Inherited Sin

[JonShaff]

God centered knowledge = Life and Peace

Man centered knowledge = Death and Turmoil

 

[TCassidy]

This is just my opinion, but maybe God intended them to eat from the Tree of Life first, then the Tree of Knowledge...That would have been True Worship...Life/Spirit first, then Truth. But they rebelled and took it upon themselves to "do the right thing" and took on knowledge WITHOUT life, Which leads to self centered sin and death. Knowledge according to man "are the ways of death".

I think you are pretty close here. In my opinion the restriction to not eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was temporary. Had they eaten from the other trees, sooner or later they would have gotten around to eating of the Tree of life and, with that special infusing of that spiritual life could now eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil without harm.

That is why God performed the act of mercy of expelling them from the Garden and putting the Angel at the gate to prevent them from returning, to keep them from eating of the Tree of Life in their fallen condition, which would confirm them in their fallen condition for all eternity. That is why Revelation 22 tells us that the Tree of Life will again be available for us to eat in Heaven.

 

[JonC]

If you eat this , then you shall surely die!

Yes, through one man's transgression sin entered and through sin, death. That is the passage. My point is you add the interpretation and not everyone agrees (the vers does not say their nature was altered, but that their eyes were opened....Maybe to their nature...And they were removed from Eden.

 

[JonShaff]

Yes, through one man's transgression sin entered and through sin, death. That is the passage. My point is you add the interpretation and not everyone agrees (the vers does not say their nature was altered, but that their eyes were opened....Maybe to their nature...And they were removed from Eden.

As you allude to, seemingly their nature was already their nature, knowledge revealed what was already there...or better yet...knowledge revealed the result of their actions...shame/guilt

The "unbelief of their heart" had consequences...which Set the Stage for God's redemption through Jesus Christ our Lord...what a beautiful picture of God's Love! Like TCassidy posted earlier, it was God's mercy that Removed them from the Garden, Eternal Guilt and Shame would have been the result had they ate from the tree of Life after the fall. He kicked them out for their own good!

 

[Benjamin]

Man inheriting sin when he ate of the Tree of Knowledge had to do with the way man was created which demonstrates that he was to have free will. When man freely chose to inherit the knowledge of good and evil he was also choosing to be as a God and judge between good and evil. But there is only One Judge and only One King in the kingdom and His judgment is perfect, man falls short in judgment and that is missing the mark of perfection (therein is sin).


Man, although being made in God’s image and likeness and being given the attributes of sense, reason, intellect and volition was NOT given the right to be a god. But in his pride of life and desire he freely chose to believe the lies of the Serpent that he could be as God he set himself up to be a sinner.


(Gen 3:22) 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:


This freedom allowed man, as designed, to freely be responsible for this sin coming onto the world. God did not determine it upon anyone as God is only Good and created His creatures that way (Gen 1:31). Of course, God knew that His creatures would make this prideful choice and in His great love for His creation (John 3:16) He had prepared the way to the Tree of LIfe even before the foundation of the world for them to be saved.


Of note, nothing changed about the attributes which include free will that man was created with except that man, through his own volition, added the attribute of knowledge of good and evil by which he would always fall short in judgment before God, his King and thereby be a sinner.


Now, man must use these same unchanging attributes whereby he willingly inherited knowledge of good and evil and must bow down to reject his own prideful judgment and must freely put forth his hand, repent of wanting to be as God, die to himself and this desire and also take of the tree of life.


(Gen 3:22) 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:


It is clear that man never lost his free will/volition, he wasn't redesigned to not have free will, but rather that man had gained the attribute of knowledge, freely, whereby he would undoubtedly sin as part of his new nature.


Therein (adding the attribute of knowledge in creation) we see that man did not inherit sin, or the guilt of sin but by his own doing and responsibility inherited the nature whereby he would sin. We also (“should”) see that man still possesses free will/volition as originally designed and that ALL men, in this volitional condition, have received the promise from the beginning of creation that he has the true ability to take of Tree of Life which is/was offered, Jesus Christ being the Way.


