Original Sin

[Ovedya]

Thatddeus' claim: All of mankind inherited "moratlity" from Adam, which is the fallen nature, a nature that sins.

Ovedya's claim: All of mankind inherited a fallen nature from Adam, a nature that sins.

The end result is exactly the same. By admitting that humanity possesses a "nature that sins" you are admitting that he has a sin nature. The rest is semantics.

And I'm STILL waiting for those verses...

[firehill]

Ovedya:

Thatddeus' claim: All of mankind inherited "moratlity" from Adam, which is the fallen nature,...

I can agree with the above up to the fallen nature part thus far looking at the Genesis record. Adam became mortal because one result of the fall was physical death. Though it appears that in order for him to of been immortal he would have needed to eat from the tree of life.

Regarding the fallen nature, thus far also looking to the Genesis text it very much has to do with having a nature that is not innocent of good and evil. Adam and Eve were innocent before the fall and not after and yes all humankind inherits this uninnocence. But from whom etc etc.

Where sin fits into the fallen nature, I haven't gotten that far yet.

[Ovedya]

Ovedya:

Thatddeus' claim: All of mankind inherited "moratlity" from Adam, which is the fallen nature,...

I can agree with the above up to the fallen nature part thus far looking at the Genesis record. Adam became mortal because one result of the fall was physical death. Though it appears that in order for him to of been immortal he would have needed to eat from the tree of life.

This is a contradiction. Despite Thaddeus' claim, man was not created "neutral." One can either live and eventually die or live and not die. There is no "neutral." According to Genesis man was created mortal and needed the tree of life to possess God's eternal life.

Regarding the fallen nature, thus far also looking to the Genesis text it very much has to do with having a nature that is not innocent of good and evil. Adam and Eve were innocent before the fall and not after and yes all humankind inherits this uninnocence. But from whom etc etc.

Where sin fits into the fallen nature, I haven't gotten that far yet.

I think it's pretty straightforward and, honestly can't understand why you're at such a conflict with it. If "fallen nature" is that nature by which we sin, then that nature must logically be of sin. Much the same way an apple tree has the "apple tree nature" and produces apples.Did you consider the parallel of Christ being the bronze serpent in John 3:14?

[OopsMartin]

Thaddaeus wrote: "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."

What I like about what Thaddaeus says is that he sticks as closely as possible to what the Scripture says. What we actually take from the "Adam's Family" is that they brought death to us from their sin. I believe that at the moment their sin was complete, that they began to die. Their very phsical composition changed from pure liveliness to the process of dying.

Firehill wrote: "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."

And

[firehill]

This is a contradiction. Despite Thaddeus' claim, man was not created "neutral." One can either live and eventually die or live and not die. There is no "neutral." According to Genesis man was created mortal and needed the tree of life to possess God's eternal life.

God created Adam and breathed the breath of life into him and he became a living being. Adam lived at that point. Then he could have eventualy died by eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil or lived and not die by eating of the tree of life. He could have even eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and lived in a dying state and then eaten of the tree of life and forever lived in that decaying, dying state.

If according to Genesis man was created mortal then why did he die only AFTER eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil as God said he would?

I think it's pretty straightforward and, honestly can't understand why you're at such a conflict with it. If "fallen nature" is that nature by which we sin, then that nature must logically be of sin. Much the same way an apple tree has the "apple tree nature" and produces apples.Did you consider the parallel of Christ being the bronze serpent in John 3:14?

Adam did not sin out of a fallen nature did he? He had a pure one. So therefore the fallen nature which we now have is not necessarily the nature BY which we sin because sin can be comitted by one whether or not one is pure (Adam before the fall), not innocent, (Adam after the fall) or even an angel (lucifer before he fell).

Also the knowledge of good and evil tree has 'the knowledge of good and evil tree nature.'

I'll have to look at John 3:14 later.

[Thaddaeus]

Ovedya,

The end result is exactly the same. By admitting that humanity possesses a "nature that sins" you are admitting that he has a sin nature. The rest is semantics.

It is not the same thing Ovedya. It is a monster difference and is far from sematics. That what theology does, it is very exact.

A nature that sins, is not a sin nature.

If it is a sin nature, then Christ also had a sin nature. He would be worthless to man respective of the perfect lamb.

I believe it was Firehill, who wondered whither Christ assumed the nature of Adam before the fall or after the fall.

It must of necessity be the one after the fall. That is the fallen nature that needed correction, that needed to be brought back to life. Consequently that nature could not possibly be a sin nature, but a nature that sins. A nature that is the cause of sin, but not sin.

Christ could not have assumed Adam's nature before the fall since that nature was not given or able to die. Christ needed to die in His Human Nature so that it could be raised to life. Adam needed to sin first before the judgment was made to fall to a mortal being. That would have required Christ to also sin in order to acquire a nature that could die. Also, a good nature would not require healing and correction.

Furthermore, it is a nature that is assumed by the use of a human being, namely the Virgin Mary. Mary possessed and passed on that mortality to Christ in His Human Nature.

You cannot just take any text and assign a meaning that is totally irrelevant to the rest of scripture and/or makes the rest of scripture a contradiction.

And I'm STILL waiting for those verses...

I'm not sure just what verses you are waiting for but here are some dealing with death as the condemnation placed upon Adam for his sin and death as being inherited by all. Then the texts that juxaposed Adam against Christ.

The disobedience of Adam and Eve is not that Satan tempted Eve to take of the fruit to be like God. After all, that is what man aspires towards. The disobedience is that man tried to do it without God. Man substituted creation rather than God for their knowledge and fulfillment. Apostle Paul sums it up quite well, Romans 1:25.

This is what man has been attempting to do ever since. Find fulfillment and purpose in creation rather than in God. Man is lost in his own ego and self-centeredness.

