Adam's sin

I think that rather it goes back to the fact that death is because of sin, whether it is "counted" or not. The fact remains that each of the people who died, HAD sinned. Plain and simple.

 

In Paradise Lost John Milton postulates that Adam figured that Eve was going to die, he did not want to live without her, and decided he would share her fate.

 

So would this be true of my children in causing themselves to sin. As sin proceeds from the heart and the lust of humans. James 3.14

 

... Bingo!

Wouldn't a greater spiritual application apply to Jesus Christ... Who as the second man Adam from heaven took upon himself the sins of his bride... Chosen before the foundation of the world and laid down his life to save his beloved?... Brother Glen & Sister Charlotte

 

I agree with you Helen, but because of the sin nature then we sin; regardless of conscious or not, we are responsible. It is our sin nature that God does not love; to believe otherwise is to fall into the belief Arminians try to condemn that God (according to Election) would not love the non-elect. In reality, the sin nature is that which is given to men, which is proven by the Biblical fact that Adam had no children until after the fall.

Thus it is impossible that none sin, even children. It is irrelevant that we have participated in the specific sins of our fathers or not.

Bro Dallas

 

So then it would be better for people to not ever hear the Gospel and know they are sinners, then they would not have the opportunity to reject the Gospel and the salvation in Christ, then they would have to be saved despite their sin nature and have no need of a Saviour.

To teach that Christ died for all sin of all time, does this fall back to those who were already dead and in hell at the time of the death of Christ?

I guess you and I don't agree as I first thought we did, or I just don't understand your meaning. If Christ died for all sin, then you must also include the sin of rejection, or else he did not die for all sin, not even in your definition.

Bro. Dallas

 

Brother Dallas,

You will see all kinds of fancy theological footwork on this issue, but it is in a similar vein to what I was taught and believed as a Pelagian in the Church of Christ. It's basically the idea that before the mysterious, unknown, extra-Biblical "age of accountability" that children are not in need of salvation, but are instead in an extra-Biblical category called "safe". At some point, they teach that a child goes from being "safe" to being "lost", in which condition they remain until they muster up the "want to" to obey the gospel and then they become "saved".

In the Church of Christ the teaching is that until one reaches the "age of accountability", a child is innocent. Others with this view with a less Pelagian, more Arminian viewpoint teach that before the "age of accountability" a child is covered by the blood of Christ, but then at the "age of accountability", he becomes uncovered, and must obey the gospel to become covered again.

I know it sounds weird, but that is what is taught.

 

I know we have been through this before, Helen, and I cringe every time you or someone else makes a statement like that.

You believe in eternal torture, right? And you believe that God is going to torture a person, maybe even a dear loved one of yours, for ever and ever and ever for something that is a non-sin. You in essence have God telling a person, "All of your sins are taken care of but I'm going to torture you in the fires of hell forever and ever and ever and ever anyway."

That's really gross, Helen. Really gross.

 

Actually, every thing we think, do, or say is contaminated by our sin nature, before and after we are saved(we are still in unredeemed flesh). That is why we must cling ever so closely to Jesus as it's only His perfect, untainted finished work that gets us to heaven.

I am sorry, Helen, but I am afraid you do not take the impact of the sin nature in our lives seriously enough; not that you don't take it seriously, but you just don't take the ramifications far enough.

 

YOur lack of theological and historical knowledge about the views you hold does not make me wrong. When you compare what you believe about this point, you will see that I am right: You are a Pelagian. In fact, when this came up in the moderator's forum, I Posted a link and relevant information showing me to be right, that you are a Pelaginan on this point.

By what hermeneutical exercise do you separate the 10 commandments from the rest of the Law. YOU will find no such distinction in Scripture. It simply isn't there. Nor were the 10 commandments "It, no more, no less." God added a number of commands, both in the OT and the NT.

We do recognize this. We commit sins because we were born a sinner. It seems that, as Ken said, you have not studied the implications of your position vs. the Scriptures.

HOw can you say this? The Bible teaches that we all sin. And we are all responsible for that sin. The reason we sin is because of our sin nature. We are accountable for our sin.

The absurd thing is that you say this. An apology is not required for sin. The Bible says Confession is required. And our confession extends to our own sins. We do not confess the sin of Adam; we have plenty of our own. But we were charged with the sin of Adam so that we can be charged with the righteousness of Christ.

They cannot possibly have sinned??? I don't see how you can make such a statement. Are you saying that a baby is never like Christ? You have inserted your idea of "conscious choice" into the idea of sin when such idea is not found in Scripture. Death is the punishment for sin. That is the teaching of Scripture.

