"Original Sin" and Romans 5:12-14

agedman said:

I think I understand your view, I just need a bit more clarification (I think).

Isaiah 59 presents:

But your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God,
And your sins have hidden His face from you so that He does not hear.​

And as a result of the ongoing sins:

Therefore justice is far from us,
And righteousness does not overtake us;
We hope for light, but behold, darkness,
For brightness, but we walk in gloom.​

And just a bit later he states:

Transgressing and denying the LORD,
And turning away from our God,
Speaking oppression and revolt,
Conceiving in and uttering from the heart lying words.​

Now the reason I am pursuing the mater is that it seems the sins and iniquities were a purposed determined turning away from the light of God.

Therefore, Isaiah declares that because when God looked:

And He saw that there was no man,
And was astonished that there was no one to intercede;​

And as a result, God provided for the need:

Then His own arm brought salvation to Him,
And His righteousness upheld Him.
He put on righteousness like a breastplate,
And a helmet of salvation on His head;
And He put on garments of vengeance for clothing
And wrapped Himself with zeal as a mantle.​

What man refused to do, God did.

Now, I gave all this to show both your foundation statement of sin separating is valid, but doesn't Isaiah teach a bit different WHY folks sin?

Here Isaiah is teaching that the sins and iniquities are the cause of separation. Not that the separation is the cause for the sins and iniquities. This is a bit at odds with how you presented, but never-the-less there is that estrangement that is common to all.

David may be used to show that before birth, one is conceived in iniquity, but is that iniquity of the deed that brings about the conception, or is it the conception is itself iniquitous, or that conceived is iniquitous.

Augustine held (IF my memory isn't faulty) that the act of husband and wife was iniquitous, and therefore all that resulted from that act was "born iniquitous." That is one reason for his hold on infant baptism.

However, Isaiah seems to place the emphasis upon the purposed and determined turning of humankind from God resulting in the iniquity and sin that separates. First the turning, then the sinful life.

I bring up Isaiah because John uses the same sequence. Folks purposely turn from God (the light) - the result being, their deed are evil and they don't want them exposed so they shun, mock, don't understand ... God (the light).

Again, it is a really small matter, for all have sinned.

However, I am just not certain that Augustine was not persuaded more by his background than he was by actual scriptural principle.

There comes a time when every person who had a belly button chose or will choose to sin, except Christ. Just as Adam chose to sin (though he didn't have a belly button).

Previously, Adam had no propensity to sin, no nature or desire for sin, but like all men, purposely and determinedly chose to turn from God, to separate himself from God, to hide from God.

Therefore, all babies are not separated from God, but are as Adam, before he consumed that which was forbidden. They have no propensity to sin, no desire to sin.

There doesn't need to be some generated "safe" or as Augustine believed, safe because of heritage. But safe (no condemnation) because they just have no sin, that child has not chosen as Adam but will by nature of Adam to one day purposely choose to sin.

Just for clarification, I do embrace much of the doctrines of Grace, I just consider some areas need to be better aligned with the teaching of Scriptures.

Therefore, does not the Scriptures teach that humankind certainly are born with a nature that one day will choose to sin, but remains without sin until such maturity of intellect and personality obliges that nature to be disclosed in choosing iniquity rather than God. And at that point, just as the first Adam, that person is separated by their own choice from God.

Another example may be in the statements as to the formation and fall of the enemy of believers. He was perfect in every aspect, until iniquity was found in him. That purposed choice that all humankind make to turn from God, to separate themselves from God and God confirming that separation, being first found in the enemy of believers.

Just asking.

Click to expand...

We each will have to conclude as to how we view the condition of man when he comes into this world. If we conclude that "babies are not separated from God," then we establish a reason by which we would find error in Scripture, because we are told of man's condition in terms which do not allow for relationship with God whatsoever (for example, Romans 3:10-18).

You say...

agedman said:

Previously, Adam had no propensity to sin, no nature or desire for sin, but like all men, purposely and determinedly chose to turn from God, to separate himself from God, to hide from God.

Click to expand...

...which states two different things, really.

I think it is without question that Adam could, and did...sin. Eve was deceived, but Adam was intentional in his sin. That shows a propensity for sin, effectively cancelling out the statement following.

agedman said:

Therefore, does not the Scriptures teach that humankind certainly are born with a nature that one day will choose to sin, but remains without sin until such maturity of intellect and personality obliges that nature to be disclosed in choosing iniquity rather than God. And at that point, just as the first Adam, that person is separated by their own choice from God.

Click to expand...

Not at all. The above states the exact opposite of what Scripture teaches. The concept that men are in relationship with God and only come under condemnation after they grow up and sin conflicts with a very basic truth: God only is righteous, Holy, and Just, and man is not like Him.

Even if we speculated about a person being born and being able to live in such a manner where he never sinned once...this does not mean they qualify for entrance to God's presence, or could be considered to be in relationship with Him. This would also conflict with Christ's teaching that His death for the world was necessary.

Scripture on all points denies a relationship between God and fallen man, and necessitates the demand for sacrifice for sin.

Not even babies are afforded a position of righteousness which equals that of God. Even babies are in need of the imputed righteousness of Christ.


God bless.

Darrell C said:

We each will have to conclude as to how we view the condition of man when he comes into this world. If we conclude that "babies are not separated from God," then we establish a reason by which we would find error in Scripture, because we are told of man's condition in terms which do not allow for relationship with God whatsoever (for example, Romans 3:10-18).

You say...



...which states two different things, really.

I think it is without question that Adam could, and did...sin. Eve was deceived, but Adam was intentional in his sin. That shows a propensity for sin, effectively cancelling out the statement following.




Not at all. The above states the exact opposite of what Scripture teaches. The concept that men are in relationship with God and only come under condemnation after they grow up and sin conflicts with a very basic truth: God only is righteous, Holy, and Just, and man is not like Him.

