-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Adam's sin
- Thread starter Helen
- Start date
Harald, to let you know, Pastor Larry has called me all sorts of things! None of which I am except Christian!
dpenguin: the law was most certainly known before Moses. Genesis 9 gives the law regarding murder and capital punishment. The episode of the manna predated the giving of the law on Mt. Sinai, and the requirement of the Sabbath was obviously known then. Worshiping God only was also evident in his calling out of Abraham. There is, in fact, evidence of the presence of the known law(s) of God throughout other cultures at the time as well. We have enough of Hammurabi's code to know that. What we do have evidence of in Hammurabi's code, however, is something interesting -- the same thing Jesus railed at the Pharisees about in Matthew 23: man has a tendency to add to the law, either with his own laws or his interpretations.
Therefore, when God Himself wrote the Ten Commandments on the tablets of stone, the message was "This is it. No more. No less." The laws given after that were specifically for the Israelite community, as mentioned in the Bible. However the Ten Commandments and the law requiring capital punishment for first degree murder are universal, for all men.
So knowledge of the law is not an historical thing, but a personal thing. In Romans 7:7-11, Paul speaks of himself as being alive before he came to know the law, responded with his sinful nature, and died spiritually. The rest of chapter 7 refers to his state in that condition of spiritual death, which is separation from God by the way, not spiritual unconsciousness.
This means that no baby is either conceived or born spiritually dead, regardless of the fact that we are all conceived in sin and born sinners. Being a sinner from birth and actually commiting a sin are two different things, and I have found that those of the Reformed pursuasion do not seem to recognize this.
Jesus said that the children were His. He said that anyone who caused one of the little ones who believed in Him to sin would be better off with a millstone around his neck cast into the sea. He was very positive and repetitive about the condition of the children. They are His.
In the Old Testament we find that there is an age delineation given by God Himself regarding the Israelites in the desert. All those under the age of 20, regardless of whether or not they participated in the sin of their fathers and mothers, would be allowed into the Promised Land, while all those who were over 20 had to die in the wilderness. Those 20 and older were being held accountable for their rebellion, while those under 20 were not. It's something that needs consideration when one is talking about the children.
As far as inheriting responsibility for Adam's sin, that goes against everything the Bible says about individual accountability, not only in Ezekiel, but other places as well. Our relationship with the Lord is an intensely personal one, and we each are only accountable for ourselves. Inasmuch as our actions cause others problems, we are accountable for that, too. But that accountability stretches forwards in time, not backwards. We have received the consequences of Adam's sin, but not the responsibility for it. This is clearly seen in the biblical reaction to it. Adam is held responsible, not Eve. Eve got the message from Adam; Adam got the order from God. Therefore Adam is held responsible not only for his own sin, but also for Eve's. He put her in a position of being deceived. And although we may guess at Adam's motives for joining Eve in sin, we really cannot be sure about them.
But if Eve herself was not responsible for what Adam did, then certainly neither are we. That concept is distinctly Roman Catholic and comes from Augustine and his use of a poor Latin translation of Scripture. It is not part of the true Scripture in either the Hebrew or in the Greek.
How on earth can we apologize to God for what we did not do, had no choice regarding, and were born thousands of years after it happened? To be responsible means we certainly owe an apology, at the least. So what does the Calvinist say to God: "I am so sorry for my part in helping/causing Adam to sin" ??? That is absurd to the highest degree. We no more caused Adam to sin (which is what taking responsibility means) than we are responsible for the sins of our own parents.
Lastly, is death a punishment or consequence of sin? Considering that even unborn babies die, and they cannot possibly have sinned, it is obviously a consequence and not a punishment.
You want punishment? Try hell. THAT is punishment -- but not for sin. Jesus took ALL the punishment for ALL sins of ALL time. Hell is punishment for refusing Christ. It is punishment for unbelief. This is extremely clearly stated a number of times throughout the New Testament. Start with John 3:16-18 and just keep reading...
[ April 23, 2003, 08:55 PM: Message edited by: Helen ]
dpenguin: the law was most certainly known before Moses. Genesis 9 gives the law regarding murder and capital punishment. The episode of the manna predated the giving of the law on Mt. Sinai, and the requirement of the Sabbath was obviously known then. Worshiping God only was also evident in his calling out of Abraham. There is, in fact, evidence of the presence of the known law(s) of God throughout other cultures at the time as well. We have enough of Hammurabi's code to know that. What we do have evidence of in Hammurabi's code, however, is something interesting -- the same thing Jesus railed at the Pharisees about in Matthew 23: man has a tendency to add to the law, either with his own laws or his interpretations.
Therefore, when God Himself wrote the Ten Commandments on the tablets of stone, the message was "This is it. No more. No less." The laws given after that were specifically for the Israelite community, as mentioned in the Bible. However the Ten Commandments and the law requiring capital punishment for first degree murder are universal, for all men.
