Were Adam and Eve different from mankind after the fall?

[razzelflabben]

Not after the fall they weren't. We are not born in the same state as pre-fall Adam. In Adam we have all fallen, and we can't get up.

but they sinned, which is the point...if Adam and Eve were unable to sin, why did they sin?

 

[Wordkeeper]

Colossians 1
24Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body, which is the church, in filling up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions.

God told Adam and Eve not to choose to exercise the ability to deal with Law. Satan tempted them to do so, since it was an activity God engaged in. The problem was that Law could only bring death to mortals, who possessed a "body of death" , bodies that were driven by impulses, the same impulses that drove animals to compete with no regard to justice, mercy or love, attributes that humans shared with God, making them images of God. Since flesh was weak, even Adam's flesh, impulses often won over justice. Separated from God, humans inevitably failed to live up to their "image". Conclusion: the fall primarily separated humankind from God, making them susceptible to the force of the Law.

The Holy Spirit enabled humans to do miraculous deeds in the Old Testament, deeds that turned others, like Rahab to God, but to be redeemers, blessings to the world, humans needed to be united with God. Christ's blood cleansed mankind, made Jesus the second Adam. Those who rest in Christ can be blessings to the world.

The Cross provided many blessings

It removed the jurisdiction of the Law from humankind, since it applied only to the first Adam, not the resurrected second Adam and those who shared in that resurrection.

It made believers qualified sin bearers, since we share Christ's blemishfree attribute.

It released the Spirit to buttress our testimony, a foolish Gospel, confirmed by God's signs of approval.

Now we can do the works that God wills us to work, through abiding in Christ:

 

[Optimax]

Adam and Eve was created by God.

They were created with a will.

That "will" made it possible for them to choose.

The choice they were given was to believe God and not eat of the wrong tree.

Or:

Believe what the devil told them.

Because they had the right to freely choose and chose the devil's words as true and rejected God's word.

They were separated from God and received the devil as their spiritual lord.

That was their "sin" which caused the "fall".

After that they had a sin nature because they were in a union with the devil who is evil which caused "sin" in them.

We are born with that "sin" in us and is only removed by being born again/saved (rom 10:9)

 

[razzelflabben]

well they did change a lot . but they were also very different from all who followed . because they remembered what was .

interesting...their fundamental difference is that they remembered what was...very interesting

 

[Wordkeeper]

Adam and Eve sinned because they chose to be separated from God. This sin was caused by the weakness of flesh. The same weakness of flesh which cause all to sin. It requires special pleading to attribute their sin to free will and our sin to the devil.

Adam and Eve was created by God.

They were created with a will.

That "will" made it possible for them to choose.

The choice they were given was to believe God and not eat of the wrong tree.

Or:

Believe what the devil told them.

Because they had the right to freely choose and chose the devil's words as true and rejected God's word.

They were separated from God and received the devil as their spiritual lord.

That was their "sin" which caused the "fall".

After that they had a sin nature because they were in a union with the devil who is evil which caused "sin" in them.

We are born with that "sin" in us and is only removed by being born again/saved (rom 10:9)

 

[Optimax]

Adam and Eve sinned because they chose to be separated from God. This sin was caused by the weakness of flesh. The same weakness of flesh which cause all to sin. It requires special pleading to attribute their sin to free will and our sin to the devil.

We like they sin because we want to.

That is an exercise of the will.

Our want to over rides our "know we shouldn't".

 

[razzelflabben]

Adam and Eve sinned because they chose to be separated from God. This sin was caused by the weakness of flesh. The same weakness of flesh which cause all to sin. It requires special pleading to attribute their sin to free will and our sin to the devil.

exactly what I have been thinking...there was something that caused Adam and Eve to choose sin, why wouldn't that be the exact same thing that causes us today to choose sin? At the moment, dont' care much what we call it, it seems to me that it is the same reasons

 

[Wordkeeper]

Ditto Adam and Eve.

See also:

http://www.gentlewisdom.org/246/augustines-mistake-about-sin/

Quote
Augustine took Paul’s phrase “ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον” following the Vulgate “in quo omnes peccaverunt” to be “in whom [Adam] all sinned”.

(The Greek can be transliterated ef’ ho pantes hemarton.) Well, Augustine didn’t actually use the Vulgate, which was being translated during his lifetime, but the sometimes not very accurate Old Latin translations. But his Latin version seems to have been similar to the Vulgate here. Doug continues:

the Augustinian interpretation of Paul’s “ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον” as meaning “in whom all sinned” makes it the most disastrous preposition in history. All modern translations agree that its proper meaning is “because.”

