Was Man Created Mortal?

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Demonstrate through the Scripture (not your interpretation of this one verse) that David actually born in sin.

HP: This is the irony of your question. There is a clear distinction between the way one is ‘born’ and the way one is ‘conceived’ is there not? The verse in question speaks to the manner in which he was ‘conceived’ not the manner in which he was born. So in response, you are asking me to demonstrate by Scripture something Scripture plainly does not address in this verse. Possibly you would desire to restate your question to ask about matters that can be established by the Scriptural evidence presented in this verse?

 

[DHK]

HP: David speaks in the first person of the manner in which he himself was conceived.. How do you, Spurgeon, or anyone else extrapolate that into a universal statement concerning a notion that the Jews did not believe in nor was there any parallel in Jewish writings to the Augustinian notion of original sin?

Did the Jews believe in the inherent goodness of man or the inherent evil of man. A quick reading of the Psalms will answer that question, as the Psalmist often pours out his heart to God and confesses the evil in his heart. In Pslam 8 he says: "What is man that thou art mindful of him?" It suggests that God is so Good, so great, and we are so unworthy, so evil, that we don't even deserve to live. Why does God even bother with us. The Pslamist often acknowledges his unworthiness, his sinfulness. The rest of Pslam 51 is the same also.

What you have failed to do in all of this is to take Psalm 51:5 in its full context. Why would David be referring either to conception or birth, when this is his specific prayer of repentance after he had committed adultery and murder. After Nathan the prophet came to him and pointed out his sin, David repented. This is his psalm (prayer) of repentance. His mother had nothing to do with it, but his evil nature had a lot to do with it. And that is what he is referring to here. Keep things in their context and they make more sense.

Yes there is a difference between conception and birth, but as far as the OT was concerned it was a very fine distinction. For example when Jephtah was conceived, it was't long before whoever was his mother was found out to be with child--maybe just three months. And in another six the child would be born. Obviously in a normal relationship the difference is nine months. It is the conception that is sinful if it is outside the marriage act. That is evident. We have no evidence of that here. Your former posts contained a lot of "ifs" and hypotheticals, not much for substance. I mean there was some very factual information there but only enough to draw inferences, not facts.

I would rather take the direct statements of Scripture of how God allowed Ruth into the lineage of Christ, and how it is plainly stated that both Obed and Jesse are in the lineage of Christ, and the rest is plainly stated in Matthew. That is what is important. The lineage of Christ is traced through David, and it is given twice--once in Matthew and once in Luke. It is a royal lineage. It could not be such an honorable lineage if what you suggest happened.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: This is his psalm (prayer) of repentance. His mother had nothing to do with it, but his evil nature had a lot to do with it. And that is what he is referring to here. Keep things in their context and they make more sense.

HP: So when one mentions their mother or the sin of their mother, they are really speaking of their own nature. I suppose that is true, but only if one has a presupposition to support such as the Augustinian notion of original sin.

DHK: I would rather take the direct statements of Scripture of how God allowed Ruth into the lineage of Christ, and how it is plainly stated that both Obed and Jesse are in the lineage of Christ, and the rest is plainly stated in Matthew. That is what is important. The lineage of Christ is traced through David, and it is given twice--once in Matthew and once in Luke. It is a royal lineage. It could not be such an honorable lineage if what you suggest happened.

HP: The problem is that even then you do not accept Scripture at face value, for am I not correct that you would claim that Jesus has no physical ties to Obed or Jesse, for they were in the lineage of Joseph His father according to Scripture, something the proponents of original sin have to deny in order to keep Christ free from sin? Is that not correct?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Another question concerning the lineage of Christ was Ruth. Was it in clear violation of the OT law to marry a Moabite? My point is that regardless of the circumstances of the past, that in no way, 'infected' the character of Christ Himself.....or are we to also deny that Christ was physically connected to Ruth as well?

 

[DHK]

HP: So when one mentions their mother or the sin of their mother, they are really speaking of their own nature. I suppose that is true, but only if one has a presupposition to support such as the Augustinian notion of original sin.

