That would be Moses, not Adam. The verse is merely been misread for a long time.


Joh_5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.

Moses wrote of Christ!

Deu 18:15 The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;

Moses said Christ, the Messiah, would be like him! That means Moses knew the Messiah would be a type of him, although naturally to a much greater extent.

If (Romans 5:14) were talking about Moses, it would have said that, but it says Adam.

I would have to read in context the other verses you posted to understand their interpretation for myself.

Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one to come.Romans 5:14

Not seeing what you are-- 3rd party can decide.

I will give you some of the similarities--(I gave at least one of these before)

Both had bodies that were specifically formed by God.

God gave stewardship and delegated authority (dominion) to Adam of His creation on earth.

God gave Christ authority over all things in heaven and earth.

Adam was the head and authority over Eve.

Christ is the head and authority over the church-- (His Bride)

Adam tended to the garden prepared for him by God.

Jesus tends to the garden of our hearts.




I don't need you to see my point of view, I am very glad to have been lead in this direction, regardless.

ewq1938
Dec 8th 2013, 03:46 AM
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/249358-Are-children-born-without-sin

Want to merge a third? :)



I've merged the two threads on Original sin/Total depravity into one.

We've never liked multiple threads on a single topic here and that isn't changing anytime soon. I'm sorry if it upsets anyone but it came down to a choice of close one or merge them. I hate closing threads unless it's absolutely necessary so...the merge.

BrianW
Dec 8th 2013, 04:22 AM
Nope LOL. That would just turn into a huge mess.

I really wish that everyone would just pick one of these to post on from now on though. It seems like most of the people posting in them are the same people. Just pick one eh?

Noeb
Dec 8th 2013, 04:26 AM
"You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you."
Jesus chose apostles.

Christinme
Dec 8th 2013, 08:34 AM
Eve did not come into existence in the same manner as Adam, but did have the same "nature" as Adam. I believe we all are born with the same "nature" as Adam. Again as the "old man"/natural man with a "nature" to sin. I don't see the goal God has for us to is to go back to how Adam was ORIGINALLY before Adam ate of the tree of the knowledge of G/E. I don't see that Adam's "nature" changed after he ate, what I see is that Adam was no longer innocent. God's design/plan is not for us to go back to that innocence having not sinned and no knowledge of G/E. God's design is for us to become the "new man" whose nature is not to sin and who does have the knowledge of G/E. Adam was not created the "new man", he was created the "old man" with a nature to sin, just as all "old man" have that nature. That is my understanding.

Berean11
Dec 8th 2013, 12:56 PM
I've been following this thread (and a couple of others).

God does not tell us about the nature of Adam. We know that Adam was created from the dust of the ground. And that God breathed life into him. I would have to say that Adam is created good.

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
Gen 1:28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
Gen 1:31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

We are Imago Dei, in His image. Adam was good. No sin. He had free will (in a manner of speaking) to choose to obey God's command not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

There was no sin on earth (in the created realm as a whole). It did not enter in until Adam sinned. I also tend to to think that Adam was created with the ability to choose. He was given one commandment-

Gen 2:15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it.
Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden,
Gen 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

Adam ate of that tree. Sin and death entered in and condemned the whole of mankind (actually, when the serpent entered the garden is when sin and death showed up but it had no power. Had Adam not eaten of the fruit it would not have entered into creation). He did not die physically immediately. But his spirit had died. He was separated from God. We have no idea how long he might have lived if he hadn't eaten of the tree of knowledge. But ALL of Adam died. Flesh and spirit. If he had eaten of the tree of life he would have been immortal. As it is we do know how long he did live after he sinned-

Gen 5:5 Thus all the days that Adam lived were 930 years, and he died.

Now that is a really long time. But the corruption of the flesh would take millenia. And God would not have men living that long so....-

Gen 6:3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years."

These days few make it past 100 years.

By the time God makes this change in the years of life, men had become so evil he determined to destroy all of them. He found only one man (and his family) that he favored. We don't how many people there were at that time but to only favor one man, Noah and his family, says a lot about man.

I have not found any scripture that says Adam's sin is literally imputed to us. But he surely brought condemnation of ALL men by his sin. Adam and Eve are our first parents. We are all descended from Adam and Eve. Their dna is our dna (corrupted as it may be).

Once Adam sinned, he lost his ability to choose to do anything but evil (hence, so did we loose the ability to choose anything but evil). As evidenced by the flood. Now it would require intervention by God. His nature is now changed without the ability to choose God. Without God's continual interaction with man throughout history we would probably not remember Him at all (but this is speculation since it did not happen that way).

I see no parallels. I see Adam as a type or picture or shadow of Jesus. Scripture already posted on this. I see opposites here. Contrasts....light and dark, good and evil, choice, no choice.

If something is parallel it never meets. It is side by side but it never meets. I do not see that here. There is a meeting place-a final end to sin and death.

But....it is never actually said that man had the ability to choose after Adam sinned or that he lost the ability to choose after Adam sinned. What it does say is that God foreknew, predestined, called, chose men for salvation. He foreknew us because (like someone already said) He created us. He had already determined who He would create. He had already determined that He would send His Son to die for us. BEFORE He created the earth and the physical universe. He did not choose us by knowing our actions, our choices. He chose us according to His plans and purposes. Not by anything we would do.

Eph 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,
Eph 1:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love
Eph 1:5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,
Eph 1:6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.


Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
Eph 2:9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Eph 2:14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility
Eph 2:15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,
Eph 2:16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.


We have been given the new man, like Adam was BEFORE he sinned. Only now in order for us to remain in Him He has put HIS Spirit in us so we would have His power to choose Him. At all times. Even when we sin we can repent and He forgives us.

2Co 1:20 For all the promises of God find their Yes in him. That is why it is through him that we utter our Amen to God for his glory.
2Co 1:21 And it is God who establishes us with you in Christ, and has anointed us,
2Co 1:22 and who has also put his seal on us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.


This is ALL about HIM. Not us. He created us for Himself.

Rom 9:10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac,
Rom 9:11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad--in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls--
Rom 9:12 she was told, "The older will serve the younger."
Rom 9:13 As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
Rom 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means!
Rom 9:15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."
Rom 9:16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.
Rom 9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."
Rom 9:18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
Rom 9:19 You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?"
Rom 9:20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?"
Rom 9:21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?
Rom 9:22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
Rom 9:23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory--
Rom 9:24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

Who are we to answer back to God? He is the molder, why do we say, "Why have you made me like this?"

