Seed of Evil

[Sularis]

Recently I've been hearing from my course instructor, my father, and the pastor at where I live - that its the man's fault we are all sinners - that sin passes through the male - no one has given me verse support for this - and it doesnt make sense - I get the same feeling when I first heard my sunday school teacher and pastor say dinosaurs didnt exist.

So I'd like some verses supporting this viewpoint - since I cant seem to find any on my own

 

[donnA]

They are correct, and right at this moment, on my way out the door, the only verse I can think of is Romans 5:12, I think there are others.

 

[Sularis]

Ummm yeah ummmm no

Thanx for the verse - Dont agree with the interpretation - since that doesnt teach that males alone are the avenue through which sin is passed down because Jesus is still the descendant of Adam through Mary - it has to specifically state the male gender or eliminate the female gender - it says Adam - or one man - where's the men are evil scum verse but women are nice gentle sinless creatures raying: until they get married and then turn into nagging harpies - or have premarital sex and are thus corrupted by evil man's seed :smilewinkgrin:

 

[russell55]

They come to that conclusion because Jesus didn't have a sin nature, and he had a human mother but no human father. They conclude, then, that the sin is transmitted biologically through the father. That might be true, but it isn't a very strong case.

That said, I don't think Jesus was born "in Adam" like everyone else. A child's inheritance came through the father rather than the mother, and the virgin birth is an indication that he's not a "son of Adam." He's not included, inheritance-wise, with the descendents of Adam. He's the second Adam, the new beginning, the first of the new humanity. It's just not necessarily a biological thing.

 

[skypair]

sularis,

Here's the point which is ill-taken by your pastor and father -- Adam is, indeed, the cause of the sin nature of all men. However, it was the woman that was deceived (1Tim 2:14) -- Adam condemned all mankind in order to save Eve!

See, Adam had 2 commands from God: 1) Don't eat the forbidden fruit and 2) "for this cause [his wife] shall a man leave his FATHER and mother and cleave to his wife." (Gen 2) Adam was being obedient in the latter!

Actually, the whole thing reminds us of Christ's death -- who was responsible, Jew or Gentile?? Jesus gave His life so that the Jews might be saved (John 18:14) which led to the salvation of the ALL mankind!

Furthermore, Adam is not responsible for the damnation of infants (as your instructor, pastor, and father might be suggesting). "Sin nature" is NOT sin guilt -- it is the propensity to sin once one has "half a brain"/age of accountability!

I'm with your "instincts"/faith. I hope you can straighten them out!

skypair

 

[JonC]

I think that sin came to man through the fall of Adam, but Eve also sinned (prior to Adam). Through God’s omnipotence He had prior knowledge that man would sin. I don’t think that Adam’s actions were to save Eve (but rather she didn’t die when eating the fruit and if he ate it he would be like God, knowing good and evil).

I think this is the root of all sin. We feel that we can rely on our own intellect to choose what is best for us rather than relying on God. The natural man want’s to be like God, not to serve and obey God.

We are responsible for our own sins; I don’t feel that our sinful nature is passed down from either parent. It is in our nature, just as it was in Adam’s. If we were in Adam’s place we would have done the same.

 

[Scarlett O.]

sularis,

Here's the point which is ill-taken by your pastor and father -- Adam is, indeed, the cause of the sin nature of all men. However, it was the woman that was deceived (1Tim 2:14) -- Adam condemned all mankind in order to save Eve!

Are you saying that Adam was some kind of martyr? That he ate of the tree only out of a motive to not let Eve be punished alone? That he had no sin in him, but only sacrificed himself,......like Jesus?

If Adam was protecting Eve, then why was he so quick to blame her for his actions when God asked for an accounting of his actions? (Gen. 3:12...."The WOMAN you gave me.....SHE gave it to me....")

Then why did Adam hide from God and get angry with God and blame God for his actions.....(Gen. 3:12....."The woman YOU gave me.......")

For a man, who as you say, was trying to cleave to his wife and save her from God's wrath and judgement, Adam surely does seem eager to blame anybody except himself for his disobedience to God.

I'm not understanding this martyr idea. I have always believed that they both partook of the fruit (agreeably for different reasons) and both tried to weasel their way out of it and both were punished for their disobedience.

See, Adam had 2 commands from God: 1) Don't eat the forbidden fruit and 2) "for this cause [his wife] shall a man leave his FATHER and mother and cleave to his wife." (Gen 2) Adam was being obedient in the latter!