Of course, some would rather make the excuse that they have no choice but to sin and deny free will. To me, it seems they are not thankful for their gifted attributes and God’s promise of grace for whosoever will freely take their hand and accept the Tree the Life but rather refuse to freely bow down saying they have no ability to do so and will insist and complain that they have no choice in the matter and come up with a theory of determination putting the responsibility on God rather than being thankful for being designed in creation as they were. But that is another chapter.


(Rom 1:20) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:


(Rom 1:21) Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.


(Rom 1:22) Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

 

[HeirofSalvation]

[

QUOTE="JonC, post: 2278666, member: 12639"]As I reply, I want to acknowledge that we probably will not agree,

Not, entirely, I'd imagine...but, probably close enough for hand-grenades or such that I wouldn't consider you an heretic unwelcome in my Church

but at the same time I do not think that our views are as distant as I once considered them to be.

Prolly not.
It's most likely more an issue of EMPHASIS, rather than belief..

As people argue they tend to blind themselves to legitimate observations of their “opponent”.

Yes, even when they try very, very hard not to.

I am guilty of this error, and it is because of pride.

I don't think so, actually....
Not that I'm trying to let you off the hook per-se...
I think humans think in categories:
You also think MOSTLY in categories, as do I.

I think your mind is trying to place my views into a category which makes sense.
I do the same to you.......Which is why I'm trying to demand a particular "Box"....like Calvinism that I can force you into....
because it's a "box" of categories I know how to think in....
Just like "Arminianism" is a "box" which makes sense...
It's a category.
Categories work....so do "generalizations".
That's just how humans think
I do it because I want to know who I'm talking to and who I'm debating with.
It's just human nature.
It's not pride necessarily....it's just cognition.

But you do bring out several good points. I have been considering for a couple of weeks the implication of a sinful or fallen nature on that nature that Christ took upon himself, and I appreciate your insights into this topic.

As long as sin isn't some weird disease all humans are genetically cursed with from the point of conception.........I'm cool with it.

I agree with you that “original sin” is a myth, depending on how it is defined. I fear that a segment of evangelical Christianity and Reformed theology (what many would call a “traditional”, but perhaps not original, understanding) leans heavily on the systematic views of the 16th and 17th centuries. Having majored in philosophy, I suppose that you have an appreciation of how ideas and developments of the past may superimpose themselves on the thoughts of the present (or perhaps it is vise versa).

There we go....we're on the same sheet of music:

ANY Theology has a presuppositional back-ground........ANY THEOLOGY.
That includes Reformation Theology.
I think "Calvinism" as it manifests itself in the modern age, has little to no awareness of it's own suppositions.
Many a Calvinist on debate boards honestly BELIEVES...that they are entirely immune to, and do not hold any "Philosophical" predispositions....
Of course they do.
We all do.
Sometimes the way we read Scripture is shaped in part by our suppositional context....
I'd just LOVE to believe that we are a Tabula-Rosa, immune to all thought process and predjudice, but we aren't.
Frankly....you can't just quote rote Scripture and expect the argument to go your way.
It will never happen.
We have to know and understand our Philosophical presuppositions, and question them, and deal with them, and detect whether they are shaping our understanding of Scripture, or whether Scripture is shaping our Philosophy.
God didn't make us that way, and it's not how our minds work.

Is "Reformation Theology" bad?
It's not all bad by any means, much is quite good.

So, do I believe in “original sin”? Yes, I believe that it was through one man that sin entered into the world and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.

We're tracking here,
I'm picking up what you are putting down.

God created Adam, and then God created a garden towards the east in Eden and placed man there. In the Garden Adam was created in a state of complete belief and reliance in God. But they trusted the word of the serpent

MMMM....well, I think Eve did...
I don't think Adam "trusted" the Serpent...
I think his sin was more "willfull".
Eve was "deceived"...Adam was not "deceived"...
Honestly, I think that's quite meaningful in understanding why we are dead in "Adam" and not, say....Eve.
Ti 2:14
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
This concept is Hamartiologically signifigant. In my view.
We are dead in "Adam".
Adam's transgression was nothing like Eve's.
I don't think the ignorant are sinners...
We AREN'T "dead in EVE"...
We are dead in "Adam".
Adam's sin was willful, and the serpent DIDN'T deceive him. He knew better....Eve didn't.