It is ALL ABOUT HIM. We are created FOR HIM.

Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him.


Peace, Berean11

the Seeker
Dec 8th 2013, 05:10 PM
I disagree with your findings borean11.

What you have written sounds an awful lot like predestination, which robs people of their God-given right to choose to follow Him or not. Mankind did not lose his right to choose. In fact, according to Revelation 20, every man will be judged based on his decisions. This is just one of the problems that I find with Predestination. It robs people of the choice that God gives them, and replaces the whole "choose this day" option that Joshua had issued the Israelites before they went to Jericho. Man never lost his right to choose.

Jesus tells Nicodemus exactly what is the problem with mankind.

John 3:19
This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.

All Adam had to do, since hearing the commands of God is knowing Good, was to not eat of the fruit. However, Adam's curiosity as well as his cowardice led death right into reality. We, humanity, were never robbed of our right to choose, humanity prefers to live in the Dark, than walk in the light. That is the verdict straight from Jesus Christ's mouth. People, when given the choice, decide more times than not to sin against God. We are weak to temptation, again because of Adam's cowardice. (If you read the story of Eve's temptation, you find Adam right there with her, listening intently, looking for an opportunity to eat the forbidden fruit and "get away with it".) This is mankind's nature.

Also, foreknowledge came before predestination. Do you know what foreknowledge is? It is the idea that God knows every one of our thoughts, knows what every last one of us will do in this lifetime, since He foreseen the end from the beginning. Factoring in His foreknowledge, He chose to have certain things happen. How can God do that? That is the difference between God and man. Mankind have questions that the Lord already has answers to. He has had those answers since before He created the universe. One cannot cheapen the foreknowledge portion of God's abilities, or else there really is no reason to tell the Good News to people, since God already predestined everyone to either join Him or become fuel for God's wrath.

Here is the foreknowledge difference in practice. We see that God becomes angry every time He sees His creation sin. He knows that they wil sin, but yet He gets angry anyway. Why? Because of this.

Genesis 6:5
The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.

The Lord saw what is, in effect, the effects of sin in a prolonged state, and it ticked Him off. People's thoughts were corrupted, and their actions were made to sin more against Him. Knowing a rebellion is coming, and seeing one with your own eyes are are two completely different things. If people did not have the right to choose good instead of evil, then God would have no right to be mad. However, He created us with the right to choose our fates. That is why we do not see Him today, because He still is looking for people to follow Him. The difference between God and man is that He already knows who will choose to listen, and who won't. That is why there is judgment, and the judgment of God, at the end of this existence, shows the exact criteria in which all of the dead are judged.

Revelation 20:12
And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books.

If God wanted robots, He would not have given Adam the choice to choose good instead of evil. That was an option. Instead, he did not, and as a result, sin and death infected mankind, the animals, the plants, the planet, the solar system, and the universe. Death is everywhere now, thanks to Adam's original sin, and mankind continually sinning after that. Predestination relegates humanity into a form of robots who neither have control over their futures, nor the right to choose to ask for forgiveness of sins. Jesus told us the exact opposite. Revelation tells us something different, and so does the rest of the Bible. Foreknowledge is not something that people can simply say and ignore. Foreknowledge is what powers the prophet, which God used extensively throughout history. Using them, He asked mankind to choose Him instead of sin. He knows who will choose what, and because of that, He set up everything.

Romans 8:28
And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.

Why do all things work for the good of those who love God? Because of His plan that He created, using the foreknowledge that He had since before creation. Out of that foreknowledge, He predestined. Not the other way around. People still have the choice to choose God or death. Too bad most people in this world still choose death. That is why we must bring the Gospel to all people, because ALL PEOPLE still have the right to choose to repent of their sins, or suffer the consequences at judgment. That is yet another reason, in my opinion, the parable of the talents is so important.

Noeb
Dec 8th 2013, 05:11 PM
Romans 5 says no more about all men being universally condemned than it says about all men being universally justified. Again, if one demands that Romans 5 declares ALL men are universally condemned, one must also concede that ALL men are universally justified.Chapter 3 says all (universal) men are condemned and offers justification to all (universal). This goes to what I said earlier.

What does the word "made" mean?
designate/ordain
Who made (designated/ordained) you judge? Is how it is used in every case. The nature of the man did not change because he was made judge. We are designated/ordained righteous but our nature is not righteous. See the problem?
It does not mean we were made with a sin nature. It means Adam's sin made sure we would all be sinners. This was done through a change in relationship, fellowship, position, not a change in nature, although one could argue by speculation Adam had the Spirit, like Jesus did, and we are born without the Spirit, which is certainly a change in nature. However, the exclusion of the Spirit does not constitute a sin nature, though some argue that as well.Adam's sin gave carnality (Rom 7:14) to all men, to sin their own sin. Jesus' life and death gave grace to all men, to believe unto justification. In Adam man lives as sinners, in Christ men live righteous. Paul is talking about the effects of both. The effect Adam had was universal condemnation, for all sin and fall short of the glory of God.

Berean11
Dec 8th 2013, 06:25 PM
I disagree with your findings borean11.

What you have written sounds an awful lot like predestination, which robs people of their God-given right to choose to follow Him or not. Mankind did not lose his right to choose. In fact, according to Revelation 20, every man will be judged based on his decisions. This is just one of the problems that I find with Predestination. It robs people of the choice that God gives them, and replaces the whole "choose this day" option that Joshua had issued the Israelites before they went to Jericho. Man never lost his right to choose.

Jesus tells Nicodemus exactly what is the problem with mankind.

John 3:19
This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.

All Adam had to do, since hearing the commands of God is knowing Good, was to not eat of the fruit. However, Adam's curiosity as well as his cowardice led death right into reality. We, humanity, were never robbed of our right to choose, humanity prefers to live in the Dark, than walk in the light. That is the verdict straight from Jesus Christ's mouth. People, when given the choice, decide more times than not to sin against God. We are weak to temptation, again because of Adam's cowardice. (If you read the story of Eve's temptation, you find Adam right there with her, listening intently, looking for an opportunity to eat the forbidden fruit and "get away with it".) This is mankind's nature.

Also, foreknowledge came before predestination. Do you know what foreknowledge is? It is the idea that God knows every one of our thoughts, knows what every last one of us will do in this lifetime, since He foreseen the end from the beginning. Factoring in His foreknowledge, He chose to have certain things happen. How can God do that? That is the difference between God and man. Mankind have questions that the Lord already has answers to. He has had those answers since before He created the universe. One cannot cheapen the foreknowledge portion of God's abilities, or else there really is no reason to tell the Good News to people, since God already predestined everyone to either join Him or become fuel for God's wrath.