Please tread lightly. I am neither a Calvinist nor an Augustinian, and I don't support either one's theology. I form my conclusions from a study of the Word, which I have given you. I have never bothered to read Augustine and don't care if it remains that way. So much for presuppositions.
Again I repeat, David was not speaking of the sin of his mother. It is your flawed interpretation of that verse that makes you think that he is speaking of his mother. You have one verse of Scripture which goes contrary to all the rest of Scripture. Then you have a problem. The problem is obvious--it is in the hermeneutics. When the interpretation of the Scripture is out of sync with the rest of Scripture, then it is wrong.

As I already mentioned you have consistently failed to look at the context--David's prayer of repentance, of which his mother has nothing to do with. David uses figurative language also which cannot be interpreted so literally as to mean that his mother was a sinful person (that which you imply), and he being a man after God's own heart, and repenting from his own sin would not be suggesting as much. He has no reason to. He consistently refers to his own sin. Read verse four: "Against thee and thee only have I sinned." He puts the blame squarely on himself, and his sin a horrible crime against God alone.
And then following verse five, verse six:

Psalms 51:6 Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom.

More figurative language. Does God desire truth in David's liver, kidney, large intestine, small intestine, stomach, esophagus, etc. Those are just some of are "inward parts." Do you really take this verse as literally as you are trying to take verse five? Then that is what you come up with! But it is obvious that that is not the meaning.
Here is the note that the Geneva Bible gives for that part of the verse:

He confesses that God who loves pureness of heart, may justly destroy man, who by nature is a sinner much more him whom he had instructed in his heavenly wisdom.

The inward parts refers to what elsewhere is referred to as "the heart."
It is a Psalm, and psalms are poetry, and poetry uses plenty of figurative language.

HP: The problem is that even then you do not accept Scripture at face value, for am I not correct that you would claim that Jesus has no physical ties to Obed or Jesse, for they were in the lineage of Joseph His father according to Scripture, something the proponents of original sin have to deny in order to keep Christ free from sin? Is that not correct?

Matthew 1:5-6 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;

The Bible states that Jesus had physical ties to Obed and Jesse. The Messianic line is given in Matthew's gospel. The main purpose of the Gospel of Matthew is to set Christ as the Messiah, the King of the Jews. He is writing primarily to a Jewish audience and his book is demonstrating that Christ is the Messiah. There are more OT quotations and allusions in Matthew than in any other NT book. It is his lineage that demonstrates that HE is the Messiah, the King of Israel.

 

[BobRyan]

Bound: Adam was the creation of a God of limitless perfection. Adam thus 'was Perfect'.

Perfect as in "sinless and flawless" I would agree.
Perfect as in a character that was molded after the likeness of God -- fully mature for a "one day old adult" -- I would agree.

HP: You cannot create moral perfection, for morality denotes choice. You can create one that is neither sinful nor holy with perfect natural propensities, but that is not perfectly holy either. One can be said to be perfectly holy or possessing moral perfection only after one chooses to form intents in a benevolent fashion. At that moment and up until sin is formed, one can be said to be perfect ‘morally.’ Until the point of forming ones first intent of benevolence, one can only say perfect in the sense of being created with a ‘moral capacity’ and with all the requisite abilities that go to make up that moral capacity, like the possibility of contrary choice, some intuitive knowledge as to what is required of them etc.

I would argue that Eve's first response was to argue for faithfulness to the command of God.

Yet the serpent found a way to confuse and tempt her.

To be "temptable" is not "to be imperfect".

Yet even the temptable sinnless angels eventually take sides and then "lock-in" to their choice such that it is imprinted on their soul.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

This thread starts with the question "was Adam mortal" in view of the fact that he eventually died after becomming sinful.

But the proof of the argument that he was in a mortal state destined to die from the moment of his creation - would require that we see Adam in a case where he didn't sin -- yet died anyway.

Since Gen 3 makes it appear that God assigns the "reason for death" to be sin and the absence of the tree of life -- I think I am going for that solution.

Not sure why the sinless nature of Christ is coming into this.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Read verse four: "Against thee and thee only have I sinned." He puts the blame squarely on himself, and his sin a horrible crime against God alone.

HP: Then why do you try and say that the reason why he sinned is because he was born in sin and could not do anything other than what he did? Is not some consistency called for here in relationship to our interpretation of this verse?