The cause or the reason that a man and wife are to cleave together is not the wife. Marriage, family, and intimate relationships are not for the woman's sake or benefit alone.

She is not the reason.

They are the reason. Don't take my word for it. Jesus said it.

(Matt. 19:4....."Haven't you read...that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female and said 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and they will be one flesh?)

Surely you are not implying that Adam left his Father, God, to cleave to his wife even at the point of being disobedient to God for her sake?

It was never God's intent that Adam nor Eve leave him. The purity of the relationship between God and his two created humans was in a perfect state, marred only by their sinful acts.

You're making an awfully big stretch here in making Adam the original sacrificial lamb, in my humble opinion.

 

[skypair]

Are you saying that Adam was some kind of martyr? That he ate of the tree only out of a motive to not let Eve be punished alone? That he had no sin in him, but only sacrificed himself,......like Jesus?

If Adam was protecting Eve, then why was he so quick to blame her for his actions when God asked for an accounting of his actions? (Gen. 3:12...."The WOMAN you gave me.....SHE gave it to me....")

Then why did Adam hide from God and get angry with God and blame God for his actions.....(Gen. 3:12....."The woman YOU gave me.......")

For a man, who as you say, was trying to cleave to his wife and save her from God's wrath and judgement, Adam surely does seem eager to blame anybody except himself for his disobedience to God.

I'm not understanding this martyr idea. I have always believed that they both partook of the fruit (agreeably for different reasons) and both tried to weasel their way out of it and both were punished for their disobedience.

OOh. It must be true what they say about "a woman scorned." :laugh:

First, do you find, as Paul did, that 2nd Adam was like 1st Adam?

The cause or the reason that a man and wife are to cleave together is not the wife. Marriage, family, and intimate relationships are not for the woman's sake or benefit alone.

She is not the reason.

They are the reason. Don't take my word for it. Jesus said it.

(Matt. 19:4....."Haven't you read...that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female and said 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and they will be one flesh?)

Surely you are not implying that Adam left his Father, God, to cleave to his wife even at the point of being disobedient to God for her sake?

It was never God's intent that Adam nor Eve leave him. The purity of the relationship between God and his two created humans was in a perfect state, marred only by their sinful acts.

You're making an awfully big stretch here in making Adam the original sacrificial lamb, in my humble opinion.

You're ranting, girl! Look, Eve partook before Adam. Adam wasn't there. Adam had a decision to make when presented with the fact that Eve had eaten already. You "do the math."

Let me put this thought in your fertile mind -- suppose Adam was the first physical manifestation of God. Have you read 1John 3:8 "for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. "

I think you got a lot more to think about now, don't you?

skypair

 

[Marcia]

Look, Eve partook before Adam. Adam wasn't there. Adam had a decision to make when presented with the fact that Eve had eaten already.

Adam was there.

So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. Gen 3.6

Suppose Adam was the first physical manifestation of God. Have you read 1John 3:8 "for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. "

What do you mean here? Adam wasn't a manifestation of God! He was a created being, a human.

I think that both Adam and Eve sinned, but Adam is held responsible for sin in Romans 5 because
1. He was created first
2. He was a "type" that foreshadowed the 2nd Adam, Christ (see Rom 5.14)
3. He had spiritual headship over Eve
4. He was the figurehead for the human race that fell into sin

However, I do not think sin is passed down biologically - it is just part of human nature ever since sin in the Garden.

 

[Aaron]

Recently I've been hearing from my course instructor, my father, and the pastor at where I live - that its the man's fault we are all sinners - that sin passes through the male - no one has given me verse support for this - and it doesnt make sense - I get the same feeling when I first heard my sunday school teacher and pastor say dinosaurs didnt exist.

So I'd like some verses supporting this viewpoint - since I cant seem to find any on my own

That viewpoint is an uninformed and somewhat superstitious viewpoint. Sin is not something that is transmitted like a virus. Rather sin is a lack of something, something that misses the bull's eye. What Adam lost in the Fall was life. Being dead himself, he was not able to impart life to his children.

We all died in Adam.

Some will ask then, "Why did Jesus have to be born of a virgin?" There was nothing that compelled Christ to be born of a virgin. The Virgin Birth was a sign, not a necessity.

 

[Scarlett O.]

First, do you find, as Paul did, that 2nd Adam was like 1st Adam?

As a matter of fact I do. What they have in common is that they were polar opposites, not sacrifical martyrs together.