Then you end with yet another patently and clearly unbiblical statement. Rev 20:11-15 and 21:8 among other passages make it clear that hell is for sin. You continue with the untruth that unbelief is not a sin. You have never dealt with that. I Don't understand how you can dismiss such a clear contradiction in your theology. How can you simply dismiss Scripture with such ease? You have done the same thing with Romans 5. YOu seem to have not even studied the passage in any depth to say the things you do about it. Even after being taught what it is saying, you still continue down the same line. As I have said often, I wish you would use your incredible gifts in science in the field of soteriology. It would bring a breathe of fresh air to this forum.

So forget all that, and answer simply this: Is unbelief a sin?

 

Are you sure that is not a Biblical assumption? Is that an argument from silence?

 

Are you sure that is not a Biblical assumption? Is that an argument from silence? </font>[/QUOTE]Not unless the Holy Spirit had a reason for hiding the "fact" that Adam knew Eve and she conceived prior to the fall.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

Do you admit that it is an argument from silence? First of all, we only know a few of Adam's children, though the Bible states that he had many. Second, and this is a question that youth ask me a lot - "Who did Cain marry? His sister?"

Perhaps there were children born in the garden of Eden. We do not know how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden before their fall, nor do we know about their sex life.

 

This argument is forwarded only by those who do not believe the Scripture is infallible. To say that Adam and Eve could have had children prior to the fall is the same as saying there is the possibility that each of these could have lived according to the law of God and ultimately would not need the Lamb of God nor the Savior that he is. I view this as the beginning of error.

As far as speculating who Cain married; even Abram was related to Sara. I don't know how to answer any who first deny the infallibility of the Bible. This does not negate the fact that the Holy Spirit only mentioned Adam knowing his wife and her conceiving only after the fall.

Many Jewish writers believe that Adam only remained in the original condition that first day of his creation, not that it was a matter of time, but that man being created on the sixth day actually was visited by God on the seventh day; thus interrupting the rest of God. It is not such that man enjoyed a generation or so in the Garden.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

Do you admit that it is an argument from silence? First of all, we only know a few of Adam's children, though the Bible states that he had many. Second, and this is a question that youth ask me a lot - "Who did Cain marry? His sister?"

Perhaps there were children born in the garden of Eden. We do not know how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden before their fall, nor do we know about their sex life. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]It is an arguement from silence...but it is a good one. Why?

If Adam and Eve had children before the fall, they would not have been tainted by the sin-nature or guilt that we all now have.

If they had "Untainted" children then we might see two "Famlies" of people--the righteous (non-fallen) and the unrighteous (the fallen). Scripture certainly does not affirm that. It says "All have sinned..." in various places.

I think it is almost certain that Adam and Eve had sex before they fell. Sex was not created for procreation (primarily), contrary to the Catholic doctrines. Sex was created for a husband and a wife to enjoy with each other and to have two people (a husband and a wife) bound in a covenant relationship mirror Christ's relationship to the Church. Procreation is secondary.

Furthermore, the Bible makes it a point to say that Adam and Eve had children after the fall. So, in effect, it is a non-issue. When did they have kids? After the fall. Why? Because God decreed that it would be so.

Blessings,

Archangel

 

Romans 5 states that through Adam ALL die - death spreads to ALL "EVEN over those who did not fail in the likeness of Adam's transgression".

David said that from his very birth he is a sinner in NEED of salvtion.

Are you really proposing that if a child dies before it is old enough to fully understand the concept of right and wrong - it does not "need a Savior"??

Do you really think that it is a "coincidence" that "ALL" have gone astray and "no one seeks after God"?? 100% failure is a coincidence?

What if the "Sinful nature" is by nature at war with God (Romans 7 and 8). What if we are BORN with a sinful nature and in need of "the New Birth" from our very birth. The New Birth - makes a new creation where the Law of God is written on the tablets of the human heart under the new covenant. True the infant "has not sinned" but its nature is in rebellion against God at birth and therefore in need of "A Savior" from sin - purely by virtue of being born as a fallen child of Adam.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Ad hominem.

If they had, we surely would have heard of them. AS the head (or origen) of all mankind, Adam's sin is still what makes us culpable.

Oh, I am sure Cain ended up marrying a sister. Yet, there is no time frame in between his exile and marking to his marrying in the Bible. Again, to say anything here would be an argument from silence.

And this is still an argument from silence. The HOly SPirit does not validate the existence of oxygen, but oxygen does not not exist merely because the Bible doesn't say so.

And on what authority do Jewish writers speak? Are these the same writers who believe in a pre-Eve, or Lilith?