Even if we speculated about a person being born and being able to live in such a manner where he never sinned once...this does not mean they qualify for entrance to God's presence, or could be considered to be in relationship with Him. This would also conflict with Christ's teaching that His death for the world was necessary.

Scripture on all points denies a relationship between God and fallen man, and necessitates the demand for sacrifice for sin.

Not even babies are afforded a position of righteousness which equals that of God. Even babies are in need of the imputed righteousness of Christ.


God bless.

Click to expand...

Interesting thoughts.

When using the term "propensity" does it not imply that one is predispositioned, prone, that one will more likely choose that which they lean or have a weakness?

I don't see Adam in his pre-fall condition having that "propensity" with what little we know of his relationship with God. He looked God in the eye (so to speak) as none other has after the fall - not even Mosses.

Adam had to make a choice. A choice to follow and trust God would provide for him when Eve offered the fruit, or to reject God in favor of the one God gave him as a helper.

Further, I look at the statement "eyes were opened" as the same condition in which the child may one day awaken to choose sin over innocence before God.

However, none of this really matters, for all have sinned.

It only matters as another rejection of Augustine's thinking that was conformed by his early than conversion life, and as I stated his obligation to provide some extra biblical scheme such as I stated previously to conform that scheme to fit his thinking.

The emphasis Augustine placed upon (for example: infant baptism) various aspects, still infects the thinking of many believers and groupings of assemblies, and also in the matter of the estate of a child to parents who are not believers being taught by some that has no Scripture foundation. That is always and should be a concern.

If one takes that Adam was innocent and had no proclivity for sin pre-fall, then it follows that all babies are also in that condition, pre-fall.

But, again, it really matters little, and I really appreciate you spending the time to sort out my question(s).

Just for clarification, for decades I also had very similar thinking, and have come to understand that perhaps I was mistaken. That the fall is not imposed upon the yet born, or the newly born, rather, each child because of the fall will also fall, for all have sinned and all come short of the high calling of God. And that wee little newborn will one day face the same experience of choice that Adam faced, and will choose to sin just as Adam chose to sin, not because there is a proclivity, but because eventually all choose to sin, for all have sinned. It is then the proclivity becomes the issue.

agedman said:

Interesting thoughts.

When using the term "propensity" does it not imply that one is predispositioned, prone, that one will more likely choose that which they lean or have a weakness?

I don't see Adam in his pre-fall condition having that "propensity" with what little we know of his relationship with God. He looked God in the eye (so to speak) as none other has after the fall - not even Mosses.

Adam had to make a choice. A choice to follow and trust God would provide for him when Eve offered the fruit, or to reject God in favor of the one God gave him as a helper.

Further, I look at the statement "eyes were opened" as the same condition in which the child may one day awaken to choose sin over innocence before God.

However, none of this really matters, for all have sinned.

It only matters as another rejection of Augustine's thinking that was conformed by his early than conversion life, and as I stated his obligation to provide some extra biblical scheme such as I stated previously to conform that scheme to fit his thinking.

The emphasis Augustine placed upon (for example: infant baptism) various aspects, still infects the thinking of many believers and groupings of assemblies, and also in the matter of the estate of a child to parents who are not believers being taught by some that has no Scripture foundation. That is always and should be a concern.

If one takes that Adam was innocent and had no proclivity for sin pre-fall, then it follows that all babies are also in that condition, pre-fall.

But, again, it really matters little, and I really appreciate you spending the time to sort out my question(s).

Just for clarification, for decades I also had very similar thinking, and have come to understand that perhaps I was mistaken. That the fall is not imposed upon the yet born, or the newly born, rather, each child because of the fall will also fall, for all have sinned and all come short of the high calling of God. And that wee little newborn will one day face the same experience of choice that Adam faced, and will choose to sin just as Adam chose to sin, not because there is a proclivity, but because eventually all choose to sin, for all have sinned. It is then the proclivity becomes the issue.

Click to expand...

One thing its clear from the Bible, that we are responsible for our personal and actual sin before a holy and just God and not for the transgression of Adam. God holds us responsible for breaking his divine law and we are punished not for Adams transgression but for our sin. Original sin as explained by Augustine it was a novelty at that time, Ante-Nicene Church Fathers didn't teach that doctrine, some of them alluded to it though like Irenaus or Tertullian. Irenaeus actually was the first to formulate the doctrine, Augustine developed it laten on.

Sin by the definition of the Bible is a transgression of the law. The law of God defines what sin is and a child sins against God at the age of accountability when they break the law of God. The maxim we are born sinners therefore we sin, is nonsense and has no biblical support. We become sinners the moment we commit the first sin at the age of accountability.

As I understand from the Bible we inherit a fallen nature in the likeness of Adam as a consequence of original sin of Adam.

[COMMENT][/COMMENT]

agedman said:

Interesting thoughts.

When using the term "propensity" does it not imply that one is predispositioned, prone, that one will more likely choose that which they lean or have a weakness?

I don't see Adam in his pre-fall condition having that "propensity" with what little we know of his relationship with God. He looked God in the eye (so to speak) as none other has after the fall - not even Mosses.

Adam had to make a choice. A choice to follow and trust God would provide for him when Eve offered the fruit, or to reject God in favor of the one God gave him as a helper.

Further, I look at the statement "eyes were opened" as the same condition in which the child may one day awaken to choose sin over innocence before God.

However, none of this really matters, for all have sinned.

It only matters as another rejection of Augustine's thinking that was conformed by his early than conversion life, and as I stated his obligation to provide some extra biblical scheme such as I stated previously to conform that scheme to fit his thinking.

The emphasis Augustine placed upon (for example: infant baptism) various aspects, still infects the thinking of many believers and groupings of assemblies, and also in the matter of the estate of a child to parents who are not believers being taught by some that has no Scripture foundation. That is always and should be a concern.

