Original Sin

[dugmando]

Wow what a discussion,

I do not have as deep an understanding as some here but the verse from 1st Corinthians 15 seem to be a fairly simple concept to understand.

21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Concept

Ist man by his actions brought death

What where the actions of or what did the 1st man do? He disobeyed God's command-he sinned, breaking the Relationship the Creator had with His Creation bringing a seperation from the Creator.

The 1st man by his disobedience/sin brought upon himself and his descendants the curse or the consequence of sin

consequence means the result or the outcome

What is the outcome or result of sin-Death

2nd Man by His Actions brought Life

2nd Man what did He Do, He did what only He could do because He was the Only One Qualified, He Died as Payment for the sin of the 1st man and the sins of all the rest of his descendants, thereby restoring through His Work the Relationship between Creator and Creation.

Who was the 1st man-Adam

Who was the 2nd Man-Christ

We because of the first man need the Second Man, all should agree either way we do need the Second Man right?

Well let me ask a "duh" question, why would we need the Second Man except because by the first man sin came into the world.

And if the point that some make is that result of Adam's actions/sin is that we all come to know death, then everybody is going to Heaven right, because don't we all die?

And Paul clearly says the Second Man has fixed that problem right?

Not all are going to Heaven because of the curse of sin.

Dug

[Thaddaeus]

Ovedya,

Although Christ has the "fallen nature" he sis not sin.

What am I missing here?

Understanding that in the Incarnation Christ's human nature was fully submitted to the Divine Nature. If we could do that perfectly, we also would not sin. He was like us in every way, but did not sin. It is not that he could not sin, but that he did not sin. If he could not sin, it is of no consequence for man, since he was not truly man. It is why the devil tempted Jesus in the wilderness. If Jesus could not sin, tempting would be moot.

My claim is that the fallen nature is the nature of sin within humanity. your claim is that the fallen nature is the nature by which man sins. How is this not different.

For many reasons. First, it passes that sin directly to the birth of Jesus from a human being. It would not be a matter of neither could not sin, did not sin, but that He would have been sin. He inherited our human nature, a fallen human nature, but not sin. We do not inherit sin, but we sin through that fallen nature, our mortality. Christ resisted sin perfectly. He could not command us to be perfect as he was, knowing that it is not only impossible but impassible. We can will to sin less. We can will to control our fleshly desires. We can only do this by being regenerated and having the Holy Spirit indwell us. We are able to do all things with Him who strengthens us. But one must be willing.

Man's mortality is in a "fallen condition." - I agree with that also.

But I don't and neither does scripture. Our mortality is not IN a fallen condition, our mortality IS our fallen condition. We were created to be immortal and in union with God. We fell from ever attaining to that state. Adam was created neutral. He could have gone either way. We know which way he went.

but really it's just a splitting of hairs. If man is born mortal and it's that mortality that contains the nature by which man sins, then the mortality of man is the sin nature! You are claiming that mortality is handed down from Adam, but that sin is not. Yet you confess that there is a nature in mortality that causes man to sin. That is in direct conflict with your claim that sin is not inherited from Adam.

Do you see why this is such a confusing argument?

It is not splitting hairs. If it is as you say, then all is still death. What was revealed to us in scripture is a lie. Christ is sin. He did not really overcome the condemnation of mankind. He overcame only His death since he was not really Incarnate or He was incarnated with sin. A very huge difference. Mortality does not contain a nature. It is a nature. It is a state of being. Sin is not inherited from Adam.

I don't see anything confusing about this discussion or understanding the ancestrial sin.

This is why you err. Did God create trees, plants, animals and every creaping thing that creeps on the face of the earth to be eternal as well?

Yes, it will be in the end. There will be a new heaven and a new earth. Man has always been intrinsic to the physical surroundings. In fact, man cannot live outside of his physical environment. That is why he was created last. Man is the link between the physical and the spiritual, He has both qualities. He bears the Image of His creator as nothing else does. That is precisely why Christ redeemed the universe. Redeeming only man would not suffice. Death and corruption effected the universe, thus redemption, reconciliation for the world does as well. As in Adam, so also in Christ.