Here is the foreknowledge difference in practice. We see that God becomes angry every time He sees His creation sin. He knows that they wil sin, but yet He gets angry anyway. Why? Because of this.

Genesis 6:5
The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.

The Lord saw what is, in effect, the effects of sin in a prolonged state, and it ticked Him off. People's thoughts were corrupted, and their actions were made to sin more against Him. Knowing a rebellion is coming, and seeing one with your own eyes are are two completely different things. If people did not have the right to choose good instead of evil, then God would have no right to be mad. However, He created us with the right to choose our fates. That is why we do not see Him today, because He still is looking for people to follow Him. The difference between God and man is that He already knows who will choose to listen, and who won't. That is why there is judgment, and the judgment of God, at the end of this existence, shows the exact criteria in which all of the dead are judged.

Revelation 20:12
And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books.

If God wanted robots, He would not have given Adam the choice to choose good instead of evil. That was an option. Instead, he did not, and as a result, sin and death infected mankind, the animals, the plants, the planet, the solar system, and the universe. Death is everywhere now, thanks to Adam's original sin, and mankind continually sinning after that. Predestination relegates humanity into a form of robots who neither have control over their futures, nor the right to choose to ask for forgiveness of sins. Jesus told us the exact opposite. Revelation tells us something different, and so does the rest of the Bible. Foreknowledge is not something that people can simply say and ignore. Foreknowledge is what powers the prophet, which God used extensively throughout history. Using them, He asked mankind to choose Him instead of sin. He knows who will choose what, and because of that, He set up everything.

Romans 8:28
And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.

Why do all things work for the good of those who love God? Because of His plan that He created, using the foreknowledge that He had since before creation. Out of that foreknowledge, He predestined. Not the other way around. People still have the choice to choose God or death. Too bad most people in this world still choose death. That is why we must bring the Gospel to all people, because ALL PEOPLE still have the right to choose to repent of their sins, or suffer the consequences at judgment. That is yet another reason, in my opinion, the parable of the talents is so important.

It sounds like predestination because it IS predestination. Of course I know what foreknowledge is. I am not a baby Christian. Far from it. Were you being sarcastic? Do you mock me because i understand foreknowledge something different than you? And, nowhere does it say He predestines according to our choices. Yes, what we have done will be judged. I'm replying from my phone. I will post something more this evening.

TrustGzus
Dec 8th 2013, 07:35 PM
What you have written sounds an awful lot like predestination, which robs people of their God-given right to choose to follow Him or not.

That being said, predestine is a word that is found in your Bible. You make it sound like a dirty word here, but you must have some theology about predestination. What do you believe about predestination?

Berean11
Dec 8th 2013, 08:35 PM
If He already knows we will choose Him why would He need to predestine us for salvation? No. We would not choose Him. He predestinates so some will be certainly saved. Otherwise his creation would for nought. The scripture I posted is very clear....it is according to HIS will. It says exactly that.

Curtis
Dec 8th 2013, 09:06 PM
If He already knows we will choose Him why would He need to predestine us for salvation? No. We would not choose Him. He predestinates so some will be certainly saved. Otherwise his creation would for nought. The scripture I posted is very clear....it is according to HIS will. It says exactly that.

The reason "Election" is important is because the only way salvation for God Church could be accomplished is by God placing his Church in Christ before the foundation of the world. In so doing when Jesus walked a perfect life with out ever sinning his actions would become ours. Just like when we became sinners by being in Adam when he sinned, even so now being justified because we were in Christ when he died. God knowing before the creation of the World all who would receive Christ predestined us in Christ.

Nick
Dec 8th 2013, 10:02 PM
Jesus chose apostles.

Just like the Father chooses His elect.

Noeb
Dec 8th 2013, 10:42 PM
Just like the Father chooses His elect.Christ is His elect.

Noeb
Dec 8th 2013, 10:46 PM
If He already knows we will choose Him why would He need to predestine us for salvation? No. We would not choose Him. He predestinates so some will be certainly saved. Otherwise his creation would for nought. The scripture I posted is very clear....it is according to HIS will. It says exactly that.What scripture says predestined for salvation?

Christinme
Dec 9th 2013, 12:42 AM
God predestined those who would believe to become conformed to the image of His Son. (Romans 8:29) That's what he predestined.

Noeb
Dec 9th 2013, 01:36 AM
Right. Those that believe are saved. The saved were predestined to inherit.

Nick
Dec 9th 2013, 03:13 AM
Christ is His elect.

Along with everyone else that ABIDES in him. Still waiting on your response to that in the other thread.

Berean11
Dec 9th 2013, 01:02 PM
What scripture says predestined for salvation?

Couldn't decide what the real intent of this question was. So sat on answering it, prayed, asked the Lord how I should answer....

I think, possibly, we are agreed that we cannot be saved by our own effort....yet, that is exactly what you and others insist on. If predestination and foreknowledge are based on something the Lord has foreseen we will do or say, our choices, then you have admitted to salvation by works. Our works. Salvation then is not based on what the Lord would do but on what we would do. That He has determined not to act till we act first....which is, um, works based attempts at salvation. Not biblical, scriptural....kind of making us little gods. Which I don't think the Lord likes very much (to put it gently).

What scripture says predestined for salvation....

Well, Pelagius is alive and well in spirit here....not sure I should answer this since it most certainly will be refuted. The holy grails of free will and choice....

We do have free will/choice in so much why do we insist on it in the one thing that scripture says you cannot have it in? It says to me that you (and others) are not truly trusting the Lord at all. You are saying that God is responding to us not us to Him. It makes all of prophecy and His plans and purposes based on mans actions/choices. You are demanding that you be in control not God. You are saying that we are in control even before we are born....

He knows who would believe/choose because He had already chosen us....not the other way around. It is not about us....it is ALL about HIM. He decides how His clay is to be used. The clay cannot decide for itself. To be saved or not. He is the Creator. He is the Savior, He is Almighty God.

1Th 5:9 For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ,

Destined to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Is that clear enough for you?

Heb 2:7 You made him for a little while lower than the angels; you have crowned him with glory and honor,
Heb 2:8 putting everything in subjection under his feet." Now in putting everything in subjection to him, he left nothing outside his control. At present, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him.
Heb 2:9 But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

HE IS IN CONTROL OF EVERYTHING, even if we do not yet see everything in subjection to Him.