If one takes that Adam was innocent and had no proclivity for sin pre-fall, then it follows that all babies are also in that condition, pre-fall.

But, again, it really matters little, and I really appreciate you spending the time to sort out my question(s).

Just for clarification, for decades I also had very similar thinking, and have come to understand that perhaps I was mistaken. That the fall is not imposed upon the yet born, or the newly born, rather, each child because of the fall will also fall, for all have sinned and all come short of the high calling of God. And that wee little newborn will one day face the same experience of choice that Adam faced, and will choose to sin just as Adam chose to sin, not because there is a proclivity, but because eventually all choose to sin, for all have sinned. It is then the proclivity becomes the issue.

Click to expand...

This is my understanding of original sin. Adam transgression affected the nature of human race. We inherit a nature that is fallen, weakened and wounded, deprived of original holiness and justice. In that sense we can say that we are born in a state of original sin, that is an absence of holiness.

The sin of Adam was personal and so was his guilt. We don't inherit the guilt of Adam no where in the Bible is this taught implicitly or explicitly. Luther and Calvin taught imputed guilt to Adam's descendants, even RCC did not accept that in their doctrine of original sin, or Eastern Orthodox Church. Just mentioning this as a historical fact.

It is interesting to note that the Greek Church Fathers emphasized the cosmic dimension of the fall and that human beings are born in a fallen world but they did not believe that freedom of the will is destroyed as the consequence of the Fall.

Another interesting observation is that Luther and Calvin equated original sin with concupiscence ( in Reformed theology sinful nature), as a result they believed we are born with a sinful nature. I have not found this anywhere in the Bible, I have found the word sinful fresh in Romans 7 but this is not the same thing.

Another Interesting fact from history of the early Church. The inherently sinful nature of the flesh was taught by the Gnostics, they believed that matter was evil and they held to the dualistic philosophy.

Are we conceived free from original sin? Or to put it another way are we conceived and preserved immune from all stain of original sin?

In Psalm 51:5 David said, " Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me."

He was born in iniquity and conceived in sin according to him. This seems like a proof-text of original sin and Job also said, " Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? No one." (Job 14:4) But that its not equal to a state of total depravity of the soul or corruption of sinful nature at birth or conception.

Paul makes a contrast in Adam and in Christ. In Adam all die (spiritual death the moment when a child at the age of accountability chooses to sin and also the inevitable physical death which is a consequence of Adams sin), in Christ all will be make alive (not all the world but the elect of God who are saved by grace and regenerated by the Spirit and grafted in Christ).

Paul said in Romans 7:9 " For I was alive without law once but when the commandment came sin sprang to life and I died." Paul is refering here to his state of innocence as a child before the age of accountability, when he became conscience of the law as a child sin sprang to life and he died spiritually. Calvinists won't accept that interpretation and they can't because its against their scheme of total depravity of soul and sinful nature at birth.

We inherit a fallen nature and the moment we commit actual sin we become depraved in heart. Human depravity or total depravity of the heart is an inescapable consequence because all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and sin has marred and distorted the image of God in us but thanks be to God who has provided redemption for us in his Son who died and rose again from the dead not only to forgive our sins but to set us free from the power of sin. Christ in us is the secret of overcoming not only sin but the powers of darkness.

I believe in total depravity of the human heart because this is the reality of the fallen state of human beings as illustrated in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation but the doctrine of total depravity of human nature at the moment of our conception or when we were born is an invention that has it's origins in gnostism not the Bible.

walkinspirit said:

One thing its clear from the Bible, that we are responsible for our personal and actual sins before a holy and just God and not for the transgression of Adam. God in the Bible does not excuse sin in us but holds us resposible for breaking his divine law and we are punished not for Adams transgression but for our sin. Original sin as explained by Augustine it was a novelty at that time, Ante-Nicene Church Fathers didn't expond that doctrine, some of them alluded to it though as far as I can remember like Irenaus or Tertullian.

Sin by the definition of the Bible is a transgression of the law, its only the law of God defines what sin and a child sins against God at the age of accountability when they chose to break the law of God.

As I understand from the Bible we inherit a fallen nature in the likeness of Adam as a consequence of original sin of Adam and we inhThis [COMMENT][/COMMENT]


This is my understanding of original sin. Adam transgression affected the nature of human race. We inherit a nature that is fallen, weakened band wounded, deprived of original holiness and justice. In that sense we can say that we are born in a state of sinfulness, that is an absence of holiness.

The sin of Adam was personal and his guilt too. We don't inherit the guilt of Adam no where in the Bible is this taught implicitly or explicitly. Luther and Calvin taught imputed guilt to Adam's descendants, even RCC did not accept that in their doctrine of original sin, or Eastern Orthodox Church. Just mentioning this as a historical fact. The doctrine of original sin was first formulated by Irenaeus is the second century and later on Augustine developed the doctrine of original sin.

It is interesting to note that the Greek Church Fathers emphasized the cosmic dimension of the fall and that human beings are born in a fallen world but they did not believe that freedom of the will is destroyed.

Another interesting observation is that Luther and Calvin equated original sin with concupiscence ( in Reformed theology sinful nature), as a result they believed be are born with a sinful nature. I have not found this anywhere in the Bible, I have found the word sinful fresh in Romans 7 but this is not the same thing.

Another Interesting fact from history of the early Church. The inherently sinful nature of the flesh was taught by the Gnostics, they believed that matter was evil and they held to the dualistic philosophy.

Are we conceived free from original sin? Or to put it another way are we conceived and preserved immune from all stain of original sin?

In Psalm 51:5 David said, " Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me."

He was born in iniquity and conceived in sin according to him. This seems like a proof-text of original sin and Job also said, " Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? No one." (Job 14:4)

Paul makes a contrast in Adam and in Christ. In Adam all die (spiritual death the moment when a child at the age of accountability chooses to sin and also the inevitable physical death which is a consequence of Adams sin), in Christ all will be make alive (not all the world but the elect of God who are saved by grace and regenerated by the Spirit and grafted in Christ).