That man would eat of the tree of life and thus have God's life and live forever. He did not create man with eternal life from the beginning, but that eternal life would be a choice. Man obviously chose wrongly and remained as mortal as He was created.

There in lies your confusion. Man was not created either mortal or immortal. He was created neutral. He did have the choice of either. Both trees existed in the Garden. We know man disobeyed, fell and death, mortality was the result. If man was in fact created mortal, then immortality would never have been an option. You have God creating sin and death.

Edited June 3, 2007 by Thaddaeus

[Thaddaeus]

dugmando,

Well let me ask a "duh" question, why would we need the Second Man except because by the first man sin came into the world.

And if the point that some make is that result of Adam's actions/sin is that we all come to know death, then everybody is going to Heaven right, because don't we all die?

And Paul clearly says the Second Man has fixed that problem right?

Not all are going to Heaven because of the curse of sin.

No, not correct either. For a moment you had the sequence absolutely right, then instead of death you moved back to sin.

We needed the Second Adam to overcome death. Death is the bane of mankind, not sin. Its like if you treat the sniffles. you will never get rid of the cold which causes the sniffles.

Not all are going to heaven but all of mankind are immortal, eternal. The Incarnated Christ arose from the dead, restored mankind to life.

It is this life that makes living IN Christ possible in the here and now and for eternity. The second Work of Christ on the Cross was atonement. The propitiation of the sins of the world. It is through the atonment that man can reconcile himself with God through forgiveness of our sins. It is what makes union and communion with God in this life possible. It is also what separates man from God. That is why it is called a spiritual death, a spiritual separation.

If Christ had not givne mankind eternal life, all the propitiation of sin would have been in vain. Man would have still died. Death is the separation of body and soul. It is dust to dust.

Because God freed mankind from the bondage to death and sin through Adam, he places it squarely on us now. If we had remained under the condemnation of Adam, whether we sinnied or not would have had no consequence. We would still die. We were already convicted, not by our sins, but by the one sin of Adam. We now stand in judgement for our sins. That is why those that believe have eternal life WITH Christ, and those that do not believe are condemned already, eternal life without Christ.

Without the redemption of mankind, without the Work of Christ on the Cross, the universe, the created order would end in destruction, non-existance. All men would cease to exist upon death and all would continue to die and God would have failed in His purpose to have union and communion with man for an eternity. The Cross made hell and heaven possible. Without it we are all just dust.

[firehill]

We've been talking alot about death and which kind of death they experienced in the garden after eating of the tree. We know that in the day they ate they SAW that they were naked whereas before they ate they saw through innocent eyes unaware of their nakedness not having there eyes opened. THEIR NATURE OF INNOCENCE died then to be sure as their eyes OPENED to knowledge of good and evil's full spectrum upon eating. We can all agree to this surely.

Thus far then since God is all knowing which includes knowing good and evil and not innocent in that he can SEE everything good and evil because he has the most open eyes of all (Genesis says that their eyes were opened) we can then say that according to the Genesis account of creation and the fall that their having been made in God's image wasn't marred BY eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil but their nature of innocence died BY eating of that tree.

[Ovedya]

We've been talking alot about death and which kind of death they experienced in the garden after eating of the tree. We know that in the day they ate they SAW that they were naked whereas before they ate they saw through innocent eyes unaware of their nakedness not having there eyes opened. THEIR NATURE OF INNOCENCE died then to be sure as their eyes OPENED to knowledge of good and evil's full spectrum upon eating. We can all agree to this surely.

Thus far then since God is all knowing which includes knowing good and evil and not innocent in that he can SEE everything good and evil because he has the most open eyes of all (Genesis says that their eyes were opened) we can then say that according to the Genesis account of creation and the fall that their having been made in God's image wasn't marred BY eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil but their nature of innocence died BY eating of that tree.