In 1 Corinthians, Paul is trying to remind the church that he started at Corinth that there most definitely IS a resurrection from the dead. Some had started to fall away from that belief.

He said (1 Cor. 15:21-22), " Since Death came through a man (Adam), the resurrection of the dead also comes through a man (Jesus). In Adam we all die, but in Christ we are all made alive."

And Paul keeps teaching, further explaining that there is a physical body that dies and a spiritual one that resurrects.

He says (1 Cor. 15:45), "So it is written: 'The first man, Adam, became a living being.' and the last Adam a life-given spirit."

Skypair, there is nowhere in these passage that Paul is comparing Adam to Jesus, somehow making them both alike, both sacrificing their relationship with God to save someone else. He is contrasting them, showing the difference between the physical and the spiritual realm.

Keep reading passed verse 45 on through verse 50.

Paul says that Adam was natural, made of dust and that we bear his likeness or have a physical body. He says that this form cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.

He also says that Jesus of born of heaven and that we, as christians also bear His likeness, in that we will be resurrected and be in heaven someday.

Paul, in his discussion of Adam and Jesus, is showing the church at Corinth that while their flesh cannot saved nor resurrected, their spirit will be.

He most definitely was NOT saying that Adam was in any way a sacrifice like Jesus was. In fact, he said the opposite. The part of us that is like Adam cannot enter the kingdom of heaven (verse 50).

Also in Romans 5, Paul gives a lenghty discourse outlining just how sinful Adam is. He calls him a "transgessor".

A "transgressor" cannot be a Savior.

He blames Adam for the sin of all mankind! How can someone who has the sin of all mankind to answer for be a martyr or a sacrifice?

I still don't see the martyr in Adam. I only see the trangression, just like Eve's.

You're ranting, girl!

You haven't been here very long, have you. :flower:

Adam had a decision to make when presented with the fact that Eve had eaten already.

Yes, he did have a decision to make and he made the wrong one.

Let me put this thought in your fertile mind -- suppose Adam was the first physical manifestation of God. Have you read 1John 3:8 "for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

Adam did not destroy the works of the devil. Jesus did.

Adam brought sin to all mankind.

Please mediate on this verse, by Paul.

Romans 5:15 "But the gift is not like the trespass. For if many died by the trespass of one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, over flow to many."

The gift is not like the trespass.

Adam is not like Jesus.

 

[Allan]

Thanx for the verse - Dont agree with the interpretation - since that doesnt teach that males alone are the avenue through which sin is passed down because Jesus is still the descendant of Adam through Mary - it has to specifically state the male gender or eliminate the female gender - it says Adam - or one man - where's the men are evil scum verse but women are nice gentle sinless creatures raying: until they get married and then turn into nagging harpies - or have premarital sex and are thus corrupted by evil man's seed :smilewinkgrin:

You will not find any verse that states what you ask, Just as you will not find any verse in scripture stating words like: Trinity, Theology, and the Rapture.

However the principle lays in that same verse Donna addresses: By one man sin entered the world...(Yet we know Eve sinned first),

And then we have verses like Ex 34:4 and Deut 5:9 (of 8) which in a 'type' of this principle speaking of God visiting the iniquities of the Fathers upon the children to the 3 and 4th generation (Wont find in scripture the sins of the Mother to the ...).

We find the strongest arrangment of this principle in Rom 5:12-21 that principle which shows that Man passes his Nature on to his children and is why we struggle so much with the "Natural" Man or Nature of Man as it is something we are BORN with and is that same Nature of Sin that Rom 5 speaks of with regard to death. And as has been ASSUMEED this death is not JUST lifelessness but Judgment as it shows in vs 18 and 21 and is in context the very death these verses are speaking of.

Christ was born of a virgin woman and though He shared in the Nature OF man He did not share in the Corrupted Nature FROM Man.
This is why Jesus is OF the Father (God) and NOT of Men.
He could not have been born of both an earthly father and mother He would have to partake in the FULL Nature of Man (sin and all). However with just the mother Jesus would and did partake in that same Nature of Man yet without Corruption inherrent to Man. Since Jesus would HAVE TO be Born the excludes an earthly (to Josephs great relief) and therefore NECESSITATES Christ be born of a Virgin. IMO. There is some more to this but I just don't have the time right now.

 

[skypair]

Marcia,

You win the prize for truth. On the one hand, most will see that Adam wasn't there during the temptation (J. Vernon McGee included) but he was there when Eve ate partaking 2nd -- after her.