Paul said in Romans 7:9 " For I was alive without law once but when the commandment came sin sprang to life and I died." Paul is refering here to his his state of innocence as a child before the age of accountability, when he became conscience of the law as a child sin sprang to life and he died spiritually.

We inherit a fallen nature and the moment we commit actual sin we become depraved in heart. Human depravity or total depravity of the heart is an inescapable consequence because all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and sin has marred and distorted the image of God in us but thanks be to God who has provided redemption for us in his Son who died and rose again from the dead not only to forgive our sins but to set us free from the power of sin. Christ in us is the secret of overcoming not only sin but the powers of darkness.

I believe in total depravity of the human heart because this is the reality of the fallen state of human beings as illustrated in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation but the doctrine of total depravity of human nature at the moment of our conception or when we were born is an invention that has it's origins in gnostism not the Bible.

Click to expand...

Not understanding Romans 3:23 or Romans 5:12-21...your understanding of the gospel itself is off. All sinned and died in Adam.....at one point in time.
That is a biblical fact...not written by gnostic s.

Iconoclast said:

Not understanding Romans 3:23 or Romans 5:12-21...your understanding of the gospel itself is off. All sinned and died in Adam.....at one point in time.
That is a biblical fact...not written by gnostic s.

Click to expand...

You both missed something in the word "inherent"

Here's the quote you're referencing...

"Another Interesting fact from history of the early Church. The inherently sinful nature of the flesh was taught by the Gnostics, they believed that matter was evil and they held to the dualistic philosophy"

He's right that Gnostics taught that flesh is inherently evil. As a matter of fact, they taught that the entire material world is inherently evil.

But inherent is not fallen. Inherent means it is, forever was, and forever will be.

That's why the Gnostics sought to escape the physical realm rather than looking to a resurrection. This one issue is why I used the phrase "Gnostic tendencies" when we discussed our resurrected bodies, and you said they'll be spiritual, not physical (a false dichotomy)

This entire material realm has been corrupted, it is not inherently evil. Huge difference. If it were inherently evil, there would be no restoration. And we would seek escape, not resurrection

agedman said:

Just for clarification, for decades I also had very similar thinking, and have come to understand that perhaps I was mistaken. That the fall is not imposed upon the yet born, or the newly born, rather, each child because of the fall will also fall, for all have sinned and all come short of the high calling of God. And that wee little newborn will one day face the same experience of choice that Adam faced, and will choose to sin just as Adam chose to sin, not because there is a proclivity, but because eventually all choose to sin, for all have sinned. It is then the proclivity becomes the issue.

Click to expand...

Now that is interesting. Makes me think of Adam and Jesus, both tempted, but obviously with opposite results.

agedman said:

Interesting thoughts.

When using the term "propensity" does it not imply that one is predispositioned, prone, that one will more likely choose that which they lean or have a weakness?

I don't see Adam in his pre-fall condition having that "propensity" with what little we know of his relationship with God. He looked God in the eye (so to speak) as none other has after the fall - not even Mosses.

Click to expand...

Here is a general definition of propensity:

dictionary.reference.com/browse/propensity
noun, plural propensities. 1. a natural inclination or tendency: a propensity to drink too much. 2. Obsolete. favorable disposition or partiality.


The example, "a propensity to drink too much" is a great image to work with. By the time I was 15 I was an alcoholic, and by 16 I was a drug user. Now, being Irish, we might think, "Well, he is Irish, and the Irish drink." Truth is everyone drinks. So do we say "He had a propensity to drink because he is Irish," and equating that with the topic, "Did Adam have propensity to sin because he has human flesh?" If one is true, why not the other?

I would suggest that my drinking was a choice, a result of my surrounding circumstances. Had the circumstances of my youth been different, I am quite sure that things would have gone a different way. I strove, in the lives of my nieces and nephews, to change the circumstances that resulted in the way my youth went, and, I would have to say that this has been the case. They too are Irish, and not one of them has replicated the circumstances of my youth.

So going back to Adam, I see a propensity for sin an imposition, and see that he rather decided on his course of action due to the circumstances. In Adam's defense I would suggest that perhaps his sin might be viewed noble if he committed this sin because he knew Eve's fate, and loving her, decided to share that fate with her. How many stories, novels, and movies have depicted this same act? That is just speculation, but, all that to say I view Adam's sin as not something associated with the flesh he had, but an internal matter of choice. At this time he was in relationship with God, but, just as we can sin after being indwelt, even do could Adam.

Lastly, we place that into the Redemptive Eras, and try to figure out whether men sin because they inherited something in flesh (which I think would deny man's creation as good), or, was this sin a decision made by Adam due to circumstances?

One last thing to consider: there is a difference between Adam in his unfallen state and us...the knowledge of good and evil.

And I will touch on that in your next statements, where I think it is a relevant issue of consideration.


Continued...

agedman said:

However, none of this really matters, for all have sinned.

It only matters as another rejection of Augustine's thinking that was conformed by his early than conversion life, and as I stated his obligation to provide some extra biblical scheme such as I stated previously to conform that scheme to fit his thinking.

The emphasis Augustine placed upon (for example: infant baptism) various aspects, still infects the thinking of many believers and groupings of assemblies, and also in the matter of the estate of a child to parents who are not believers being taught by some that has no Scripture foundation. That is always and should be a concern.

Click to expand...

The question asked by our Arminian brethren is a valid question: what sin would we lie on the door of an infant just born?

I see no sin that can be credibly attributed to a baby.

The basis for that view is that God justly judges men according to their response to His revealed will. All men will receive of the three primary means of revelation, the internal witness (Romans 1:18-19, Romans 2:14-15), the testimony of Creation (Romans 1:19-20), and specific revelation (The Bible, directly speaking to men, speaking to men through men), and Paul states there will be no excuse for them (Romans 1:20).