Well that's the Arminian theory anyway...

[Guest]

"But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"

Romans 5:8-12

"Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."

Romans 5:18

Where are all the verses, by the way?

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

1 Corinthians 15:22

And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

1 Corinthians 15:45

He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

1 John 3:8

For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

2 Corinthians 5:21

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:

The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:

The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them.

Numbers 6:24-27

Love, Your Brother Joe

[firehill]

We've been talking alot about death and which kind of death they experienced in the garden after eating of the tree. We know that in the day they ate they SAW that they were naked whereas before they ate they saw through innocent eyes unaware of their nakedness not having there eyes opened. THEIR NATURE OF INNOCENCE died then to be sure as their eyes OPENED to knowledge of good and evil's full spectrum upon eating. We can all agree to this surely.

Thus far then since God is all knowing which includes knowing good and evil and not innocent in that he can SEE everything good and evil because he has the most open eyes of all (Genesis says that their eyes were opened) we can then say that according to the Genesis account of creation and the fall that their having been made in God's image wasn't marred BY eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil but their nature of innocence died BY eating of that tree.

Well that's the Arminian theory anyway...

In that post, I'm only trying to touch upon what we can draw from the Genesis text (a place where foundations are built) without a doubt according to what the passages say, Arminian or not. Perhaps you can reiterate those things better?

Before they ate their eyes were not opened. Whatever that means untell we look at the fall and read that their eyes were opened after eating and they saw that they were naked. Therefore their nature of innocence had to of died and their eyes were now open to the full spectrum of knowledge of good and evil. I don't see anyway around these conclusions drawn from the Genesis text.

Therefore the fallen nature at least consists of not being innocent and thereby having one's eyes open to the knowledge of good and evil. Also how innocent was Adam in 3:12?

Now he wasn't innocent of God's command and neither was Eve but still yet his nature had to of been innocent (of what?)since they weren't even aware of the fact that they were naked untell they ate and also since their 'eyes were opened' after they ate. Opened to what is the question? The answer is their eyes were innocent of the knowledge of good and evil and it's full spectrum therefore they were innocent of knowing good and evil. Their nature was innocent of these things so their innocent nature died. Again I don't see anyway around these conclusion drawn from Genesis. God knows good and evil, Genesis 3:21 and he made humankind innocent of that knowledge.

chp 2

16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

chp 3

2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "

4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?"

10 He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid."

11 And he said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?"

12 The man said, "The woman you put here with me

[Ovedya]

In my observation those of you that are in the "man is born innocent" camp are sorely lacking in Scriptural evidence. Most, of your arguments consist of human reasoning alone, based on three or four verses out of a Bible consisting of 31,103.

Those of us for original sin have drawn from dozens of verses which clearly indicate that man is possessed with a sin nature (ie. fallen nature).

So, without further comment on those argument which have been added to this discussion post my last response, I think I'll just calmly wait for those verses which dispute the one's already posted proving original sin.

~O

P.S. Good on ya' FresnoJoe!

[Thaddaeus]

Ovedya,

Those of us for original sin have drawn from dozens of verses which clearly indicate that man is possessed with a sin nature (ie. fallen nature).

The problem, Ovedya, is that "we" arfe using the same texts. You start from a proposition that we inherit sin. We inherit mortality which is death. You then equate fallen nature with a sin nature which is incorrect, per scripture. However, reverse the words you have the correct understanding of the fall. a nature that sins.

So, without further comment on those argument which have been added to this discussion post my last response, I think I'll just calmly wait for those verses which dispute the one's already posted proving original sin.

But, you have given no verses that actually say we inherited the sin and/or guilt of Adam.

