Original Sin

[firehill]

Ovedya:

Eve did not die the instant she ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Neither did God kill her. Yet from the latter verses it is clear that she had inherited sin from that tree and so was spiritually dead:

firehill: Did Adam 'die' the instant he ate the fruit? Did God kill him?

Ovedya: Please do not steer this discussion into another direction. We are not addressing the male/female thing here.

[firehill]

If man is not sinful when born, then he could conceivably be perfect.

If Adam and Eve were made 'perfect' then how did they manage to fall? If Adam and Eve weren't even made perfect then I don't know where your argument about humankind being born perfect would even come from. In order for them to overcome their desire to eat they needed Christ too which is so profound...

It says that through Adam, death and sin entered the world. This, of course, would not be true if all of us were born free of sin. It would mean that sin enters the world on a daily basis, not through Adam. Paul would be wrong.

This really isn't a hard concept people.

God's image cannot be marred which is to say that if man is born in sin then God's image is devastated in us which I don't think is possible intell a person is accountable for their own sin. People are born in death...

And the wages of sin is....what?

Death since as the bible says in more places than one ALL HAVE SINNED not that all are born into sin. There is a difference.

[Thaddaeus]

Apothanein Kerdo,

To them, we all became Adam - born into this world sinless, we re-enact the fall. The Fall becomes existential, not something that happened that we all suffer from, but instead a here and now thing we must deal with. As Carnell says, the Fall is, "...a mythological description of a universal experience of the race" (Theology of Reinhold Niebuhr, p. 168).

classical Pelagianism.

It is not that we are inherently sinful, or inherently guilty, but instead that we each choose to sin, and therefore by our experience become sinful. This teaches the absolute autonomy of man and denies the Biblical unity concerning man's consequences. We all have to live with the consequences of sin. The consequences of Adam's sin is that we would all be guilty before God from the moment of conception, in that we would go on to sin. Though we do sin in our own experience, sin transcends time and our experience and will affect us all equally. We are guilty of sin before we are ever born.

Man is controlled by his nature. It controls the will of man. We sin because of our fallenness.

Now, man does live with the consequences of Adam, namely death. We do not live with the consequences of his specific sin or his guilt. We all have enough of our own.

Adam's sin nor the consequence of that sin, namely death makes man guilty before God. However we are all dead for the moment of conception. It is concieving a mortal being. We could live perfectly, without sin, and still not have eternal life. We would still die due to our fallen nature or the condemnation of death. It is this death that man needs corrected. It is the primary work of Christ on the Cross to redeem man from death. One cannot be guilty of anything until it is committed. I am not guilty of murder just because I am human. I have to actually commit murder to be guilty.

Christ is the propitiated the sins of the world. I can rid myself of the guilt of sin by confessing and being given forgiveness. He commands us not to sin. It would be an incredulous command if we did not have a choice in the matter. It is not that we will never be free from sin in this life, but we can lessen the amount of sin, we can change our lives which is only possible through the spiritual rebirth, called regeneration. We work with God in comforming us to the Image of Christ.

Your view negates the work of the Holy Spirit in man when we are In Christ.

[OopsMartin]

Perfection does not necessitate perfect epistemological unity or experience. What it necessitates is being born in a perfect moral state, that is, free from sin and its ethical consequences. An example of this is Jesus, who was born free from sin and its ethical consequences.

Adam and Eve were created perfect - to assert otherwise is to assert that God can create a less than perfect world. Just because they held the freedom of choice, and chose to go the wrong way, does not mean they were not ethically perfect to begin with.

Good foundational statement. In addition, their naivite meant they did not know the difference, else why would God have said, 22Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever--"

[firehill]

firehill:God's image cannot be marred which is to say that if man is born in sin then God's image is devastated in us which I don't think is possible intell a person is accountable for their own sin. People are born in death...

AK:If the image cannot be marred then we can never sin. What you said is utterly ridiculous and irrelevant.

Let me rephrase. God's image cannot be marred upon a person being BORN or created in God's image. All of man is made in God's image not just ADAM. God's purpose to make man in this way cannot be touched. Once one sins then that image becomes distorted.

Regardless, the image of God is devastated and marred from conception.

Then God did not make humankind in his image but only the first man and woman. That makes no sense.

This is why children, even before cognitive in thought, can still do bad things. When they begin to talk, they lie - it comes natural to them.

This doesn't prove 'original sin' or that they were born sinners. People are born with the propensity to sin.

If sin is not a natural part of who we are,

Oh, it is because all have sinned.

then children would need to be taught to sin.

Yes, it is learned as a result of the fall, the inheritance being death through the knowledge of good and evil via Adam.

It is essentially treating children as if they are born tabula rosa, which we know is not true. Humans, even from a young age, will always head toward sin.

Ofcourse since they have a fallen nature.

Jesus is the exception, the only exception, to this. David even says that he was brought forth in iniquity, that is, before he was even born he was guilty (Psalm 51:5).

If Jesus wasn't made completely like us then he wasn't the perfect sacrifice. A different thread has already addressed Psalm 51:5.