This is indeed an interesting passage. David may have sinned against God alone, but his sin has not only affected his relationship with God. His sin affected other families and most likely a whole nation. In reality, I have a hard time believing his sin was only against God. I would go so far to say that his sin has affected whole generations and certainly the entire church world. Hardly a day goes by when his sin is not referenced in some context, either to show the heart of true repentance or as simply an excuse or a presumptuous excuse as to why someone sins, as believing that one will be completely forgiven if one goes ahead with their selfish plans and sins in the future, or that even this great man of god committed adultery, so that in some way justifies me in my act of adultery, fornication, or sin.

One thing this passage is not, is a passage establishing any universal principles of Augustinian original sin. This was a prayer of David in the first person, pouring out his heart to God over his sin. You act as if though the sin was David’s personal sin, that there would be no reason to mention the sin of his mother. You also suggest that if David was speaking of his mother’s sins that he would it would be inconsistent with his personal repentance, rather focusing his prayer on calling his mother a sinner rather than repenting for his own sins. I believe you are wrong on both accounts.

The sins of ones parents do have an impact on their children and their children’s children. In pouring out ones heart before God over their sins, is it uncommon for us in our grief and humility to express how deceptive the temptations were, or the strength of temptation due to the influence of others etc.? That is not saying that we are shifting the blame from our own formed intents, but rather are just reflecting and looking at the whole picture of all the influences that have affected us. It may teach us to realize in the future that in spite of the influence the sins of others may have wrongfully affected us, that in the end we are still to blame for our own intents. Certainly we can reflect on snares and bad influences that plied on the will to sin in our prayers. Nothing is inconsistent in doing so. Again by reflection we learn the hard way to beware of allowing the sins of others to influence us to our own evil behavior.

I challenge myself and others to examine carefully the most latent and initial influences and means by which temptation comes to us, and to recognize them from the start, before we form the intents by which sin is predicated, as indeed influences that we need to realize are never going to serve as excuses for our sin. We should learn from reflection upon them that although they indeed may be formidable influences we cannot in the future allow them to serve as motivation or an excuse in any way to sin. This is precisely how we avoid the lure of past mistakes of others or influences to sin before they wield such influence upon our wills that we should allow them to influence or wills in the formation of its intents in a selfish manner.

Address this one point of the context. David was speaking of himself in the first person and his own sins before God. What gives anyone the right to extrapolate that verse into a universal principle of sin involving all of humanity? Where do we find David supporting any Augustinian notion of original sin that places the blame on sin on Adam and not on the individual personally? Again, did not even you say that he laid the blame for his sins on his own shoulders and not on those of another or any other entity?

In Psalms 51, David was indeed referring to the sins of his mother at one time in her life, in particular in the act of conceiving David, that even from the moment of his conception, sin was in some way involved in his life. “In sin did my mother conceive me.” No, David was not telling God what a sinner his mother was, for she most likely had repented long ago, nor was david blaming his mother for his own sin. David was just, in reflection in his prayer, reminding himself that sin is a formidable influence, and that even those sins committed in his conception had had an impact on his own life. There seemed to be no time in his life, from the very act of conception to his present state, that sin had not been present in some way and having some impact upon his choices.

 

[DHK]

HP: Then why do you try and say that the reason why he sinned is because he was born in sin and could not do anything other than what he did? Is not some consistency called for here in relationship to our interpretation of this verse?

Why? Because that is what David himself said. I never said David had any other choice, and neither did David. He said in a very poetic way that he was born with a sin nature. That still grants him choice. That was not the reason that he committed adultery. He is acknowledging his sinfulness. He acknowledged the sin itself in verse four. He acknowledges his sinful nature passed down to him from Adam in verse five. He acknowledges the same thought again in verse six--a thought that is emphasized in Romans 7 by Paul. "It is sin that dwelleth in me." It is not just the act. David recognizes that. The act is done and finished. But within me there is still sin. Why? Because of my sinful nature. Both Paul and David say the same: "It is sin that dwelleth in me." David speaks of his inward parts, and in verse 10 he prays "Create in me a clean "heart" O God." He recognizes his sinful self.

This is indeed an interesting passage. David may have sinned against God alone, but his sin has not only affected his relationship with God. His sin affected other families and most likely a whole nation. In reality, I have a hard time believing his sin was only against God. I would go so far to say that his sin has affected whole generations and certainly the entire church world. Hardly a day goes by when his sin is not referenced in some context, either to show the heart of true repentance or as simply an excuse or a presumptuous excuse as to why someone sins, as believing that one will be completely forgiven if one goes ahead with their selfish plans and sins in the future, or that even this great man of god committed adultery, so that in some way justifies me in my act of adultery, fornication, or sin.