I think it brings out the point the Paul made, that women's words are always a temptation to men's flesh (1Cor 1Tim 2:11-14, 1Cor 14:34-35) except when they say "Take out the trash!" We learn from Paul too that the man is the "savior of the body" of the woman (Eph 5) and is to sanctify and cleanse her as Christ does us. I would say that Adam had some of these same things to deal with or Paul wouldn't remember them, right?

Mainly you are right that sin did not pass down through birth. We are each our own Adam as we reach accountability. Thanks.

skypair

 

[skypair]

Hey Scarlet,

I'm with you, too. Everything about Christ that can even be compared with 1st Adam was in Adam in a negative way. I guess we ususally call that contrast, not comparison, right? Anyway, the Bible invites us many places to do so -- so I do.

A "transgressor" cannot be a Savior.

You haven't thought about what would have happened if Adam hadn't eaten the fruit? My impression is that neither Eve not we would be here today. Is that pretty much what you are thinking?

As to 1Cor 15 -- Paul is showing the whole panopoly of reaurrections -- spiritually after death -- spiritually and physically ("celestially") at the rapture to heaven of the living -- physically ("terrestrially") at the resurrection of the just who are later raptured. 1Cor 15 is like an overview of the believer's life from birth to glory! It is one of the most detailed and complicated studies of Christianity that I can think of.

skypair

 

[Sularis]

Hrm - I see

Thank you all for the help - i wasnt expecting the martyr viewpoint although I had heard it before. It's a possibility in that we men are very stupid - and we'll do the dumbest things for love. I just dont consider it very viable or important enough to care.

so logically then by extension - cloning and gene manipulation is actually a good thing because by that means we can create a human race free of sin nature.

The male line of sin passing leads to this thought - That all we have to do is take a female clone her and change the clones genes into male and then poof - no more sin nature to pass on

I've always looked at it this way Adam passed onto us the consequences of sin - not the sin itself - this is in keeping with the verses that God punishes the generations and the verses that the child is not responsible for the sins of the father.

As to the Trinity - there are enough verses that speak to Duality A=B, A=C that you can logically go B=C with more then one verse to support you and no contradicting verses - unlike the seed of evil theory which has "contradicting" verses making the theory invalid

 

[Allan]

Thank you all for the help - i wasnt expecting the martyr viewpoint although I had heard it before. It's a possibility in that we men are very stupid - and we'll do the dumbest things for love. I just dont consider it very viable or important enough to care.

so logically then by extension - cloning and gene manipulation is actually a good thing because by that means we can create a human race free of sin nature.

The male line of sin passing leads to this thought - That all we have to do is take a female clone her and change the clones genes into male and then poof - no more sin nature to pass on

I've always looked at it this way Adam passed onto us the consequences of sin - not the sin itself - this is in keeping with the verses that God punishes the generations and the verses that the child is not responsible for the sins of the father.

As to the Trinity - there are enough verses that speak to Duality A=B, A=C that you can logically go B=C with more then one verse to support you and no contradicting verses - unlike the seed of evil theory which has "contradicting" verses making the theory invalid

Understandable logic...ummm..somewhat. But why does one have to train a child to do right if they have no sin nature from the first?? Why do we war (even children) against the flesh to do that which is right??? If we begin with no sin nature we are sinless and have the potential of saving ourselves if we adhere to the Law like Jesus did. You have major contradictions in scripture to ASSUME you are born without sin. Citing again Rom 5:12 just as one. But also that scripture states "While we were YET sinners..." Sin being death (judgment of God) came UPON ALL... And more...

The problem I see with cloning is that you are not recreating a NEW being but refabricating the SAME ONE so THAT BEING as well will have the same Nature as the first as it comes from a person with an already Nature.
How about show the scripture you wish to dispove prove something and your argument takes on much more power than a whim.

Try again. :thumbsup:

 

[skypair]

so logically then by extension - cloning and gene manipulation is actually a good thing because by that means we can create a human race free of sin nature.

Actually, I don't see that as a logic outcome of the premises. Only if we could create life by the Holy Spirit -- which we don't have "in a bottle," so to speak -- could we do such a thing. What you may be thinking of is what we do everytime we witness -- we attempt to "implant" the Spirit causing what we call the "new birth."

The male line of sin passing leads to this thought - That all we have to do is take a female clone her and change the clones genes into male and then poof - no more sin nature to pass on.