It would be pointless to baptize a child, because baptism does not place that child into relationship with God, which is the unifying element of man's condition which we know leads to sin. The Reconciliation holds promise of empowerment to do the opposite of what we see fallen flesh attributed to, that is...not to sin. See Ezekiel 36:27.

In regards to Augustine, I am clueless as to what he taught. I don't make it a habit of studying in-depth the teachings of the Body that has passed, because I feel the Lord has, in every Age, brought about a progressive understanding of His Word, and that we, as that New Generation, have before us the opportunity to be a part of that progression. I do not mean that revelation is now progressive, simply that our understanding is. It might be compared to our understanding of the Trinity in more definitive measure than, say, first century believers (the members in general, not the Apostles). One example might be Peter's hypocrisy concerning eating with the Gentiles. Most of us probably have the understanding where we would not make that same mistake.


Continued...

JamesL said:

You both missed something in the word "inherent"

Here's the quote you're referencing...

"Another Interesting fact from history of the early Church. The inherently sinful nature of the flesh was taught by the Gnostics, they believed that matter was evil and they held to the dualistic philosophy"

He's right that Gnostics taught that flesh is inherently evil. As a matter of fact, they taught that the entire material world is inherently evil.

But inherent is not fallen. Inherent means it is, forever was, and forever will be.

That's why the Gnostics sought to escape the physical realm rather than looking to a resurrection. This one issue is why I used the phrase "Gnostic tendencies" when we discussed our resurrected bodies, and you said they'll be spiritual, not physical (a false dichotomy)

This entire material realm has been corrupted, it is not inherently evil. Huge difference. If it were inherently evil, there would be no restoration. And we would seek escape, not resurrection

Click to expand...

No one disputes what the Gnostics taught.
The biblical teaching trumps any human philosophy.
The teaching of what is called Calvinism answers in full.
All persons are conceived in sin.

agedman said:

Adam had to make a choice. A choice to follow and trust God would provide for him when Eve offered the fruit, or to reject God in favor of the one God gave him as a helper.

Click to expand...

I don't see it in such black and white terms, so now I would draw your attention to the one thing we know, without controversy, is different between you and I and them: the knowledge of good and evil.

Here is a recent analogy that I think works well to present how I view that change:

When I was very young, I was taught that drugs and alcohol were bad. Just like they were told that eating of the tree was forbidden, and we can see in the dialogue between the serpent and Eve that she "knew" this, even so, as a child, I "knew" that drugs and alcohol were bad.

Next phase: as I grew up, by the ripe old age of 13, I was already drinking and dabbling with drugs. At that time I "knew" that what I had been taught, that drugs and alcohol were bad, was erroneous information. Because, after all...my friends did it, and man they were cool (many of my "friends" at that time were much older Rock/Metal musicians)!

I will stop right there and ask you...did I know these things?

In this phase of my life/existence, we examine my knowledge, and we can see an experiential element which you and I can consider.

And to make a long story short, we now look at the last phase (relevant to my knowledge): only now do I actually "know" about drugs and alcohol. The euphoria that blinded me to a knowledge that was both intellectual (i.e., being told something) and experiential was finally brought together to become a true knowledge.

Now, I am not blinded by that euphoria and can recognize all elements of that experience. Then, I felt that alcohol and drug use were "good," based on the benefits (consider Eve's conclusions), but I did not understand the damage and consequences of that drug and alcohol use. So the knowledge I have now far exceeds that which I had when first told, then, when first experiencing it, then, in the throes, then...coming to a fuller understanding of reality.

The only One in the Garden that had the fuller knowledge of Good and Evil as analogized here was God. He had experienced the sorrow Eve would soon experience when her son killed her other son. Prior to that, had she been told, "You will have sorrow if one of you sons kills the other," she would have been able to intellectually understand that, but, that understanding such as expressed in the analogy is not something she would have had.

And that is how I see the shift from having a "knowledge" of good and evil for them.


Continued...

agedman said:

Further, I look at the statement "eyes were opened" as the same condition in which the child may one day awaken to choose sin over innocence before God.

Click to expand...

And I do not see it that way, except when we understand it from an experiential perspective in which there is a true knowledge through experience.

A baby basically has no understanding of anything, and does not make conscious decisions, so when we see the principle consistent in Scripture that God holds men accountable for what they do, we understand that men, like Adam, make the decision to sin, or, to rebel against the revealed will of God.

This answers, in my view, those two questions, "What happens to babies when they die," and, "What about that guy in deepest Africa who never hears the Gospel?"

The Baby will be judged according to their response, and revelation being limited their judgment is, as it always is, Just. The guy in deepest Africa who never heard the Gospel will also be justly judged, the revelation he being responsible to respond to being the internal witness and the testimony of creation. Even in isolated tribes we see a system of Justice, and the basic tenets of God's will are obeyed by most. They understand concepts of murder, lying, adultery, et cetera. THey understand those things through that internal witness, and not one of them will be with excuse for violating it.

agedman said:

If one takes that Adam was innocent and had no proclivity for sin pre-fall, then it follows that all babies are also in that condition, pre-fall.

Click to expand...

And I would agree in part, but, this is not the primary issue in regards to man's condition. The primary issue is, I feel, man's separation from God. Again, men sin after being indwelt, just as Adam sinned being in relationship with and to God. The difference being that Adam, unlike us, was not raised in a condition where not only was sin possible...

...but the only real option due to our fallen nature, which again, cannot be separated from our separation, lol.

Babies don't sin. They do not make conscious decisions of rebellion against God or parent. It is as they grow up as one separated from God that they begin accumulating the severity of punishment for sins, having a disposition Adam did not have, which only left a desire to do that which is right in our own eyes.