So knowledge of the law is not an historical thing, but a personal thing. In Romans 7:7-11, Paul speaks of himself as being alive before he came to know the law, responded with his sinful nature, and died spiritually. The rest of chapter 7 refers to his state in that condition of spiritual death, which is separation from God by the way, not spiritual unconsciousness.
This means that no baby is either conceived or born spiritually dead, regardless of the fact that we are all conceived in sin and born sinners. Being a sinner from birth and actually commiting a sin are two different things, and I have found that those of the Reformed pursuasion do not seem to recognize this.
Jesus said that the children were His. He said that anyone who caused one of the little ones who believed in Him to sin would be better off with a millstone around his neck cast into the sea. He was very positive and repetitive about the condition of the children. They are His.
In the Old Testament we find that there is an age delineation given by God Himself regarding the Israelites in the desert. All those under the age of 20, regardless of whether or not they participated in the sin of their fathers and mothers, would be allowed into the Promised Land, while all those who were over 20 had to die in the wilderness. Those 20 and older were being held accountable for their rebellion, while those under 20 were not. It's something that needs consideration when one is talking about the children.
As far as inheriting responsibility for Adam's sin, that goes against everything the Bible says about individual accountability, not only in Ezekiel, but other places as well. Our relationship with the Lord is an intensely personal one, and we each are only accountable for ourselves. Inasmuch as our actions cause others problems, we are accountable for that, too. But that accountability stretches forwards in time, not backwards. We have received the consequences of Adam's sin, but not the responsibility for it. This is clearly seen in the biblical reaction to it. Adam is held responsible, not Eve. Eve got the message from Adam; Adam got the order from God. Therefore Adam is held responsible not only for his own sin, but also for Eve's. He put her in a position of being deceived. And although we may guess at Adam's motives for joining Eve in sin, we really cannot be sure about them.
But if Eve herself was not responsible for what Adam did, then certainly neither are we. That concept is distinctly Roman Catholic and comes from Augustine and his use of a poor Latin translation of Scripture. It is not part of the true Scripture in either the Hebrew or in the Greek.
How on earth can we apologize to God for what we did not do, had no choice regarding, and were born thousands of years after it happened? To be responsible means we certainly owe an apology, at the least. So what does the Calvinist say to God: "I am so sorry for my part in helping/causing Adam to sin" ??? That is absurd to the highest degree. We no more caused Adam to sin (which is what taking responsibility means) than we are responsible for the sins of our own parents.
Lastly, is death a punishment or consequence of sin? Considering that even unborn babies die, and they cannot possibly have sinned, it is obviously a consequence and not a punishment.
You want punishment? Try hell. THAT is punishment -- but not for sin. Jesus took ALL the punishment for ALL sins of ALL time. Hell is punishment for refusing Christ. It is punishment for unbelief. This is extremely clearly stated a number of times throughout the New Testament. Start with John 3:16-18 and just keep reading...
[ April 23, 2003, 08:55 PM: Message edited by: Helen ]
... 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
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 </font>[/QUOTE]Frogman, it is not that the children do not sin, but that they sin in response to a sin nature, not as a matter of conscious rebellion. God seems to make a definite distinction here. It is interesting to note that Jesus, as the one sacrifice for all sin for all time (Hebrews), was then also the sacrifice for unintentional sins -- thus the children are covered by His sacrifice until their rebellion becomes a conscious act of defiance against a known law. This, at least, is in line with both Romans 7 and Jesus' references to the children, as well as the matters of the Exodus.
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
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
OK, let's look at this this way, Brother Dallas -- even before I was saved, I did not sin ALL the time. There were at least moments in my life when, despite my sin nature, I was not sinning! I am not actually at all sure that anyone is capable of sinning 60 minutes an hour, 24 hours a day. Given that, we know that there are times when the sinner does not sin.
And with that even as a possibility, it is very possible that the baby growing within the womb and the newborn have not yet sinned, despite having sin natures.
Sin is disobedience against God, right? How can you disobey a law you do not know?
But all that becomes moot anyway when we realize that Christ died for all sins of everyone throughout all time. God hated sin so much HE did something about it.
We do not go to hell for our sins. If we did, that would only be because either Christ's sacrifice was not accepted by the Father or that Christ's sacrifice was not complete. Both are heresies.
So whether or not the children sin doesn't really matter! They are covered no matter what. It is when a person refuses to believe in Christ that he or she is hell-bound. No other reason is given in the New Testament.
Looking at it from that point of view, it is a silly argument regarding Adam's sin. It was taken care of anyway, even if the impossibility of us somehow being responsible for something that happened a number of thousand of years ago is taken into consideration.
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
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
KenH
Well-Known Member
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.
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.
KenH
Well-Known Member
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.
KenH
Well-Known Member
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?
ScottEmerson
Active Member
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
ScottEmerson
Active Member
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
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
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
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
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
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
ScottEmerson
Active Member
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?