His sin was against God alone. That is the nature of sin. We offend a holy righteous God. Sin is breaking or transgressing the law of God. It is God that is offended. The consequences of our sin reaches out to others and indeed does affect others, but strictly speaking it is against God alone that we have sinned, as David has said.

One thing this passage is not, is a passage establishing any universal principles of Augustinian original sin.

Never said it was; neither is it a passage bearing testimony of a sinful mother.

This was a prayer of David in the first person, pouring out his heart to God over his sin. You act as if though the sin was David’s personal sin, that there would be no reason to mention the sin of his mother.

You are so right! If there was, why not mention the sins of his father and all of his siblings. Get the whole family involved!!

You also suggest that if David was speaking of his mother’s sins that he would it would be inconsistent with his personal repentance, rather focusing his prayer on calling his mother a sinner rather than repenting for his own sins.

Right again. He is focusing on his repentance not anyone else's. Why mention the sins of his mother or any other person. That would be inconsistent.

The sins of ones parents do have an impact on their children and their children’s children. In pouring out ones heart before God over their sins, is it uncommon for us in our grief and humility to express how deceptive the temptations were, or the strength of temptation due to the influence of others etc.? That is not saying that we are shifting the blame from our own formed intents, but rather are just reflecting and looking at the whole picture of all the influences that have affected us. It may teach us to realize in the future that in spite of the influence the sins of others may have wrongfully affected us, that in the end we are still to blame for our own intents. Certainly we can reflect on snares and bad influences that plied on the will to sin in our prayers. Nothing is inconsistent in doing so. Again by reflection we learn the hard way to beware of allowing the sins of others to influence us to our own evil behavior.

And is this what David was referring to? The sins of his parents and grand parents and the generations further back. I don't think so. However it has been suggested that "In sin did my mother conceive me, that "mother" refers to Eve, our first mother, and hence a very direct reference to our sin nature. You ignore context. Context is all about sin and the nature of sin, and the sin nature. To hold to the view of David's mother's sin is entirely out of context.

I challenge myself and others to examine carefully the most latent and initial influences and means by which temptation comes to us, and to recognize them from the start, before we form the intents by which sin is predicated, as indeed influences that we need to realize are never going to serve as excuses for our sin. We should learn from reflection upon them that although they indeed may be formidable influences we cannot in the future allow them to serve as motivation or an excuse in any way to sin. This is precisely how we avoid the lure of past mistakes of others or influences to sin before they wield such influence upon our wills that we should allow them to influence or wills in the formation of its intents in a selfish manner.

At the same time we have no one to blame but ourselves when we sin. We cannot blame the influence of our environment or any other person when we have sinned. Nor could David. David didn't do that. That premise alone is against all that the Bible teaches of personal responsibility.

Address this one point of the context. David was speaking of himself in the first person and his own sins before God. What gives anyone the right to extrapolate that verse into a universal principle of sin involving all of humanity?

No one is extrapolating a verse. What saith the Scriptures. They are there for our understanding and teaching. What is David saying here? There is much teaching in the Psalms. Are you suggesting that we ignore all of it? Almost all the psalms are written in the first person singular. Again do we ignore all the teaching of the Psalms? Do 150 Psalms have nothing to teach because they are written in the first person singular? They have much to teach. And this verse does teach about the sinful condition of DAVID, which then applies to all mankind. God is a consistent God.

Where do we find David supporting any Augustinian notion of original sin that places the blame on sin on Adam and not on the individual personally? Again, did not even you say that he laid the blame for his sins on his own shoulders and not on those of another or any other entity?

I don't know what Augustine teaches. But I do know that David is not directly speaking of his mother.
[quote]In Psalms 51, David was indeed referring to the sins of his mother at one time in her life, in particular in the act of conceiving David, that even from the moment of his conception, sin was in some way involved in his life.[/quote]
Yes, ever since he was conceved he inherited a sin nature which was passed down to him from Adam. For in Adam all have sinned.