Thus man said no to God and destroyed his vocation and creation.

Man separated himself from True Life. He was destined now to return to dust. Gen 3:19.

Thus man turns against God, his fellow man and against creation.

It has also altered man's perception of the world. Instead of seeing it as gift given for communion with God we use it to attain our own desires. We use creation and each other as a tool to reach our own ends. Punishment for man was that the nature, the image he was created in was distorted, corrupted and separated from his creator. Death and the end of life and existance as human beings, as we know it, was our destiny. Non-existance - annihilation. The judgement of Adam against all of mankind was death. Death, in theological terms, means the separation of body and soul. Man was not created to be mortal, or separated but whole, immortal, in union with God.

Though man was punished, God also provided redemption. God was not willing to allow His creation to simply dissolve back into nothingness after the fall. The Revelation we have in the OT is God's message and the preparation of the coming of the Messiah. God sent His Only Son, Christ, to reconcile the world unto himself, II Cor 5:14-19. Because Christ is the eternal image of the Father, He alone is able to renew the image of God in man. Col 1:15-20; John 5:28-29; Rom 5:14-19; I Cor 15:20-22; I John 4:14, Texts that corroborate this view are: Acts 24:15; Acts 23:6; Eph 1:10; John 12: 32, I Tim 4:10, Is 26:19, Dan 12:2, Luke 2:30-32 They also show the universality of Christ's redemptive work.

Christ's work on the Cross is solely Grace, man has nothing to do with it, it is totally objective. See: John 1:13, I Pet 1:23, James 1:18, Gal 4:4, Heb 2:11, Rom 9:16.

Christ came to us Incarnate. Meaning He was both God and Man. It means that the joining of God's perfect Image was to be reunited with the fallen image of man and creation. Thus in summation, man lost the perfect created image in which he was made and lost the ability to commune with God so that man could attain Godlikeness. He lost life.

The Incarnation of our human nature was a necessity in order that Christ could redeem it. Christ became man, consubstantial with man, in order to effect the changes necessary to redeem our natures. Adam's sin resulted in a judgement against man's nature, death. Man became mortal, living in a state of death. Thus all men are born dead, by nature, inherited corruptness. It is from this state of death, mortality, the flesh that sin originates in man.

[Thaddaeus]

Firehill,

Adam did not sin out of a fallen nature did he? He had a pure one. So therefore the fallen nature which we now have is not necessarily the nature BY which we sin because sin can be comitted by one whether or not one is pure (Adam before the fall), not innocent, (Adam after the fall) or even an angel (lucifer before he fell).

Adam did not sin from a fallen nature. However, if you want to assume that we are all born in the prefall nature of Adam, then of course, there is no inheritance of either sin or death. We are born good, neutral and each of us then have the same options as Adam had. Still free to either remain working with God in creation or rejecting Him. However, theologically, the argument then is that there very wall could be immortal people living on this earth already, but you also have the conundrum of immortal people living in a fallen world. Each also would die their own death at whatever time they might have first sinned.

Christ would of necessity need to die separately for each of them. They are not consubstantial with any other human beings.

That is precisely why death, the condemnation of Adam and thus mankind was an act of mercy on the part of God to permit Satan to impose that sentence upon man. God knew, since man is consubstantial in nature, by passing on death, He already knew this would happen and Chrsit would be the correction by assuming that consubstantial nature and dying and raising it to life again.

It puts all of mankind on equal footing, each now given their own choice of whether to dwell with God forever or reject Him and live apart from Him forever.

By the way, this view of men being born like Adam was created, neutral or good, is the heresy of Pelagius. The view that man did not need Grace or the help of God to live a perfect life. He beleived Jesus was a very good human being who was able to resist sin and temptation and thus achieve perfection. Jesus became for Pelagius a very good model for human beings to follow.

[dugmando]

Thaddeus,

I some what follow what you are trying to say, but do not agree with it. I think maybe if you could answer for me this.

If what you are saying is so, what brought death to Adam his natural state or his disobedience ?

What would have been Adams state, if Adam had not disobeyed God's command, would he have lived forever?

Simple answer is His disobedience which was sin brought about death a condition he did not know before his disobedience.

It is sin which has caused man problem and the reason for Christ's Atonement, Not death.

If man had never known sin his relationship with God would not have been broken.

But because of Adam's fall man now knows sin which has a curse, a curse that broke man's unique and personal fellowship with God (as we all know God has no part with evil and sin is evil right?)and brings upon him death

It's because of sin he/man now knows death.

Christ did not die for my death but for my sin, which causes all men to die.

Dug

[firehill]

Thaddaeus:

I believe it was Firehill, who wondered whither Christ assumed the nature of Adam before the fall or after the fall.

It must of necessity be the one after the fall. That is the fallen nature that needed correction, that needed to be brought back to life. Consequently that nature could not possibly be a sin nature, but a nature that sins. A nature that is the cause of sin, but not sin.

Christ could not have assumed Adam's nature before the fall since that nature was not given or able to die. Christ needed to die in His Human Nature so that it could be raised to life. Adam needed to sin first before the judgment was made to fall to a mortal being. That would have required Christ to also sin in order to acquire a nature that could die. Also, a good nature would not require healing and correction.

I find this correct because there simply is NO proof in Genesis that the nature Adam had before the fall was able to die. There just simply is no proof and in light of both trees, one which resulted in death and another which resulted in eternal life, it makes perfect sense too.

[dugmando]

No disobedience, no sin , no death

Know disobedience, know sin, know death

No Christ, know sin, know death, no Heaven

Know Christ, Know forgiveness for my sin, Still know Death but now Know Heaven!

Very simple and primary concept

Dug