It is just y view that men train themselves into their particular sinful patterns. These patterns can be tied directly to the circumstances of their lives.

agedman said:

But, again, it really matters little, and I really appreciate you spending the time to sort out my question(s).

Just for clarification, for decades I also had very similar thinking, and have come to understand that perhaps I was mistaken. That the fall is not imposed upon the yet born, or the newly born, rather, each child because of the fall will also fall, for all have sinned and all come short of the high calling of God. And that wee little newborn will one day face the same experience of choice that Adam faced, and will choose to sin just as Adam chose to sin, not because there is a proclivity, but because eventually all choose to sin, for all have sinned. It is then the proclivity becomes the issue.

Click to expand...

Again I point to man's condition of separation from God. It is the remedy for that condition, Reconciliation, which brings man to a point where sin is not the only choice, but, through intimate relationship man can better understand the will of God and perform it.

We can look at the newborn babe in Christ as our example: when he/she is saved, they have a basic understanding of God's will, primarily (due to the enlightening of the Comforter) in regards to redemption. But, he grows and better understands God's will in that process, directly related to his understanding of God's revealed will. This is why those who regularly study better understand issues that once confused them as babes. An example in my own case would be the mistaken idea that members of the church are basically instantly transformed into people who don't sin. When I was saved and began fellowshipping rehularly, the conviction of sin was fresh and I felt like scum in the midst of a group of Moses like people. I thought these people aren't sinners like me, they have been saved a long time and are surely without fault.

Then I came to understand that not even Moses was without fault, lol.

Anyway, as mentioned at the start of this, I view man's condition as not so much a matter of he has inherited this proclivity to sin, and that is the root problem, it is more a matter that he is born without something. That something is relationship with GOd, from which comes the ability that Calvs and Arms argue incessantly.

Ability.

While natural man can be seen as moral at times, and not all natural men live lives which reflect their true condition, we are told that the greatest of their righteousnesses are as filthy rags. Good works are rooted in obedience to God's will, and until men come into obedience to that will their works are filthy rags. Further, no amount of good works will restore that relationship and bring them to the point where the penalty for the sins, committed alongside their greatest works, are removed.

Only the shed Blood of Christ can remedy that condition, and bring forgiveness, and allow God to restore relationship He and we.


God bless.

agedman said:

...Just for clarification, for decades I also had very similar thinking, and have come to understand that perhaps I was mistaken. That the fall is not imposed upon the yet born, or the newly born, rather, each child because of the fall will also fall, for all have sinned and all come short of the high calling of God. And that wee little newborn will one day face the same experience of choice that Adam faced, and will choose to sin just as Adam chose to sin, not because there is a proclivity, but because eventually all choose to sin, for all have sinned. It is then the proclivity becomes the issue.

Click to expand...

Your thinking is correct, but it's probably easier to grasp within the confines of ontology

We have a body from Adam which us diseased with sin. 1Cor 15 contains numerous contrasts betweenthe body which is sown and the body which will be raised. And every word that Paul used to describe the former state is used elsewhere in his writings in various contexts of sinfulness. In short, the body which comes from Adam is sin wrecked.

But the Spirit comes from God, as can be seen from Ecclesiastes 12:7 and Zechariah 12:1

The view which demands guilt by association with Adam either reduces or flatly rejects this dichotomy and where each aspect of a man comes from. It also creates a view of Christ which is unbiblical on one of two counts - either he was not made like us in all things, which is plainly stated in Hebrews 2:14. Jesus could not have been the lion from the tribe of Judah had he not been a literal physical descendant. Scripture plainly says he is from the loins of David. If men are born sinners on account of a physical lineage, then Jesus himself would have been a sinner.

The spirit comes from God. God breathed into Adam. And God breathed into each of us. He places the spirit of man within him.

Darrell C said:

I don't see it in such black and white terms, so now I would draw your attention to the one thing we know, without controversy, is different between you and I and them: the knowledge of good and evil.

Here is a recent analogy that I think works well to present how I view that change:

When I was very young, I was taught that drugs and alcohol were bad. Just like they were told that eating of the tree was forbidden, and we can see in the dialogue between the serpent and Eve that she "knew" this, even so, as a child, I "knew" that drugs and alcohol were bad.

Next phase: as I grew up, by the ripe old age of 13, I was already drinking and dabbling with drugs. At that time I "knew" that what I had been taught, that drugs and alcohol were bad, was erroneous information. Because, after all...my friends did it, and man they were cool (many of my "friends" at that time were much older Rock/Metal musicians)!

I will stop right there and ask you...did I know these things?

In this phase of my life/existence, we examine my knowledge, and we can see an experiential element which you and I can consider.

And to make a long story short, we now look at the last phase (relevant to my knowledge): only now do I actually "know" about drugs and alcohol. The euphoria that blinded me to a knowledge that was both intellectual (i.e., being told something) and experiential was finally brought together to become a true knowledge.

Now, I am not blinded by that euphoria and can recognize all elements of that experience. Then, I felt that alcohol and drug use were "good," based on the benefits (consider Eve's conclusions), but I did not understand the damage and consequences of that drug and alcohol use. So the knowledge I have now far exceeds that which I had when first told, then, when first experiencing it, then, in the throes, then...coming to a fuller understanding of reality.

The only One in the Garden that had the fuller knowledge of Good and Evil as analogized here was God. He had experienced the sorrow Eve would soon experience when her son killed her other son. Prior to that, had she been told, "You will have sorrow if one of you sons kills the other," she would have been able to intellectually understand that, but, that understanding such as expressed in the analogy is not something she would have had.

And that is how I see the shift from having a "knowledge" of good and evil for them.


Continued...

Click to expand...

The knowledge of good and evil isn't the ability to conprehend that something is expected of you.

Instead, it's what every human being encounters if they live into puberty or a little longer.