“In sin did my mother conceive me.” No, David was not telling God what a sinner his mother was, for she most likely had repented long ago, nor was david blaming his mother for his own sin. David was just, in reflection in his prayer, reminding himself that sin is a formidable influence, and that even those sins committed in his conception had had an impact on his own life. There seemed to be no time in his life, from the very act of conception to his present state, that sin had not been present in some way and having some impact upon his choices.

Marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled. God does not go against his Word. This is not what David was referring to. He in poetical terms is referring to his own sinful nature.

 

[bound]

Not sure why the sinless nature of Christ is coming into this.

Any discussion concerning Christian Anthropology is going to, at some point, discuss particular Christocentric elements of our Faith which shed light on the topic.

For example, 'why was Jesus borne of a Virgin'? Was there a purpose for such a great divine intervention? The assertion of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ... or, more precisely, of his virginal conception... originated in the New Testament itself, being found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, nowhere else. In the first of these "the Virgin Birth story appears theologically mute, no christological argument or insight seems deductible from this great divine intervention." The narrative in Luke was somewhat more specific in identifying the significance of the intervention, for the angel said to Mary: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God." The word "therefore" indicates "that the inference is self-evident" and thus that the holiness and the divine sonship of the child had some connection, perhaps a causal one, with the special circumstances of his conception. Part of that interpretation was some systematic reflection on what it meant for the Christian understanding of the person of Christ; and this, in turn, was bound to have implications for the doctrine of man. These are questions which involve Christian Anthropology as well as Christology and so merit serous consideration.

I, frankly, believe that Heavenly Pilgrim has been offering very thought provoking questions on this and other topics but I question, honestly, if the true depth of these topics can be mined with such predetermined conclusions already barring our path to further insight. It's a shame really...

More evidence that Original Sin does not find it's origins with Augustine...

All Latin theories of human nature predate Augustine and in fact find their root with Ambrose and his anonymous contemporary, the Roman exegete whom Erasmus designated Ambrosiaster. Both must have influenced Augsutine, and Ambrosiaster anticipated his teaching at a number of points.

In the first place, the general Western view was that man's primitive state had been one of supernatural blessedness. According to Hilary, he was created immortal, destined to share the blessedness of God Himself. Ambrosiaster argued that, although Adam's body was not intrinisically immortal, he halted its tendency to decay by eating of the Tree of Life. It was Ambrose, however, perhaps inspired by his acquaintance with the Cappadocians, who painted the picture in the most glowing colors. Adam had been a 'heavenly being', breathing etherial air and immune from life's cares and boredoms. Accustomed to conversing with God face to face, he held his carnal appetites in sovereign control. Along with Eve he radiated perfect innocense and virtue, and was even exempt from the need of food. From this happy state, however, he fell, being condemned to concupiscense and death. The root cause of his lapse, according to Ambrose, was pride: 'he wanted to claim for himself something which had not been assigned to him, equality with his Creator'. In Ambrosiaster's view his sin was more akin to idolatry, since he fondly imagined he could become God. By treating the Devil as God, Adam placed himself in his power. It was his soul, of course, which sinned, but the act corrupted his flesh, and sin established its abode there. Thus the Devil took possession of it, so that henceforth it oculd be designated a "flesh of sin".

Secondly, the solidarity of the race with Adam, with all that notion entails, received much fuller recognition in the West than the East. An unknown author writes, 'Assuredly we all sinned in the first man, and by the inheritance of his nature an inheritance of guilt (culpae) has been transmitted from one man to all... Adam is therefore in each of us, for in him human nature itself sinned.' To return to Ambrose, 'Adam existed, and in him we all existed, Adam perished, and in him all perished'; and again, even more forcibly, 'In Adam I fell, in Adam I was cast out of Paradise, in Adam I died. How should God restore me, unless He find me in Adam, justified in Christ, exactly as in that first Adam, I was subject to guilt (culpae obnoxium) and destined to death?' Ambrosiaster's teaching is particularly noteworthy because it relies on an exegesis of Romans 5:12 which was to become the pivot of the doctrine of Original Sin.