1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
1Pe 1:2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you.
1Pe 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
1Pe 1:4 to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you,
1Pe 1:5 who by God's power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

I bolded the 'foreknowledge' part because it does not say He caused us to be born again according to what we would do/choose. Just simple says 'the foreknowledge of God'. I take it to mean that He knew us before we were born, before the foundations of the earth. He created Adam and Eve, but all the descendants of them would be born, and He 'KNOWS' us. In intimate fashion.

Psa 139:13 For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb.
Psa 139:14 I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well.
Psa 139:15 My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth.
Psa 139:16 Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.
Psa 139:17 How precious to me are your thoughts, O God! How vast is the sum of them!
Psa 139:18 If I would count them, they are more than the sand. I awake, and I am still with you.

Amen

Curtis
Dec 9th 2013, 01:45 PM
Couldn't decide what the real intent of this question was. So sat on answering it, prayed, asked the Lord how I should answer....

I think, possibly, we are agreed that we cannot be saved by our own effort....yet, that is exactly what you and others insist on. If predestination and foreknowledge are based on something the Lord has foreseen we will do or say, our choices, then you have admitted to salvation by works. Our works. Salvation then is not based on what the Lord would do but on what we would do. That He has determined not to act till we act first....which is, um, works based attempts at salvation. Not biblical, scriptural....kind of making us little gods. Which I don't think the Lord likes very much (to put it gently).

What scripture says predestined for salvation....

Well, Pelagius is alive and well in spirit here....not sure I should answer this since it most certainly will be refuted. The holy grails of free will and choice....

We do have free will/choice in so much why do we insist on it in the one thing that scripture says you cannot have it in? It says to me that you (and others) are not truly trusting the Lord at all. You are saying that God is responding to us not us to Him. It makes all of prophecy and His plans and purposes based on mans actions/choices. You are demanding that you be in control not God. You are saying that we are in control even before we are born....

He knows who would believe/choose because He had already chosen us....not the other way around. It is not about us....it is ALL about HIM. He decides how His clay is to be used. The clay cannot decide for itself. To be saved or not. He is the Creator. He is the Savior, He is Almighty God.

1Th 5:9 For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ,

Destined to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Is that clear enough for you?

Heb 2:7 You made him for a little while lower than the angels; you have crowned him with glory and honor,
Heb 2:8 putting everything in subjection under his feet." Now in putting everything in subjection to him, he left nothing outside his control. At present, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him.
Heb 2:9 But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

HE IS IN CONTROL OF EVERYTHING, even if we do not yet see everything in subjection to Him.

1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
1Pe 1:2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you.
1Pe 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
1Pe 1:4 to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you,
1Pe 1:5 who by God's power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

I bolded the 'foreknowledge' part because it does not say He caused us to be born again according to what we would do/choose. Just simple says 'the foreknowledge of God'. I take it to mean that He knew us before we were born, before the foundations of the earth. He created Adam and Eve, but all the descendants of them would be born, and He 'KNOWS' us. In intimate fashion.

Psa 139:13 For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb.
Psa 139:14 I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well.
Psa 139:15 My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth.
Psa 139:16 Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.
Psa 139:17 How precious to me are your thoughts, O God! How vast is the sum of them!
Psa 139:18 If I would count them, they are more than the sand. I awake, and I am still with you.

Amen

I think the misunderstanding is found in the fact that the Lord choose us and not us choosing him by God initiating this call toward us, and then our response is back to him. If salvation is a gift (it is) then, God hands us a gift but we must receive this gift from him. God chooses who to give this gift to we don't. The Lord's desire is for all men to be saved, but not all men will be saved. The grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. If we really understood this then we know everything comes from God and not our self's since it was God who came to us first so we could have a choice.

Berean11
Dec 9th 2013, 02:18 PM
I think the misunderstanding is found in the fact that the Lord choose us and not us choosing him by God initiating this call toward us, and then our response is back to him. If salvation is a gift (it is) then, God hands us a gift but we must receive this gift from him. God chooses who to give this gift to we don't. The Lord's desire is for all men to be saved, but not all men will be saved. The grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. If we really understood this then we know everything comes from God and not our self's since it was God who came to us first so we could have a choice.

I said this already, except for this....He does not 'initiate' a call to us. He quite literally saves us. That is my understanding. He has always known us and chose us for His salvation. I will post more later. I have to go to work in a few minutes. I will be back later.

Berean11

Curtis
Dec 9th 2013, 02:55 PM
I said this already, except for this....He does not 'initiate' a call to us. He quite literally saves us. That is my understanding. He has always known us and chose us for His salvation. I will post more later. I have to go to work in a few minutes. I will be back later.

Berean11

What you believe is correct in the fact God saved us according to his own will, and not ours, but :) We can not discount the hundreds of scriptures that tell us to choose who we will serve. We have to reconcile those scriptures together with the ones that says it was God's decision not our in our salvation. The truth is only found between the two. I can not just believe God saved me without my desiring to be saved, nor can I believe it is only on my decision that I am saved either. I reconciled together by understanding my salvation was the result of God coming to me, revealing himself to me and my response back was, yes I what you. With out that revealing I would never want or even know the Lord. For me, everything I am and have is strictly from God, and not from myself. Now both scriptures remain true to me, God choose me and not myself, when I choose God when he called.

Berean11
Dec 10th 2013, 01:07 AM
What you believe is correct in the fact God saved us according to his own will, and not ours, but :) We can not discount the hundreds of scriptures that tell us to choose who we will serve. We have to reconcile those scriptures together with the ones that says it was God's decision not our in our salvation. The truth is only found between the two. I can not just believe God saved me without my desiring to be saved, nor can I believe it is only on my decision that I am saved either. I reconciled together by understanding my salvation was the result of God coming to me, revealing himself to me and my response back was, yes I what you. With out that revealing I would never want or even know the Lord. For me, everything I am and have is strictly from God, and not from myself. Now both scriptures remain true to me, God choose me and not myself, when I choose God when he called.

And we are also warned about falling away. So, I would have to say that the choosing on our part is not about salvation but about obedience. Once He has saved we must choose to continue in Him, hold fast, to serve Him, to lay down our lives. We continue to choose to believe. Because I believe that once we were slaves to sin and could not and would not choose Him even if He did reveal Himself to us. An active faith if you will. Not to earn continued salvation. But in belief and obedience to His commands.