It's the age when a boy will fight his dad, when he starts blatantly pushing past boundaries, ignoring direct orders from authority figures, etc.

What happens at this "age" is not really even understood by those in that age range. All they know is that they're fighting for independence, to become their own person.

But subconsciously, there's a shift in authority and who determines good and evil. Here's how it works:

No longer will dad tell me what I can and can't do. I'll dress the way I want, have the friends I want, be who I want. I will be the arbiter of good and evil. Not them, not God, not anyone but me. I'll decide what's right and wrong for me, and I will fight or leave.

That's spiritual death, when it comes to each MAN. Not babies, not snall children. It's adulthood. We all stray. We all go our own way. That's what scripture says

And that's the one success which Christ had that no one else can claim...

He came, not to do His own will, but the will of the Father who sent Him. He said He only does what the Father tells Him

JamesL said:

The knowledge of good and evil isn't the ability to conprehend that something is expected of you.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I mention that in the previous posts, lol.

It is experiential, basically, in my view. But, not limited to what you present here, from my perspective.

JamesL said:

Instead, it's what every human being encounters if they live into puberty or a little longer.

Click to expand...

One does not need to grow into puberty in order to have the knowledge of good and evil.

How about a child that loses their parents?

The knowledge of Good and Evil is thrust upon all mankind and does not have a grace period, as you suggest. Again, that is just my view.

JamesL said:

It's the age when a boy will fight his dad, when he starts blatantly pushing past boundaries, ignoring direct orders from authority figures, etc.

Click to expand...

On the contrary, just as in my analogy to my drug and alcohol abuse, the boy fighting with his dad can in no way be seen to "know" what he is doing, because in his mind...he is justified.

What you are describing is simply the revelation and expression (both terms referring to sin "coming out" so to speak) of the fallen nature.

JamesL said:

What happens at this "age" is not really even understood by those in that age range. All they know is that they're fighting for independence, to become their own person.

Click to expand...

Precisely. Thus... it is not really a matter of "knowledge" as the knowledge is generally viewed in the account of the Fall.

As far as fighting for their independence, would we see this same reason when the three year old tells mommy or daddy "No!"?

It's simply a matter that men will sin, that is inevitable. The obedience of man as he grows is in direct relation to the restraints placed upon him. The primary restraint is the parent (temporally speaking, I do believe God's restraint is why the world is still here, we would have killed each other off long ago apart from this grace), and it is not until the child feels they can bypass or overcome that restraint that they have liberty to exercise sin on a more regular basis.

JamesL said:

But subconsciously, there's a shift in authority and who determines good and evil. Here's how it works:

No longer will dad tell me what I can and can't do. I'll dress the way I want, have the friends I want, be who I want. I will be the arbiter of good and evil. Not them, not God, not anyone but me. I'll decise what's right and wrong dor me, and I will fight or leave.

Click to expand...

This assumes that dad's authority was valid. Or proper.

Some kids end up fighting with dad because dad is rotten to the core.

Both...are sinners.

Now, when we have a dad obedient to God, then we can go up the ladder of authority. And it is again brought to our attention that mankind's obedience to the will of God, whether it be dad or junior, is reliant on God's intervention.

The knowledge of good and evil is not the punishment for Adam's sin, it is simply a consequence. Satan did not lie to Eve...


Genesis 3

King James Version (KJV)


3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.


...for God affirms what he said...


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:


We don't see God saying, "Since you have done this, now...you will have the knowledge of good and evil!"

Rather, man's punishment is clearly seen, and the primary factor I think we need to consider is that man's relationship with God ended that day.

That is spiritual death.

It is the absence of God in man's life.

And we do not see children born in relationship, then sinning, then having to be restored. No, that relationship is already lost, thus...the Reconciliation through Christ.

JamesL said:

That's spiritual death, when it comes to each MAN. Not babies, not snall children. It's adulthood. We all stray. We all go our own way. That's what scripture says

Click to expand...

I just can't see that presented in Scripture, James.

The First Death is already in place when man is born, for Christ taught that except men believe in Him they are already condemned. No one is born with a knowledge of God, nor do they obey that knowledge when it is revealed to them.

The Second Death is Hell, which is simply a continuation of the condition man is born in.

JamesL said:

And that's the one success which Christ had that no one else can claim...

He came, not to do His own will, but the will of the Father who sent Him. He said He only does what the Father tells Him

Click to expand...

Christ was a man like as we, and the one thing that sets him apart from all of Adam's descendants is that He was in relationship to God as a man, because of course He was God.

While I do not look at Christ as being truly separated from God (Himself) on the Cross, it does picture separation from God, which is what Christ took upon Himself.


God bless.

JamesL said:

You both missed something in the word "inherent"

Here's the quote you're referencing...

"Another Interesting fact from history of the early Church. The inherently sinful nature of the flesh was taught by the Gnostics, they believed that matter was evil and they held to the dualistic philosophy"

He's right that Gnostics taught that flesh is inherently evil. As a matter of fact, they taught that the entire material world is inherently evil.

But inherent is not fallen. Inherent means it is, forever was, and forever will be.

That's why the Gnostics sought to escape the physical realm rather than looking to a resurrection. This one issue is why I used the phrase "Gnostic tendencies" when we discussed our resurrected bodies, and you said they'll be spiritual, not physical (a false dichotomy)

This entire material realm has been corrupted, it is not inherently evil. Huge difference. If it were inherently evil, there would be no restoration. And we would seek escape, not resurrection

Click to expand...

I would like your understanding of these three verses and of course use any other scripture if you like.

KJV 1 Cor 15:44-46 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

My understanding.
I think a few things to consider are; Adam, the first man, was created a little lower than the angels. I assume that to mean, that which was made from the dust of the ground, made up the flesh and blood, without life until God breathed into it the, breath of life, spirit of life, and then what was made from the ground became, living soul, the natural body. (ψυχικός, psychikos, soulish body) A body whose life ( ζωή zōē) comes from a source other than itself.