The entire point of the New Testament is to show that Jesus is the restored image of God to whom we are to be conformed. How can He be the restorer of the image of God if it was never marred?

All have sinned.

Why do we have to conform to His image if our own image of God is not marred?

I rephrased what I was trying to say above.

[apothanein kerdos]

Perfection does not necessitate perfect epistemological unity or experience. What it necessitates is being born in a perfect moral state, that is, free from sin and its ethical consequences. An example of this is Jesus, who was born free from sin and its ethical consequences.

Adam and Eve were created perfect - to assert otherwise is to assert that God can create a less than perfect world. Just because they held the freedom of choice, and chose to go the wrong way, does not mean they were not ethically perfect to begin with.

Good foundational statement. In addition, their naivite meant they did not know the difference, else why would God have said, 22Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever--"

I never said they didn't know the difference. By saying they were not perfect in knowledge, it merely means they had not experienced sin, nor did they know the full impact and consequence of sin.

Adam's sin nor the consequence of that sin, namely death makes man guilty before God. However we are all dead for the moment of conception. It is concieving a mortal being. We could live perfectly, without sin, and still not have eternal life. We would still die due to our fallen nature or the condemnation of death. It is this death that man needs corrected. It is the primary work of Christ on the Cross to redeem man from death. One cannot be guilty of anything until it is committed. I am not guilty of murder just because I am human. I have to actually commit murder to be guilty.

Where is any of this in scripture? It says specifically that through Adam sin entered the world, and through sin death entered. In other words, if we do not suffer the consequences of Adam's sin, then there should be no death in the world.

[firehill]

I can rid myself of the guilt of sin by confessing and being given forgiveness. He commands us not to sin. It would be an incredulous command if we did not have a choice in the matter.

Good point.

[4Pillars]

No, that would not be a fair assessment. My reasons for pointing out your statements' close identity with various known heresies was to warn you. That is, if it was unintentional on your part to associate with those positions. No, I'm not "poisoning the well" here at all. But I am interested to know how you arrived at your conclusions with regard to the verses you interpreted.

Dear Ovedya,

It

Edited June 2, 2007 by 4Pillars

[apothanein kerdos]

Let me rephrase. God's image cannot be marred upon a person being BORN or created in God's image. All of man is made in God's image not just ADAM. God's purpose to make man in this way cannot be touched. Once one sins then that image becomes distorted.

Where is this in scripture? Where does it say we're born in the perfect image of God? The fact that babies die in the womb disproves what you're saying, as our physicality is still partially in the image of God.

Then God did not make humankind in his image but only the first man and woman. That makes no sense.

Yes, it means that Adam and Eve were the only people in history, with the exception of Christ, who were born in the perfect image of God. Since them, the image has been marred, physically and spiritually.

If Jesus wasn't made completely like us then he wasn't the perfect sacrifice. A different thread has already addressed Psalm 51:5.

That's one of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard on this issue. Jesus was born a virgin - we are not. Jesus was fully God and fully man - we are not. Guess that means He's not the perfect sacrifice

Regardless, David admits he was a sinner while in the womb. Paul says that through Adam, sin entered the world. Case closed.

[apothanein kerdos]

If Adam and Eve were made 'perfect' then how did they manage to fall? If Adam and Eve weren't even made perfect then I don't know where your argument about humankind being born perfect would even come from. In order for them to overcome their desire to eat they needed Christ too which is so profound...

Perfection does not necessitate perfect epistemological unity or experience. What it necessitates is being born in a perfect moral state, that is, free from sin and its ethical consequences. An example of this is Jesus, who was born free from sin and its ethical consequences.

Adam and Eve were created perfect - to assert otherwise is to assert that God can create a less than perfect world. Just because they held the freedom of choice, and chose to go the wrong way, does not mean they were not ethically perfect to begin with. Again, this perfection does not encompass the totality of man, specifically his epistemological outlook, but instead his morality and function.

God's image cannot be marred which is to say that if man is born in sin then God's image is devastated in us which I don't think is possible intell a person is accountable for their own sin. People are born in death...

If the image cannot be marred then we can never sin. What you said is utterly ridiculous and irrelevant.

Regardless, the image of God is devastated and marred from conception. This is why children, even before cognitive in thought, can still do bad things. When they begin to talk, they lie - it comes natural to them. If sin is not a natural part of who we are, then children would need to be taught to sin. It is essentially treating children as if they are born tabula rosa, which we know is not true. Humans, even from a young age, will always head toward sin. Jesus is the exception, the only exception, to this. David even says that he was brought forth in iniquity, that is, before he was even born he was guilty (Psalm 51:5).

The entire point of the New Testament is to show that Jesus is the restored image of God to whom we are to be conformed. How can He be the restorer of the image of God if it was never marred? Why do we have to conform to His image if our own image of God is not marred?

I'm just reposting this because it pretty much went ignored. Firehill's post really isn't a legitimate response to it...anyone else want to take a stab?