Peace, Berean11

Noeb
Dec 10th 2013, 01:29 AM
I think, possibly, we are agreed that we cannot be saved by our own effort....yet, that is exactly what you and others insist on.I did?



If predestination and foreknowledge are based on something the Lord has foreseen we will do or say, our choices,Didn't say that either.



then you have admitted to salvation by works.Having faith is not our work. Faith is an ability all men are given by God that is exercised daily our entire lives.



Salvation then is not based on what the Lord would do but on what we would do.Yes. If you don't reach out and take the gift you cannot possess the gift.



That He has determined not to act till we act firstDidn't say this either.



What scripture says predestined for salvation....

The holy grails of free will and choice....

We do have free will/choice in so much why do we insist on it in the one thing that scripture says you cannot have it in?What are you talking about?



He knows who would believe/choose because He had already chosen us....not the other way around.He chose the way. He does not arbitrarily choose/reject all individuals.



1Th 5:9 For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ,

Destined to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Is that clear enough for you?Yes, it says what I just said.



HE IS IN CONTROL OF EVERYTHINGNo, he is in control in everything, as opposed to out of control. he's not ringing his hands.



1Pe 1:2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you.

I bolded the 'foreknowledge' part because it does not say He caused us to be born again according to what we would do/choose. Just simple says 'the foreknowledge of God'.No, it says "through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ". That happens through grace and faith.

What scripture says individuals are predestined for salvation?

Curtis
Dec 10th 2013, 03:20 AM
And we are also warned about falling away. So, I would have to say that the choosing on our part is not about salvation but about obedience. Once He has saved we must choose to continue in Him, hold fast, to serve Him, to lay down our lives. We continue to choose to believe. Because I believe that once we were slaves to sin and could not and would not choose Him even if He did reveal Himself to us. An active faith if you will. Not to earn continued salvation. But in belief and obedience to His commands.

Peace, Berean11

You said...
we must choose to continue in Him, hold fast, to serve Him, to lay down our lives. We continue to choose to believe.

I agree 100% that we must continue to "believe" in his Word. I believe that is our only responsibility is to simply continue to believe, and the Word that dwells in us will do it's work through us, which is Jesus. As Jesus said...

John 2:24 Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you too will abide in the Son and in the Father.
,
If we keep his word in us then we will continually abide in him. Keeping his Word in us is continually believing. If we stop believing then we can stumble. The good news is...

2Ti 2:12 if we endure, we will also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us;
2Ti 2:13 if we are faithless, he remains faithful-- for he cannot deny himself.

How can we ever go wrong? The Lord always remains faithful even if our faith is weak.

Berean11
Dec 10th 2013, 04:29 AM
You said...
we must choose to continue in Him, hold fast, to serve Him, to lay down our lives. We continue to choose to believe.

I agree 100% that we must continue to "believe" in his Word. I believe that is our only responsibility is to simply continue to believe, and the Word that dwells in us will do it's work through us, which is Jesus. As Jesus said...

John 2:24 Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you too will abide in the Son and in the Father.
,
If we keep his word in us then we will continually abide in him. Keeping his Word in us is continually believing. If we stop believing then we can stumble. The good news is...

2Ti 2:12 if we endure, we will also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us;
2Ti 2:13 if we are faithless, he remains faithful-- for he cannot deny himself.

How can we ever go wrong? The Lord always remains faithful even if our faith is weak.

Agreed. Been out on that Huntingdon Beach Pier a few times.....nice pic.

Nick
Dec 10th 2013, 05:59 AM
Couldn't decide what the real intent of this question was. So sat on answering it, prayed, asked the Lord how I should answer...

Just some friendly advice based on personal experience. Don't take the bait.

Noeb
Dec 10th 2013, 06:39 AM
Yes, wouldn't want anyone to have to provide scripture for their claims here in Bible Chat.

Nick
Dec 10th 2013, 06:52 AM
Yes, wouldn't want anyone to have to provide scripture for their claims here in Bible Chat.

It would be much easier to engage with you if your motive was to actually encourage understanding instead of harping on how flawed you think the other person's view is. I have consistently tried to respectfully address your points, but the reciprocity is lacking.

Noeb
Dec 10th 2013, 03:01 PM
You can't know motive. If I wasn't encouraging understanding I wouldn't be asking for scripture. Believers are predestined to/with/for...xyz. That is what scripture teaches.

Berean11
Dec 10th 2013, 04:08 PM
Just some friendly advice based on personal experience. Don't take the bait.

As is obvious, I already did.

the Seeker
Dec 10th 2013, 04:12 PM
It sounds like predestination because it IS predestination. Of course I know what foreknowledge is. I am not a baby Christian. Far from it. Were you being sarcastic? Do you mock me because i understand foreknowledge something different than you? And, nowhere does it say He predestines according to our choices. Yes, what we have done will be judged. I'm replying from my phone. I will post something more this evening.

Sarcasm are for those who do not have an legitimate argument to stand on.

From the very beginning of mankind, God placed tests for them. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, do you know what made that tree evil? God's commandment made that tree evil. If Adam had have listened to God and not eaten from the forbidden fruit, he would have gained the knowledge of good and evil anyway, because he would have said, No, God said that we are NOT to eat of the fruit from this tree, since doing so would be evil." Bingo, we have the knowledge of good and evil the right way. Yet, Jesus Christ had to die to save mankind, and God planned that from before creation. Why? Because He foreknew the decision that Adam will have made. From there, He made provisions so that mankind can have a chance to redeem himself, which is the very world we live in today. All of this He did because He knew the choice of one man.

Predestination diminish the power, the majesty, and the true character of God. Out of His foreknowledge, He made provisions to redeem all of mankind, if only they were smart enough to listen to Him. That gives mankind the choice that separates us from robots. At the same time, He gets to see which people will love Him just from faith in Him, and see for himself who would never repent of their sins and why. In all of their lives, He shows them, and us, that He exist. Predestination does not factor in the FACT that God wants people to repent of their sins our of their own free wills. Predestination eliminates free will, and perverts scripture.

I am not a baby Christian either. I have seen the evils in both the real world, and in the churches. I know what I am talking about. Since we are trying to use the credentials card. Neither am I am noob believer, nor brainwashed pewsitter.

BTW, if this conversation goes any further south, I will no longer respond to your posts. I will not resort to the prideful things that will lead to my own peril. So, be mindful of Matthew 7:1-5 please, as I will be.

Berean11
Dec 10th 2013, 04:21 PM
Sarcasm are for those who do not have an legitimate argument to stand on.