From the above verses it appears to me that after the resurrection there will be a spiritual body, quickened, with life within itself, Christ will quicken whom he will.

Consider Jesus was made a little lower than the angels. Consider Jesus, to date, is the only one to have experienced the afterward of verse 45, the being raised.

Consider: John 5:21 first part. For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth. Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead. John 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; John 5:21 last part. even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.

What is quickened? Romans 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. Christ in you the hope of glory. Hope, the adoption, the redemption of the body Rom 8:23,24.

Was Adam created a natural body, of the flesh, carnal if you will and did he at the moment of his creation need to be born from above? Was it not before his creation, foreordained, the Christ to shed his blood for redemption? Who was going to need redemption? Adam, man. Not, if he sinned but because he was going to sin.

First: Pre-fall Eden Scene

It is nearly incomprehensible that estate of Adam and Eve in the Eden bliss. There was not just innocence but not even the inclination of what was right or wrong.

Unlike the current prospective in which the child must be trained to do what is right, there was no need of training with Adam or Eve.

Proclivity to wrong or even to the thinking that they had the right to make a choice to accept or reject the statement of God was not a part of their knowing and understanding.

God said it and it was so, was the only reference point that they had. They had not seen the "with out form and void" and had no Scriptures from which to gain a historical perspective. They had no previous ancestry of authority, only themselves and the presence of God in the cool of the evening. There labor was that in which sweat was due more to temperature of the day than the strain the the work.

To this environment can one impose anything of today? What is like this environment or the experienced history of any person?

There was no sin, not even the hint of sin, nor the comprehension of what sin was. Adam was told, and he took the statements of God without doubt. How long they abode in that place is not known.

Second: Scene of the Fall

To that scene, that we can only take from our perspective, we see this sequence of ruination:

• Snake is the most crafty of any meadow dwellers that God created.
• Snake communicated intellectually with the woman asking her opinion on fruit trees in the garden appealing to her knowledge and sense of design.
  
• The question was meant to:

• The Snake demonstrates the characteristic of the liar he is (from the beginning) by denial by deceit.
  1. The snake incredulously states - "Nah, surely you won't die!"
     
  2. Done in such tone as to cast doubt upon the authority of God, and the consequence of violation.
  3. Snake also casts doubt upon the motives and agenda of God by placing God as sinister and deceitful. All with one persuasive sentence.

• The woman ate. There was no effect.
• The woman gave the man to eat.
• The man ate.
• THEN both their eyes were opened.
• They heard God walking and calling.
• They hid among the trees.
• God sought them, they did not seek Him, nor has any man from that time sought God, but hid from God among the trees - the garrisons of life and living established.

Conclusion: Post fall

Human kind must be given a new nature, a nature that restores that which died in the Garden. One cannot attain by some method of human exertion or thought to that new nature, it is the gift of God, because it is God that seeks, not man.

JamesL said:

The knowledge of good and evil isn't the ability to conprehend that something is expected of you.

Instead, it's what every human being encounters if they live into puberty or a little longer.

Click to expand...

It's a very long time since my children were babies, but I do recall that we had to teach them everything.

You have to teach a child how to walk, how to talk, how to be clean, how to hold a fork and so forth.

But we never had to teach our children how to be naughty. Hands up anyone who said to his child, "Now little Johnny, here's how you tell lies. You think of something that isn't true and you say it as if it is." Or, "Well, Janet, this is how to be selfish. You keep all your toys and don't let your little brother play with them."

Children figure these things out all by themselves. It's called original sin.

Martin Marprelate said:

It's a very long time since my children were babies, but I do recall that we had to teach them everything.

You have to teach a child how to walk, how to talk, how to be clean, how to hold a fork and so forth.

But we never had to teach our children how to be naughty. Hands up anyone who said to his child, "Now little Johnny, here's how you tell lies. You think of something that isn't true and you say it as if it is." Or, "Well, Janet, this is how to be selfish. You keep all your toys and don't let your little brother play with them."

Children figure these things out all by themselves. It's called original sin.

Click to expand...

If it were called original sin, then you would have a scripture verse that uses that phrase - original sin.

But there is no such phraseology in Scripture. And there is no universal agreement as to what this made up phrase is supposed to mean anyway.

Scripture calls it flesh; walking according to the flesh; a mind set on the flesh...

There's a reason that David, in the psalms, describes himself as altogether sinful and also fearfully and wonderfully made. If you look real close at what he's talking about, he is talking about a distinction between the spirit and the body. Not some sort of conflicted personality

Martin Marprelate said:

But we never had to teach our children how to be naughty.

Click to expand...

Agreed, lol.

Martin Marprelate said:

Hands up anyone who said to his child, "Now little Johnny, here's how you tell lies. You think of something that isn't true and you say it as if it is."

Click to expand...

Just to point out, this argument has one weakness, in that often children do learn such habits from the parents. Not explicit instruction, but, because of our tendency to be hypocrites at times. For example, we tell them "If you don't have anything good to say, don't say anything at all," then they hear us say unkind things about someone.


God bless.

JamesL said:

If it were called original sin, then you would have a scripture verse that uses that phrase - original sin.

But there is no such phraseology in Scripture. And there is no universal agreement as to what this made up phrase is supposed to mean anyway.

Click to expand...

I don't see this as a good argument either, because there are a number of phrases that are valid that we wouldn't find an exact statement of in Scripture. For example, we don't see the phrase Proto Evangelium, but it is generally held that Gensis 3:15 is the first occurrence of the Gospel of Christ.

How about Trinity?

How about sin nature?

How about "Asking Christ into your heart?"

Would make for a good thread, lol.

How about total depravity? Does one really think that men have righteousness of themselves that can be equated to an eternal perspective? If that is the case, then we can deny another common phrase, Imputed Righteousness.


God bless.