It also confounds and makes the rest of scripture non-conconforming in relation to the correction of that fall. Sin is not man's primary problem. All through the OT we see God having communion with man. In anticipation of that coming and promised Messiah to Adam, God established the animal sacrifies as a temporary solution and an archtype for the Perfect Lamp. But in none of the OT do you have an archtype for death. Nonething could resurrect itself. ONLY Christ, the giver of life could also restore life. The sacrifice of sins does not require a resurrection. It only requries death and blood. Thus if sin is the only problem, Christ need not be raised. The Human Nature He assumed would have been left in the grave.

But, alas, Scripture does not treat sin as a primary problem, but the condemnation of man through Adam. Man is dead. Man needs life, eternal life. To have union for eternity, man must become immortal, eternal. That is what the resurrection is for. Christ overcame death, gave life to mankind. Now, the forgiveness of sins makes sense. Man can have union in this life while still sinners. He can begin union and communion with God while even still possessing a fallen nature, a mortal natue, that still sins. But that mortality is also a test. A test for man who desires to be in union with God, can lessen the control of that mortal, fleshly nature upon his disires and will. It is in direct competition with the Holy Spirit on the will of man. That is why there is a war going on. Satan still has a chance to gather in as well, but He also has already lost the battle, Christ overcame death. But death in the end will be defeated completely with His Resurrection.

[firehill]

I'm still at Genesis 2 & 3. So what I'm seeing is that had the two not become like God by knowing good and evil which resulted from eating of the tree which goes to say that they loss their innocence of NOT knowing good and evil then there never would have been need of the laws to come through Moses in the first place. For what do innocent human beings have to do with laws if they have no understanding between good and evil? Now this good and evil that their eyes were opened to is passed down to all of humankind since it is a nature change. Therefore the first two human being's nature changed from innocent of good and evil to not innocent of good and evil.

Then considering that God told them they would die if they ate from the tree and that they would die the very day that they ate from the tree the questions are, die how and did they die the same day that they ate? Spiritualy, physicaly, both? So far without looking to other passages it can be concluded that their innocent human nature died, gone away, went bye bye the very same day they ate. Ofcourse this speaks nothing to the effect of a physical death that I can see at this point since they didn't die physicaly on the spot after eating. But what about a spiritual death of INNOCENCE? The death of their innocent human nature can be seen when God asked Adam, 'who told you that you were naked?' There's the change or death of innocence since now Adam was aware of his nakedness. And it occured the very day that they ate of the tree just as God said that they would die the very day they ate of it. This is to say that they didn't die spiritualy immediately (though yet to come the decay had already began just as the decay of their physical bodies had) but yet that a spiritual death of innocence occured the day they ate.

So all this goes to say that in the very least all are born without an innocent nature having inherited the knowledge of good and evil and that all are born with a spirit but not an innocent one (there are numerous places in the bible that speak of man having a spirit!!!) but a question is still through who? Adam, Eve, both, both parents, just the father? Another question is, was Jesus born like Adam and Eve before the fall or like us after it?

Their change of nature from innocent to not innocent speaks to the effect of them now having a nature to do good or evil. Since they are now not innocent and aware of both then they now have the inclination for doing either having a different nature now. Don't we have inclinations to do good or evil? Do we not understand both within our falliable humanity?

Then turning to 3:17-19 God tells the man that he would return to the ground from which he was taken. Therefore the death of their innocent nature leads to or results in an eventual physical death. And when the body dies the spirit dies with it. So in conclusion when God told them taht they would die if they ate, he meant a death of their original innocent nature which was immediate and an eventual physical death in which case the spirit dies with the body. But this doesn't mean that since the two died according to thei innocent nature after eating and eventualy returning to dust having a physical death that therefore they must have been created immortal. The reason is because in 3:21 & 22 God says that the man must not be allowed to eat from the tree of life and live forever.

17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'

"Cursed is the ground because of you;

through painful toil you will eat of it

all the days of your life.

18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,

and you will eat the plants of the field.

19 By the sweat of your brow

you will eat your food

until you return to the ground,

since from it you were taken;

for dust you are

and to dust you will return."

21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side [e] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.