From the very beginning of mankind, God placed tests for them. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, do you know what made that tree evil? God's commandment made that tree evil. If Adam had have listened to God and not eaten from the forbidden fruit, he would have gained the knowledge of good and evil anyway, because he would have said, No, God said that we are NOT to eat of the fruit from this tree, since doing so would be evil." Bingo, we have the knowledge of good and evil the right way. Yet, Jesus Christ had to die to save mankind, and God planned that from before creation. Why? Because He foreknew the decision that Adam will have made. From there, He made provisions so that mankind can have a chance to redeem himself, which is the very world we live in today. All of this He did because He knew the choice of one man.

Predestination diminish the power, the majesty, and the true character of God. Out of His foreknowledge, He made provisions to redeem all of mankind, if only they were smart enough to listen to Him. That gives mankind the choice that separates us from robots. At the same time, He gets to see which people will love Him just from faith in Him, and see for himself who would never repent of their sins and why. In all of their lives, He shows them, and us, that He exist. Predestination does not factor in the FACT that God wants people to repent of their sins our of their own free wills. Predestination eliminates free will, and perverts scripture.

I am not a baby Christian either. I have seen the evils in both the real world, and in the churches. I know what I am talking about. Since we are trying to use the credentials card. Neither am I am noob believer, nor brainwashed pewsitter.

BTW, if this conversation goes any further south, I will no longer respond to your posts. I will not resort to the prideful things that will lead to my own peril. So, be mindful of Matthew 7:1-5 please, as I will be.

Your question 'do you know what foreknowledge is' came across as condescending to me (together with the rest of your post).

Don't worry, the conversation has already gone far enough south for me. I won't be posting anymore. I don't think you've any idea how you come across either.

Biblereader2013
Dec 11th 2013, 12:49 AM
LookingUp/ewq,

I've got to get some sleep. It's been nice talking to you. We'll pick it up later. God bless.

Original sin occured after Adam, and Eve ate from an Apple in Eden. The reason why it is called Original Sin is because the apple caused a Chemical
Reaction in both of there Dna, thus making it so they could have children and one day die. Because they chose to eat from the Tree of life first they would never have ever died period. If they never ate from the Apple Tree, of Knowledge of Wisdom of Good, and Evil. Imagine if you will, a Human man, and a Human Woman who simply have Eternal bodies. Then imagine that body getting older, and older because of Impurities, or Drugs, etc. But yes the Chemical reaction that allowed both Adam, and Eve to have dna allowed, them to have had children. If it wasn't for that both of them never would have had children, and we would not exist at all.

- Kevin.

ewq1938
Dec 11th 2013, 01:46 AM
Original sin occured after Adam, and Eve ate from an Apple in Eden. The reason why it is called Original Sin is because the apple caused a Chemical
Reaction in both of there Dna, thus making it so they could have children and one day die.

You probably don't understand that none of that comes from the bible right? It's completely made up nonsense.

Curtis
Dec 11th 2013, 02:09 AM
Original sin occured after Adam, and Eve ate from an Apple in Eden. The reason why it is called Original Sin is because the apple caused a Chemical
Reaction in both of there Dna, thus making it so they could have children and one day die. Because they chose to eat from the Tree of life first they would never have ever died period. If they never ate from the Apple Tree, of Knowledge of Wisdom of Good, and Evil. Imagine if you will, a Human man, and a Human Woman who simply have Eternal bodies. Then imagine that body getting older, and older because of Impurities, or Drugs, etc. But yes the Chemical reaction that allowed both Adam, and Eve to have dna allowed, them to have had children. If it wasn't for that both of them never would have had children, and we would not exist at all.

- Kevin.

Welcome Biblereader2013 to the forum, I hope you will continue to participate in these discussions on the Word of God. You might find it quite enlightening at times, and sometimes a trial to your faith, but that's OK. No one said that spiritual growth would be easy.
I do not think I have ever heard anybody come up with what you just posted. I will not say you are wrong, just different :) As for me I see the original sin did not happen when Adam ate from the tree of the knowledge of good, and evil. My personal belief is Adam first disobeyed God when he failed to "keep" the garden in which he was responsible for. The word "keep" means to guard, to protect. Adam failed in keeping Satan out of the garden which caused Eve, and himself to be tempted to eat. Sin does not become sin when we do actions but when we think it. The actions part is only the manifestation of abiding sin in the heart. One little disobedience in one area makes it much easier to disobey in another area of our lives. Satan always comes first to cause a disconnect to the one who leads and guides us in all things. I believe because of Adam disobedience of not keeping the garden, that caused a disconnect between God and Adam. Adam needed God's guidance at the time of temptation, he needed a way of escape.

ewq1938
Dec 11th 2013, 02:29 AM
Adam wasn't the "guard" of the garden and didn't fail concerning the serpent.


The word "keep" means to guard, to protect.

It also means to "have charge of" which is the sense the verse intends. He simply was to tend to the garden. God did not give him power nor authority to keep a fallen arch angel out of the garden. This is evident since Adam is not punished for failing to guard the garden. This theory isn't scriptural anymore than apples changing their DNA.




Welcome Biblereader2013 to the forum, I hope you will continue to participate in these discussions on the Word of God. You might find it quite enlightening at times, and sometimes a trial to your faith, but that's OK. No one said that spiritual growth would be easy.
I do not think I have ever heard anybody come up with what you just posted. I will not say you are wrong, just different :) As for me I see the original sin did not happen when Adam ate from the tree of the knowledge of good, and evil. My personal belief is Adam first disobeyed God when he failed to "keep" the garden in which he was responsible for. The word "keep" means to guard, to protect. Adam failed in keeping Satan out of the garden which caused Eve, and himself to be tempted to eat. Sin does not become sin when we do actions but when we think it. The actions part is only the manifestation of abiding sin in the heart. One little disobedience in one area makes it much easier to disobey in another area of our lives. Satan always comes first to cause a disconnect to the one who leads and guides us in all things. I believe because of Adam disobedience of not keeping the garden, that caused a disconnect between God and Adam. Adam needed God's guidance at the time of temptation, he needed a way of escape.

Curtis
Dec 11th 2013, 02:47 AM
Adam wasn't the "guard" of the garden and didn't fail concerning the serpent.



It also means to "have charge of" which is the sense the verse intends. He simply was to tend to the garden. God did not give him power nor authority to keep a fallen arch angel out of the garden. This is evident since Adam is not punished for failing to guard the garden. This theory isn't scriptural anymore than apples changing their DNA.