What are the practical implications of this solidarity? The second of Ambrose's texts cited above suggests that the race is infected with Adam's actual guilt. His more general doctrine, however, is that, while the corrupting force of sin is transmitted, the guilt attaches to Adam himself, not to us. Certainly, no one can be without sin (i.e. persumably, the sinful tendency), not even a day-old child; the corruption actually increases, in the individual as he grows older and in the race as generation succeeds generation. (Ep. 45:13-15) - Early Christian Doctrines by J.N.D. Kelly

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK, I appreciate your responses. I have a better understanding of the way you arrive at your ideas than I had before. We have more than likely covered the ground of Psalms51 fairly well although we have not reached much agreement. If I have answered your questions sufficiently in your estimation, I will simply move on for now. If you believe that I have avoided any questions or failed to address any specific issue I will try my best to accommodate a better response. If not, I will just let the issue of that passage of Scripture ride with you for now.

I do not wish to destroy our ability to communicate with each other over this issue. I have great love and appreciation for many godly men that believe just like you do on this issue. I owe my salvation in many respects to men and women that believed as you do on original sin, including one most influential persons in my life, my godly mother.

 

[DHK]

DHK, I appreciate your responses. I have a better understanding of the way you arrive at your ideas than I had before.

I do not wish to destroy our ability to communicate with each other over this issue.

One of the great distinctives of the Baptists is soul liberty--the ability to agree to disagree with each other in areas of doctrine such as this.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: One of the great distinctives of the Baptists is soul liberty--the ability to agree to disagree with each other in areas of doctrine such as this.

HP: You are sounding like Wesley with that comment.

If we could only find a way to stick with that which is abundantly clear and that we both hold to fast and sure, i.e. all are sinners and are in need of a Savior, and there is absolutely nothing anyone can do to merit salvation, we would be well on our way to some meaningful agreement. I believe there is merit in limiting the ideas we place in our manuals and require out of one another to Scriptural terms alone.

 

[BobRyan]

I asked how the sinless nature of Christ relates to this topic of whether man was "created mortal". Since all agree that Christ died - Christ was born "mortal". How then do we get to the sinless nature of Christ in a discussion "was Adam created Mortal"?

We also know that Adam though sinless -- created with a sinless nature had the "capability" of choosing sin and rebellion -- free will.

Any discussion concerning Christian Anthropology is going to, at some point, discuss particular Christocentric elements of our Faith which shed light on the topic.

Well it seems like a bit of a tangent at this point.

Bound said -

In the first place, the general Western view was that man's primitive state had been one of supernatural blessedness. According to Hilary, he was created immortal, destined to share the blessedness of God Himself. Ambrosiaster argued that, although Adam's body was not intrinisically immortal, he halted its tendency to decay by eating of the Tree of Life.

Ok the last view sounds correct.

The root cause of his lapse, according to Ambrose, was pride: 'he wanted to claim for himself something which had not been assigned to him, equality with his Creator'.

Well the subject of "what was Adam thinking" when he took Eve's advice is a pretty speculative one. Notice that in the "chain of blame" in Chapter 3 Adam does not blame the serpent.

It is apparent that Adam was not invovled in the conversation between the serpent and Eve. However it is also apparent from the text that he might have given Eve's argument some thought.

My preference is to think that Adam knew instantly that Eve was doomed in some way and that they would be separated. He choose to identify with her fate and also had hope-against-hope that maybe it would not be so bad since after all - she did not appear to be dead or dying.

Secondly, the solidarity of the race with Adam, with all that notion entails, received much fuller recognition in the West than the East. An unknown author writes, 'Assuredly we all sinned in the first man, and by the inheritance of his nature an inheritance of guilt (culpae) has been transmitted from one man to all... Adam is therefore in each of us, for in him human nature itself sinned.' To return to Ambrose, 'Adam existed, and in him we all existed, Adam perished, and in him all perished'; and again, even more forcibly, 'In Adam I fell, in Adam I was cast out of Paradise, in Adam I died. How should God restore me, unless He find me in Adam, justified in Christ, exactly as in that first Adam, I was subject to guilt (culpae obnoxium) and destined to death?' Ambrosiaster's teaching is particularly noteworthy because it relies on an exegesis of Romans 5:12 which was to become the pivot of the doctrine of Original Sin.

Certainly it can be argued from Romans 5 that the human race fell into condemnation - all needed as Savior after Christ -- to redeem us "God sent His Son to be the Savior of the WORLD" 1John 4:10.

The world was lost -- "God so loved the world that He gave"

Christ became "the atoning sacrifice for OUR sins and not for our sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE World" 1John 2:2 NIV.