I think Calvinism conflates the ignorant as having all sinned like Adam making no distinction between the ignorance of Eve and the example of willful disobedience of Adam.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

I think those who knowingly defy God are sinners.

That's straight-up Bible sir

who played to their desires (their nature). Their belief was turned from God. When Adam transgressed God’s command his eyes were opened to sin. And God drove man out, again, to the east. The core of sin is unbelief – belief not being a cognitive acceptance or appreciation, but a trust or faith (a reliance upon). Sin is not merely an act against God, it is also a state of alienation from God.The view presented here makes several good observations. First, we do often minimalize the effect “original sin” had on Creation. Second, when we speak of death as a consequence of sin we often tend towards the spiritual and not the physical when so often it is a physical death and the hope of physical resurrection when all things are made new. I believe that we are “born in iniquity” not because we are guilty of sin at birth but because we have a nature that will (if given the opportunity) turn our faith from God. Adam was created in God’s presence (experiencing the fullness of God). Using the analogy of Eden and the Temple - we are born into a fallen world, facing the east. We seek Eden, but are unwilling of our own accord to turn west and enter into the Temple.

That right there.....
That'll Preach..

This “orthodox view” views the Fall as essentially altering locations. Adam was created perfect and innocent in a perfect world with one external evil influencer. We are born exactly the same but in a world of evil and decay. Sin enters man, according to this view of “original sin” externally (through external influences). Scripture, however, views sin as something arising from within, not without. So I am not completely satisfied with the “Orthodox Doctrine of Sin”, but I do appreciate that it brings out what is sometimes ignored.

I don't disagree TOO MUCH...
but let me put out a caveat:

"Within"
vs.
"Without"

Aren't categories which help us that much...

"Within" could collapse immediately to a state of "Original Sin" and Guilt whereupon all persons are simply irredeemably corrupt by rote nature....

"Without" means...frankly whatever anyone wants it to mean.
It's not the Prepositions which count here:

It's differentiating "nature" from "action"...
And defining what God considers to be a "sin" or not a "sin".

Sin is indeed a Personal action and it's source is truly "within"...But, what if the internalization of it is explained by our own "lusts"...

It's our OWN lusts that give way to sin...

But sin isn't those lusts itself.

Jas 1:13
Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
Jas 1:14
But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Jas 1:15
Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

This passage defines sin in action for me.
It's neither a condition nor disease...nor some failing left over from Adam's fall....
It's your own lusts bearing fruit.
I think much Calvinism conflates "lusts" with "sins".
They aren't sins...
One may "lust" -sorta-for a Cinnabon....but it's only sin when they give way to that desire twice a day for 100-days straight.

There's nothing wrong with someone "lusting" for a "Cinnabon" any more than....
as I do, quite naturally...sometimes......."Lust" for my wife....
Not simply a "candle-light" dinner and a nice glass of Bordeaux feeling.........
But....it's just sometimes....LUST.

She likes that actually!
Of course she does!

Man's "lusts" aren't sinful....They are Anthropological...they just are.

It's when "lust" gives way to sin:
If I lusted after someone NOT my wife and pursued that! That, would be a whole new dimension altogether!

Lusts, however...even "willfulness" in the right context, isn't "sin" though, and I think modern Reformation-influenced Calvinism conflates it.

I think God gave mankind a strong WILL.
And it's not that it's "BAD" or even enslaved to sin.........
It's just INCREDIBLY STRONG.....It stands to reason that it would come into conflict with God's perfect will. That's what sinning actually is...
It's allowing our will to over-ride HIS.

That's disobedience.....that's sin.