I believe Adam had authority over all the works of God's hands, which included Satan.

ewq1938
Dec 11th 2013, 02:53 AM
I believe Adam had authority over all the works of God's hands, which included Satan.

But what scripture states this? What good is a belief if there is nothing that supports it?

LookingUp
Dec 11th 2013, 03:27 AM
What good is a belief if there is nothing [spec. Scripture] that supports it?I will remember that one. I love it.

Noeb
Dec 11th 2013, 05:28 AM
But what scripture states this? What good is a belief if there is nothing that supports it?you know......

Hebrews 2:7-9 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

ewq1938
Dec 11th 2013, 05:39 AM
And how does that verse support this, "I believe Adam had authority over all the works of God's hands, which included Satan."

I don't see Adam even mentioned.



you know......

Hebrews 2:7-9 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

Curtis
Dec 11th 2013, 05:50 AM
And how does that verse support this, "I believe Adam had authority over all the works of God's hands, which included Satan."

I don't see Adam even mentioned.

Adam had authority over ALL THE EARTH. That includes every thing.

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

4What is man that You take thought of him, And the son of man that You care for him? 5Yet You have made him a little lower than God, And You crown him with glory and majesty! 6You make him to rule over the works of Your hands; You have put all things under his feet

ewq1938
Dec 11th 2013, 05:53 AM
Adam had authority over ALL THE EARTH. That includes every thing.

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

That doesn't include dominion over fallen arch angels, only animals. And no, the serpent wasn't a snake.


4What is man that You take thought of him, And the son of man that You care for him? 5Yet You have made him a little lower than God, And You crown him with glory and majesty! 6You make him to rule over the works of Your hands; You have put all things under his feet

That is written about Jesus, not Adam.

Curtis
Dec 11th 2013, 07:23 AM
That doesn't include dominion over fallen arch angels, only animals. And no, the serpent wasn't a snake.

That is written about Jesus, not Adam.

Heb 2:6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?
Heb 2:7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:

So, Jesus was made a little lower than the angels? Did Jesus have authority over angels? If the last Adam had authority over angels then so did the first Adam.

Aviyah
Dec 11th 2013, 07:31 AM
So, Jesus was made a little lower than the angels?

But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. (Heb. 2:9)

ewq1938
Dec 11th 2013, 07:40 AM
Heb 2:6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?
Heb 2:7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:

So, Jesus was made a little lower than the angels?

Yep.


Did Jesus have authority over angels?

Yep.



If the last Adam had authority over angels then so did the first Adam.

Nope. No scripture says this.

ewq1938
Dec 11th 2013, 07:43 AM
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. (Heb. 2:9)

Mandalorian ?

Curtis
Dec 11th 2013, 07:45 AM
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. (Heb. 2:9)

Not only was Jesus made a little lower then the angels in his incarnation, so was Adam. But when God crowned him with Glory and honor that placed them both higher than the angels. What God gave Adam was exactly what Lucifer wanted.

What is man, (this refers to Adam) that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man,(this refers to Jesus. Jesus called himself, "the son of man) that thou visitest him?
Heb 2:7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:

Aviyah
Dec 11th 2013, 08:11 AM
Not only was Jesus made a little lower then the angels in his incarnation, so was Adam. But when God crowned him with Glory and honor that placed them both higher than the angels. What God gave Adam was exactly what Lucifer wanted.

It seems to me that Jesus being made lower than angels implies that man in general is lower than angel. The glory and honor part doesn't change this because Jesus would have no reason to be lower, other than His humanity. Adam was always lower than angels before and after the Fall. Also I don't think Lucifer wanted the status of human. He was already "the cherub that covereth" (head archangel?), and so there is no step above this except God (which is what he wanted to be).

Humans are much less impressive than angels just by description and behavior.


Mandalorian?

Elek! :yes:

ewq1938
Dec 11th 2013, 08:14 AM
Humans are much less impressive than angels just by description and behavior.

Some angels abased themselves. Some humans rose above humanity.

Berean11
Dec 11th 2013, 10:50 AM
It seems to me that Jesus being made lower than angels implies that man in general is lower than angel. The glory and honor part doesn't change this because Jesus would have no reason to be lower, other than His humanity. Adam was always lower than angels before and after the Fall. Also I don't think Lucifer wanted the status of human. He was already "the cherub that covereth" (head archangel?), and so there is no step above this except God (which is what he wanted to be).

Humans are much less impressive than angels just by description and behavior.



Elek! :yes:

WOW...MoP :)....no Mandalorians.....left that world.

Noeb
Dec 11th 2013, 02:30 PM
And how does that verse support this, "I believe Adam had authority over all the works of God's hands, which included Satan."

I don't see Adam even mentioned.if you don't think so and have to ask nothing anyone says will change your mind.

GraceAlone
Dec 11th 2013, 02:42 PM
If one wants to demand that this verse means that the sin of one man automatically passed to all men and that men have no say in the matter, then one must also demand that the second half of this verse means that the righteousness of one man automatically passed to all men and that men have no say in the matter.

I disagree that this is the case. What you know from reading Rom 5:18 is that there are two men and two groups. There is a group associated with Adam (v14) and a second that is associated with Christ (v15). We also know that all of the members of Adam's group were affected by what he did. In verse 16 Paul states that condemnation fell upon the entire group associated with Adam as the result of his one sin. He does not say the possibility of condemnation. This is why he can also say in Rom 3:10ff that there is none righteous and that none seeks after God. Another thing that we know is that all of the men associated with Christ were affected by His act of obedience (v19). However, just from reading verse 18 I do not believe you can determine the scope of each group. In other words, how many are included in each group. You must consider other passages to get the complete answer.

It is clear from passages such as Mt 25:46 that not all men will be saved. So for sure we can say that all the men in the group that were affected by Jesus is limited in scope.

It is also clear from passages like Rom 3:10-18 and 1Jn 1:8 that there is no person who is or can claim to be without sin except for Christ. The issue is so pervasive that our very nature is corrupted. We are not born children of righteousness, but rather children of wrath (Eph 2:3). Which Paul explicitly states in Eph 2:3 is true for all of mankind.

Last, if it were possible for a child to be whisked away and secluded from all sinful influence such that they would never be enticed to sin and remain holy, then Jesus lied in Jn 14:6. There actually would be a way to Heaven apart from Christ. And Paul would be lying all throughout Romans that a person could not be saved on the merits of their own works. There would be some who actually could.