Our condemnation is in the fact that in the family of Adam we are born sinFUL -- our very nature is now inclined to sin rather than inclined to God. By that fact alone "we need rescue" even the infant needs it. And every infant has it in Christ!

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

That seems to be a fairly good analysis Bob.
I bite my tongue when I say that.

To add a couple of other examples:
Lucifer was created perfect, without sin, and yet chose in his own pride, volitionally to sin.

One third of all the angels in heaven followed Lucifer in his rebellion; they didn't have to. It was their decision. They too were perfect. In both of these cases, if they had a body of some sort it was created immortal. Ezekiel describes Lucifer in heaven as having some sort of body.

Adam and Eve were created immortal in their bodies. I believe the evidence for that is almost irrefutable. What made it mortal is the fall; the curse in particular. Had they not partaken of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil they would have lived forever. Thus their bodies, even at that time were immortal--Just as our bodies will be immortal at the resurrection.

Other proof. "They walked and talked with God--in the cool of the evening"
But "no man can see God."
Adam and Eve could. How? They must have had a type of glorified body that enabled them to see God. I take the verse literally.
Just some thoughts.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Adam and Eve were created immortal in their bodies. I believe the evidence for that is almost irrefutable. What made it mortal is the fall; the curse in particular. Had they not partaken of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil they would have lived forever. Thus their bodies, even at that time were immortal--Just as our bodies will be immortal at the resurrection

.

HP: I find this at direct antipodes with Scripture. Nothing that is physical is eternal period. 2Co 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

 

[trustitl]

Bob Ryan says:
My preference is to think that Adam knew instantly that Eve was doomed in some way and that they would be separated. He choose to identify with her fate and also had hope-against-hope that maybe it would not be so bad since after all - she did not appear to be dead or dying.

It is interesting that scripture says that through one MAN sin entered the world but at the same time "woman was deceived first'. Is it possible that that because the command was given to man "to not eat of the tree" that he was the one responsible and sin had not entered until he ate? It also gives some light to the headship of the man and his (and therefore our) responsibility.

 

[DHK]

.

HP: I find this at direct antipodes with Scripture. Nothing that is physical is eternal period. 2Co 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

I think that you are taking this verse out if its context. It is speaking of faith. Paul said "We walk by faith and not by sight." When Christ comes we no longer will have need of faith, for we will see Christ as he is. Hope also will come to an end.

Romans 8:24-25 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.
--We hope for that we see not.
When Christ, our Blessed Hope comes, then hope also will end.

But when John was in heaven he saw many physical things. He saw the Lamb with the scroll in his hand, and the scroll had seven seals. He saw angels with trumpets, and angels with vials. He saw the redeemed singing songs of the redeemed. He saw many many glorious sight, some of which, I am sure were beyond his limited vocabulary to describe to us. But they were nevertheless physical things. Our resurrected bodies will also be physical.
Is it not a form of gnosticism to believe that everything physical (that which can be seen) is only temporal, and that which cannot be seen (the spiritual) is eternal?
The thesis of the first epistle of John was to write against this heresy. And thus he begins his epistle:

1 John 1:1-2 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us)

He is speaking of the Lord--God--whom he has seen, looked upon, his hands have handled--that ONE which was with the Father and was manifested unto us.

 

[bound]

.

HP: I find this at direct antipodes with Scripture. Nothing that is physical is eternal period. 2Co 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

Grace and Peace HP,

If we look to our early Brother Anthanasius for understanding of these mysteries which are the foundation of our Faith and our Hope we will read in the third paragraph of the first chapter of On The Incarnation:

Such are that notions which men put forward. But the impiety of their foolish talk is plainly declared by the divine teaching of the Christian faith. From it we know that, because there is Mind behind the universe, it did not originate itself; because God is infinite, not finite, it was not made from pre-existent matter, but out of nothing and out of non-existence absolute and utter God brought in into begin through the Word. He says as much in Genesis: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"; and again through that most helpful book The Shepherd, "Believe thou first and foremost that there is One God Who created and arranged all things and brought them out of non-existence into being. Paul also indiciates thte same thing when he says, "By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God, so that the things which we see now did not come into being out of things which had previously appeared." For God is good - or rather, of all goodness He is Fountainhead, and it is impossible for one who is good to be mean or grudging about anything. Grudging existence to none therefore, He made all things out of nothing through His own Word, our Lord Jesus Christ; and of all these His earthly creatures He reserved especial mercy for the race of men. Upon them, therefore, He bestowed a grace which other creatures lacked - namely, the impress of His own Image, a share in the reasonble being of the very Word Himself, so that, reflecting Him and themselves becoming reasonable and expressing the MInd of God even as He does, though in limited degree, they might continue for ever in the blessed and only true life of the saints in paradise. But since the will of man could turn either way, God secured this grace that He had given by making it conditional from the first upon two things - namely, a law and a place. He set them in HIs own paradise, and laid upon them a single prohibition. If they guarded the grace and retained the loveliness of their original innocense, then the life of paradise should be theirs, without sorrow, pain or care, and after it the assurance of immortality in heaven. But if they went astray and became vile, throwing away their birthright of beauty, then they would come under the natural law of death and live no longer in paradise, but, dying outside of it, continue in death and in corruption. This is what Holy Scripture tells us, proclaiming the command of God, "Of every tree that is in the garden thou shall surely eat, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil ye shall not eat, but in the dy that ye do eat, ye shall surely die." "Ye shall surely die" - not just de only, but remain in the state of death and of corruption.

The early Fathers didn't look at the Fall as 'a curse' cast upon us by God but as a 'lose of our own making'. We can not pass to our children what we don't possess ourselves. The 'original innocense' once held by Adam and Eve was lost and thus it was not passable to their progeny not because God prejudged them but because the state of 'original innocense' needed to be reinfused into humanity through a Redeemer (i.e. Jesus Christ, the very Word of God who inscribed the Image upon man 'in the beginning').

Book Number 3 in the Popular Patristics Series published by St. Vladimir's Seminary Press titled On the Incarnation by St. Athanasius is one book I would highly recommend reading concerning this subject.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

2Co 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

DHK: I think that you are taking this verse out if its context. It is speaking of faith.

HP: 2Co 4:16 For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.
17 For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory;
18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

I can appreciate the effort DHK, but it speaking directly to the flesh that will perish, the outward man as opposed to the inner man. It is speaking of that which will perish, i.e., all things seen, as opposed to the things which will not perish, the things which are eternal and as such not seen.

DHK: Paul said "We walk by faith and not by sight." When Christ comes we no longer will have need of faith, for we will see Christ as he is. Hope also will come to an end.

HP: That is very true, however what does that truth have to do directly with the passage in question? The passage in question has our light affliction as its object, not directly our faith or the end of our hope.

DHK: Romans 8:24-25 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.
--We hope for that we see not.
When Christ, our Blessed Hope comes, then hope also will end

HP: I again agree, but that is in no way the object of the text I mentioned in the least.
The ‘seeing’ in this passage has nothing to do with the physical or our afflictions we now experience as is the direct object of the passage in question. It is speaking of simply the realization of, or the culmination of ones faith. Again that is not the context of the passage in question.

DHK: But when John was in heaven he saw many physical things. He saw the Lamb with the scroll in his hand, and the scroll had seven seals. He saw angels with trumpets, and angels with vials. He saw the redeemed singing songs of the redeemed. He saw many many glorious sight, some of which, I am sure were beyond his limited vocabulary to describe to us. But they were nevertheless physical things. Our resurrected bodies will also be physical.

HP: There is no indication that any of the things John saw were physical. He was simply describing what he saw in physical terms that he knew and could relate to others in this temporal world what he was viewing with his spiritual eyes.

DHK: Is it not a form of gnosticism to believe that everything physical (that which can be seen) is only temporal, and that which cannot be seen (the spiritual) is eternal?

HP: Guilt by association is not always a proper way of establishing truth or error. It may or may not be the case. If in fact that Gnosticism supports that, in that were they correct and were in agreement with Scripture. :thumbs:

Many true notions are held by men either in heathen systems or that have been greatly influenced by them. Even Augustine, being highly influenced by his heathen roots held some truth, wouldn’t you not agree?

DHK: The thesis of the first epistle of John was to write against this heresy. And thus he begins his epistle:

HP: The purpose of this epistle was just as the writers stated, “1Jo 1:4 And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full” and 1Jo 2:1 “ My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. ” Before we start guessing as to why he wrote what he wrote, we might need to just read the writers words and take them at face value. No Gnostics mentioned or addressed directly there.