Original Sin Again

I have a thought. Because philosophical views have been presented, I thought it might be worth considering a science oriented thinking. Even if it presents a completely a fake science view.

This thought is not much of one, and perhaps not worthy of the discussion on original sin, but one that comes from a mind that tends to wander all over topics rather then attend to specifics.

Could Adam have been a neanderthal?

Consider that there is no mtDNA that shows up as neanderthal (mtDNA comes from the female linage) in modern human, yet DNA does show Neanderthal inbreeding occurred and is in modern humans, then the line of thoughtlessness might go: Adam sin is both physical and spiritual. Physical in that if he were a neanderthal then his sinful DNA would not be found in Christ who would have had mtDNA but not the DNA of the neanderthal - Adam, but of the heritage of Mary and God. Therefore, although all are of the first Adam physically and spiritually fallen, yet Christ as redeemer gives the believer new DNA in the new body that is not neanderthal origin.

Like I posted, this is merely the wandered wonderings of one who's mind wanders most often off the page....

 

Maybe them, Neanderthal's, lived in the land of Nod.

 

Hi Darrel, we have been through this before. I have no interest in wasting time discussing what I did not say.
Either address my post or forget it.

 

I believe it is the traditional view of "original sin" I detailed that fully in past posts.

 

Go back and read my posts. I am weary of this fruitless ping pong debate - believe what you will, that is your Baptist prerogative under Soul Liberty.

 

I realize you addressed Van, however it matters.

Is not the basic sin of Adam (and all) found in the single word, “rebellion.” Is not rebellion placing individual desires above that of the authority - in the case of Adam, the authority is God.

When then is rebellion found “in the heart?” Is it not from the time of conception?

One might consider the level or ability must be engaged, but God in looking upon the heart does not wait upon actions but finds iniquity already even in the considerations of the human.

Adam’s sin is that same found in all, that rebellion is found not at the age of accountability, but even In the womb where humankind would discern innocence, God, looking upon the heart of rebellion views transgressions.

 

'knowing good and evil" is what we call the "age of accountability". We can be held responsible for our actions

"knowing" in Adam's case is a sexual relationship . It is not sin for Adam

 

OK I believe you

 

The doctrine is quite simple: Adam chose to sin. He knew God had said not to eat the fruit, and he ate the fruit.
Now did this sin make us sinners? Nope. As a consequence of Adam's sin, were we made sinners by God? Yep
Are we guilty of Adam's sin? Nope. As a consequence of Adam's sin he was separated from God, kicked out and banned from the garden. Were we conceived in that same sinful separated from God state? Yep
How is this corrupt condition (with our eyes being open) passed from Adam to mankind? Physically or spiritually? Spiritually. Note after Adam sinned, then both Adam and Eve's eyes were opened. Biology had nothing to do with it.

Two challenges to the basic doctrine of "Original Sin" have been asserted. First, that a separated state is not a sinful state. But since sin results in separation, then those separated are in the same state, the same separated condition, as Adam was as a consequence of his sin. Thus a separated sinful state. Spiritually dead. And that certainly is a "corruption" of being spiritually alive, united with God.

The other assertion was that having at least some knowledge of good and evil might not be a corruption because it is an attribute of God. But our "altered state" is not like Adam and Eve's created state, before their eyes were opened. Hence a corruption. But do the two changes, separated from God and with some knowledge of good and evil result in being predisposed to sin? Here we rely on the fact we were "made sinners."

Summary, at least one, the biblical doctrine, of "Original Sin" is found not in man-made doctrine, but in scripture.

 

I haven't interfered on this thread until now because I don't want to 'fight on two fronts.' However, you are creating a straw man in your insistence that Adam was created 'perfect.' He was not. Had he been so he could not have fallen. He was created sinless, which is quite different in that he could fall from that state, which of course he did.

The Bible describes him as 'upright.' 'Truly, this only have I found: God made man [singular. Hebrew Adam] upright, but they [i.e. all men] have sought out many schemes.'

 

I don't really see any conflict.


Genesis 3:22
King James Version (KJV)

22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:


Could you explain what you mean by a need to "reconcile" understanding the "knowledge" as experiential with this statement?


God bless.

 

I suppose God can create that which is not perfect, or can He allow for the ability to be imperfect as an attribute in that creation?

I do seem to be a bit lack in ability to support that God does not create all things to a level of His character demands.

 

Did you not say...

To say "created" is my own view of conception, because it is the beginning of someone who did not formerly exist. So I will rephrase the question since yuou seem to have a problem with that:

How so? What sin does a babe in the womb commit?

To say we are conceived "in the same separated state" is something I would agree with, but, not sinful until sin is committed.

Now, will you answer this question, and the other?

God bless.

 

I agree.

How is this relevant to looking at what sin a babe in the womb commits?

What you are doing is attributing sin as a biological disease passed down, beginning with conception.

That is not found in Scripture.

What is found is that all men are conceived and born separated from God and under condemnation. We sin because we are not conceived or born in relationship to the One Who is the Only One who can keep us from sin. The closest we get to one being in relationship to God from birth (and before really) is John the Baptist, and He is not reconciled to God, but simply filled with the Holy Ghost after the Old Testament ministry of the Spirit. This is to be distinguished from being reconciled to God, eternally indwelt in eternal union with God.

Could not possibly be: the heart is not yet formed, and the mind is not yet formed...at conception.

Great. Now find a Scripture to support that.

No, Adam's sin is not the same found in all:


Romans 5:14
King James Version (KJV)

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

So, based upon your position, men are not sinful until somewhere around the eighth to twentieth week (depending on how developed your Harmartiology demands), do I have the correct?

That is my entire point: men are held accountable for the sin they commit, which determines the severity of judgment.

So I must reject your view, because I do not see it as Biblical.

The infant in the womb is separated from God and thus under condemnation and in need of Reconciliation. That is why, when he has a heart, and has a brain, and makes decisions on his own...he will sin.


God bless.

 

But that is not what happens, lol, Adam and Eve (and consequently Mankind) experience good and evil as God does. That might sound like an insignificant distinction, but, that is what Scripture states.

Consider the fall of Lucifer, for example, as something that grieved God. Look at that in comparison of Adam and Eve having one of their "children" fall (Cain, in murdering Abel). That is one event in eternity we can dogmatically speak about, even if we have no other examples readily available. However, the point is, prior to their disobedience, Adam and Eve existed in an experiential state of...good. Very good, to be precise. They had not known the sorrow of separation from God, impending death, murder among their offspring, the need for sacrifice for sin, etc.


God bless.

 

God put two "innocents" in the same place and time as the arch criminal He had already banished from Heaven. Rather shortsighted? no

They were not innocents. They had no childhood, We mirror the same experience as children, we are unaccountable not innocent.