Even if you disagree with my assertions, don't you think it would be odd that a person could be born not under the wrath of God and Paul would not explain that or what to do about it?

Curtis
Dec 11th 2013, 02:55 PM
It seems to me that Jesus being made lower than angels implies that man in general is lower than angel. The glory and honor part doesn't change this because Jesus would have no reason to be lower, other than His humanity. Adam was always lower than angels before and after the Fall. Also I don't think Lucifer wanted the status of human. He was already "the cherub that covereth" (head archangel?), and so there is no step above this except God (which is what he wanted to be).

Humans are much less impressive than angels just by description and behavior.



Elek! :yes:

Isa 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
Isa 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

Lucifer wanted Glory and honor. he wanted to be like the most high. Adam was created in the image of God, so he was already like God, plus God crowned Adam with Glory of honor. Lucifer wanted these things.

Heb 1:13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?
Heb 1:14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?

Angels have always been subjected to the rule of man, because of man's authority given him by God.

Noeb
Dec 12th 2013, 01:06 AM
We are not born children of righteousness, but rather children of wrath (Eph 2:3). Which Paul explicitly states in Eph 2:3 is true for all of mankind.Hi!:wave:
I was agreeing with you until this. It does not say we are born children of wrath. It says we naturally become so because we are in this world without God, following the god and spirit of this world and the lusts of the flesh and mind. If we were born that way Original Sin would be true, but it's not.

ewq1938
Dec 12th 2013, 01:37 AM
Isa 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
Isa 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

Lucifer wanted Glory and honor. he wanted to be like the most high. Adam was created in the image of God, so he was already like God,

He was only like God in physical image, nothing else.





plus God crowned Adam with Glory of honor.

Where is that written?



Heb 1:13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?
Heb 1:14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?

Angels have always been subjected to the rule of man, because of man's authority given him by God.

God gave man no such authority over angels. The above verses speak about Jesus only.

Curtis
Dec 12th 2013, 04:12 AM
He was only like God in physical image, nothing else.


Show me scripture that says that.




Where is that written?

Heb 2:6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man ,(referring to Adam) that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man (referring to Jesus), that thou visitest him?
Heb 2:7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:

ewq1938
Dec 12th 2013, 04:26 AM
Show me scripture that says that.

All you have to do is look into the definitions of image and likeness, they refer solely to physical image:

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.



Heb 2:6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man ,(referring to Adam) that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man (referring to Jesus), that thou visitest him?

No, its not Adam.

G444
ἄνθρωπος
anthrōpos
anth'-ro-pos
From G435 and ὤψ ōps (the countenance; from G3700); manfaced, that is, a human being: - certain, man.


This means man as human man, or mankind. Adam's Greek name is:

G76
Ἀδάμ
Adam
ad-am'
Of Hebrew origin [H121]; Adam, the first man; typically (of Jesus) man (as his representative): - Adam.






Heb 2:7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:


And this address Jesus, not anyone else.

Curtis
Dec 13th 2013, 12:58 PM
All you have to do is look into the definitions of image and likeness, they refer solely to physical image:

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.




No, its not Adam.

G444
ἄνθρωπος
anthrōpos
anth'-ro-pos
From G435 and ὤψ ōps (the countenance; from G3700); manfaced, that is, a human being: - certain, man.


This means man as human man, or mankind. Adam's Greek name is:

G76
Ἀδάμ
Adam
ad-am'
Of Hebrew origin [H121]; Adam, the first man; typically (of Jesus) man (as his representative): - Adam.

And this address Jesus, not anyone else.

Sorry, I do not agree with your interpretation of these scriptures. Man was crowned with Glory and honor in the garden, yet they lost it after Adam had sinned. But now it has been restored back to us through Jesus Christ.

Rom 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Scooby_Snacks
Dec 13th 2013, 01:34 PM
All you have to do is look into the definitions of image and likeness, they refer solely to physical image:

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.




No, its not Adam.

G444
ἄνθρωπος
anthrōpos
anth'-ro-pos
From G435 and ὤψ ōps (the countenance; from G3700); manfaced, that is, a human being: - certain, man.


This means man as human man, or mankind. Adam's Greek name is:

G76
Ἀδάμ
Adam
ad-am'
Of Hebrew origin [H121]; Adam, the first man; typically (of Jesus) man (as his representative): - Adam.







And this address Jesus, not anyone else.

When I think of man being created in God's image, I think of the Spirit, soul, and the body.
Man is also made for relationship just like God is in relationship- Holy Spirit, Father and Son.

We are made in His image in many ways-
He has authority over all things, and He gave us authority over the earth and what I believe is the ability to use that authority-- To begin with.
What good is giving someone dominion/control/authority without giving the ability to take on the assignment?
The ability was given to gain wisdom, and that wisdom was meant to come through humility in seeking God to guide and teach them.

I wouldn't send a shoe salesman to build a house unless I taught him how to build a house.
The foundation (God) is the first step, and they failed the lesson, and still yet today even in Christ that lesson seems a constant one.

How do I learn to live in God?

I find the conversations between this first family and God after the events in the garden very interesting.

ewq1938
Dec 14th 2013, 02:46 AM
Sorry, I do not agree with your interpretation of these scriptures.

Yet you cannot or will not show why I am wrong?


Man was crowned with Glory and honor in the garden, yet they lost it after Adam had sinned.

Scripture does not state this. Why believe it? Why take a verse speaking about Jesus and apply it to someone else? How is that a good way to study the bible?

ewq1938
Dec 14th 2013, 02:49 AM
Yet the entire bible speaks greatly about how unlike God mankind is so man was never made in the full inner and outer image of God, only the basic outer form.
To say more than that goes beyond what the Hebrew terms mean, and goes against what the bible states about man being so opposite of God's moral character.



When I think of man being created in God's image, I think of the Spirit, soul, and the body.
Man is also made for relationship just like God is in relationship- Holy Spirit, Father and Son.

We are made in His image in many ways-
He has authority over all things, and He gave us authority over the earth and what I believe is the ability to use that authority-- To begin with.
What good is giving someone dominion/control/authority without giving the ability to take on the assignment?
The ability was given to gain wisdom, and that wisdom was meant to come through humility in seeking God to guide and teach them.

I wouldn't send a shoe salesman to build a house unless I taught him how to build a house.
The foundation (God) is the first step, and they failed the lesson, and still yet today even in Christ that lesson seems a constant one.

How do I learn to live in God?

I find the conversations between this first family and God after the events in the garden very interesting.