My understanding is that the sin nature is in the blood - that the "fall" caused "blood poisoning" as if the forbidden fruit had a genetic effect on all offspring created by the flesh. Any clone would have human genes.

I've always looked at it this way Adam passed onto us the consequences of sin - not the sin itself - this is in keeping with the verses that God punishes the generations and the verses that the child is not responsible for the sins of the father.

Yeah, you got it.

skypair

 

[skypair]

Allan,

But why does one have to train a child to do right if they have no sin nature from the first??

They have sin nature. That doesn't make them guilty of sin nor make them sin or sinners from birth.

The origins of sin nature is best described as "our survival instinct run amuck." At first, we can't do anything for ourselves but our wants are limited to NEEDS -- food, warmth, freedom from pain, etc. That is not sin to want to survive, is it?

But as we got older, needs turned to wants -- feeding the flesh more than was necessary or even good for it. Beginning to want what others have -- that's the beginnings of sin, right?

Why do we war (even children) against the flesh to do that which is right???

The Bible says on account of "lust" or desire, Jas 1:14-15.

If we begin with no sin nature we are sinless and have the potential of saving ourselves if we adhere to the Law like Jesus did.

We DO begin sinless and are "justified." Should such an one die, he/she would go to heaven on the merits of innocence. Such an one would later be resurrected in the "resurrection of the just" postrib to face Jesus and choose what to do with Him!

But there is no chance at all that sin nature won't "kick in" which is why Paul says, "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. There is NONE righteous, no not one." None righteous on his own account, that is.

skypair

 

[Aaron]

Christ was born of a virgin woman and though He shared in the Nature OF man He did not share in the Corrupted Nature FROM Man.
This is why Jesus is OF the Father (God) and NOT of Men.
He could not have been born of both an earthly father and mother He would have to partake in the FULL Nature of Man (sin and all). However with just the mother Jesus would and did partake in that same Nature of Man yet without Corruption inherrent to Man. Since Jesus would HAVE TO be Born the excludes an earthly (to Josephs great relief) and therefore NECESSITATES Christ be born of a Virgin.

The Scriptures state explicitly that the Virgin Birth was given as a sign. That's the reason for it. Again, sin is not something that is passed. It is in actuality something that is NOT passed, and that thing is life. Mary was no more able to impart life to Christ than Joseph. Christ's life is from God and is immortal, eternal and incorruptible, and could just as easily have dwelt in a body prepared for Him "in the family way" as it was to dwell in one that was prepared miraculously.

 

[Allan]

Allan,
They have sin nature. That doesn't make them guilty of sin nor make them sin or sinners from birth.

I agree with this IF you are meaning that they are not YET accountable TILL they come to what most commonly refer to as the "age of accountability".

The origins of sin nature is best described as "our survival instinct run amuck." At first, we can't do anything for ourselves but our wants are limited to NEEDS -- food, warmth, freedom from pain, etc. That is not sin to want to survive, is it?

Scripture please... survival instinct IS NOT a comparison of a Nature at odds with God.

But as we got older, needs turned to wants -- feeding the flesh more than was necessary or even good for it. Beginning to want what others have -- that's the beginnings of sin, right?

Wants are not sinful. What IS sin is to do contrary to Gods Truth or even what is concidered Natural truth.

The Bible says on account of "lust" or desire, Jas 1:14-15.

Yes, but where did the LUST come from?? Our Sin nature is where. To lust in this aspect (sinfully) is to desire LONGINGLY to go against what you KNOW is truth to satify yourself. A good example is Adam. Adam sinned but did Adam first lust to sin?? No, he chose to do so. Even Eve was decieved to sin but she never LUSTED to sin.

We DO begin sinless and are "justified." Should such an one die, he/she would go to heaven on the merits of innocence. Such an one would later be resurrected in the "resurrection of the just" postrib to face Jesus and choose what to do with Him!

We do not begin sinless for we are born sinners YET we are covered under His mercy till come to that point where understanding takes hold of right and wrong / good and evil / sin and righeousness. And should such a child die in 'INNOCENTS' they are covered under the mercy of God because they have yet to of themselves choose to walk away from God. We don't find Jesus in the Post-Trib. Rapter with the SAINTS trying to figure out what to do with these. They are under the mercy of God BECAUSE of the Blood of Gods Grace.

But there is no chance at all that sin nature won't "kick in" which is why Paul says, "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. There is NONE righteous, no not one." None righteous on his own account, that is.

I agree.