While I believe that Reformed theology in general and Calvinism specifically magnifies the truth of God’s work and purpose in salvation,

It does...and it did something WONDERFUL for Historical Theology...
It got us all understanding and considering the genuinely Biblical facet of Judicial Substitutionary Atonement....
And frankly...
The views of Atonement were a little lacking until (not surprisingly a Lawyer) started playing at Theology and brought that facet of the Scriptures to light.

He was right to...

But, it's not the only facet of the Atonement that exists.

and I believe that soteriology is a worthwhile study, I also agree that some have erroneously elevated the branch of theology above what is most important. What we refer to as “Calvinism” are the “doctrines of grace” which apply to soteriology because that was what the Canons of Dort address.

Yesh.

I suppose that there is a sense that we extract Calvinistic soteriology and place it in our own broader theological understanding.

I think Calvinism is the most brilliant Soteriological construct devised by mankind. But it holds certain very questionable and debatable Philosophical presuppositions that most of it's defendants can't or won't address. It requires a certain view of Anthropolgy which is not straightforwardly addressed in Scripture......
The Anthrolpology it demands places a strain on it's Christology (namely that men are incurably horribly evil by "nature"...............But Christ was still a man...)

And I suppose some run the risk of using this understanding as a lens through which to view theology as a whole, presupposing ideas upon Scripture

.
I do think that happens.

That is possible, and perhaps it is more possible because of Beza’s placement of divine sovereignty rather than Calvin’s view of predestination

.
I don't think "Sovereignty" was ever really at issue.
I think it's a misunderstood term.
Every Orthodox view believes God is "Sovereign".

But, there's a slew of presuppositional content to what "Sovereignty" must mean imbedded in the definition.

 

[AndThisGospel]

My two cents: We are sinners because we all share in Adam's corporate life after the fall. We are, after all, the multiplication of his life....

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, through one man's transgression sin entered and through sin, death. That is the passage. My point is you add the interpretation and not everyone agrees (the vers does not say their nature was altered, but that their eyes were opened....Maybe to their nature...And they were removed from Eden.

They broke relationship with God though , so they did fall from a state ofbeing without sin to now hving a sin nature!

 

[Yeshua1]

As you allude to, seemingly their nature was already their nature, knowledge revealed what was already there...or better yet...knowledge revealed the result of their actions...shame/guilt

The "unbelief of their heart" had consequences...which Set the Stage for God's redemption through Jesus Christ our Lord...what a beautiful picture of God's Love! Like TCassidy posted earlier, it was God's mercy that Removed them from the Garden, Eternal Guilt and Shame would have been the result had they ate from the tree of Life after the fall. He kicked them out for their own good!

They experience spiritual death when theysinned, as they went from a morally perfect sinless state to now being cursed in the Fall with a sin nature that is dosobedince to God

 

[Yeshua1]

My two cents: We are sinners because we all share in Adam's corporate life after the fall. We are, after all, the multiplication of his life....

We all sinned in Adam, so all received spiritual/physical death, and so all made alive in Christ , those who are saved in Christ!

 

[JonC]

They broke relationship with God though , so they did fall from a state ofbeing without sin to now hving a sin nature!

Did they break the relationship with God or did God break the relationship with them? It seems that, because they sinned, God was the one who sent them from his presence and to cultivate the ground from which he was taken.

 

[Yeshua1]

Did they break the relationship with God or did God break the relationship with them? It seems that, because they sinned, God was the one who sent them from his presence and to cultivate the ground from which he was taken.

They needed to have the Messiah to come to cover their sins, so they did actually transform into sinners, now with a sin nature! Genesis 3:15-16

They did really taste spiritual death. physical death, an were cursed in the Fall...

 

[AndThisGospel]

....so all made alive in Christ , those who are saved in Christ!

That's a contradiction. "All (i.e., universal) made alive in Christ" vs "those (limited) saved in Christ".

 

[Yeshua1]

That's a contradiction. "All (i.e., universal) made alive in Christ" vs "those (limited) saved in Christ".

The saved in Christ are those now made alive again, same group!