More precisely, “the most disastrous preposition” is ἐφ᾽ ef’, a contracted form of epi meaning “on”. The Greek phrase ἐφ᾽ ᾧ ef’ ho literally means “on which”, or possibly “on whom”, but is commonly used to mean “because”, or perhaps “in that”. The problem is that the Latin rendering of ἐφ᾽ ᾧ, in quo, is ambiguous between “in which” and “in whom” (I’m not sure if it can also mean simply “because” or “in that&#8221, and Augustine understood it as meaning “in whom”, i.e. “in Adam”.

So, according to Augustine all sinned “in Adam”, which he understood as meaning that because Adam sinned every other human being, each of his descendants, is counted as a sinner. This is his doctrine of “original sin”, that every human is born a sinner and deserves death because of it. He may have taken up this idea because it agreed with his former Manichaean theology. This teaching is fundamental to most Protestant as well as Roman Catholic teaching today. For example, it underlies the Protestant (not just Calvinist) teaching of total depravity, that the unsaved person can do nothing good, a teaching for which there is little biblical basis apart from Augustine’s misunderstanding which was followed by Calvin.

We like they sin because we want to.

That is an exercise of the will.

Our want to over rides our "know we shouldn't".

 

[Knee V]

By this logic, Jesus Christ is not human.

Human nature may exist in a state of sin or a state of righteousness before God. Before the fall Adam was fully human, as he and his descendants continue to be after the fall. Jesus is fully human, yet without sin. We will exist as fully human yet without sin in the Resurrection.

The difference between sinful man and righteous man is our sin nature, aka original sin or the natural man.

I cannot see how the view I expressed would make him "not human". On the contrary, I cannot see how Christ is human when we have one kind of human nature and He has another.

 

[Knee V]

Consider that Jesus was born of a woman, but did not have a man for a father.

therefore He was born without being "united" with the devil.

That is one reason Jesus is called the second Adam.

"United with the devil"? What is that?

 

[Keachian]

The Apostle Paul describes it as being slaves to sin, if our parents were born enslaved to sin then so will we be, this analogy of course breaks down because children of those who he describes as slaves to Christ/righteousness continue to be slaves of sin.

 

[bling]

I hadn't really been interested in looking too deeply at my beliefs in this, but because of quite a bit of discussion in another thread here I've had to consider my answer.

I'm not even sure why I believe it, but I believe that Adam and Eve were created without the sin nature we have today, and that as a result of the fall, mankind now "inherits" something of their sin.

I imagine Adam and Eve to have fundamentally changed with the fall as well, and not only being subject to the different environment created by the curse.

I don't think I'm talking about "original sin" but I don't know that doctrine. Any discussion from any point of view is welcome though - I'd love to hear what everyone thinks, and why.

1. The Bible never refers to Adam and Eve’s first sin as a “fall”.

2. Yes, with Adam and Eve’s sin knowledge increase (the knowledge of good and evil) which seems to suggest all mature adults “know” it is wrong to hurt others (sin), but is knowledge itself a change in “man’s nature”?

3. Having “knowledge” of good and evil would provide a great deal more ways to “sin”, but does that mean a fallen state?

4. Since Adam and Eve (described by God as being very good) given only one way to sin did sin, why would the rest of us need a change in our nature to sin?

5. To be very good by God’s standard would mean to me as good as humans could be made in every way (physically and mentally) but that is not “perfection like Christ since Christ was not a made being, so what did they lack that God could not create in them from the beginning?

6. Adam and Eve would have had the same “objective” as the rest of us so what was it and what was keeping them?

7. Does this show sin has “purpose” in that it helps man in his fulfilling of his objective?

8. Do these curses brought upon man, do they also help man fulfill his objective?

9. Is physical death in and of itself bad for Christians?

Just some introduction questions.

 

[Keachian]

From the Baptist Confession of Faith;

6.3 They being the root, and by God’s appointment, standing in the room and stead of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and their corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation. Their descendants are therefore conceived in sin, and are by nature the children of wrath, the servants of sin, and the subjects of death and all other miseries, spiritual, temporal, and eternal, unless the Lord Jesus sets them free.
4 All actual transgressions proceed from this original corruption, by which we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil.
5 During this life the corruption of nature remains in those who are regenerated, and although it is pardoned and mortified through Christ, yet this corrupt nature and all its motions are truly and properly sinful.​

9.2 Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom and power to will and to do that which was good and well-pleasing to God, but he was unstable, so that he might fall from this condition.
9.3 Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has completely lost all ability of will to perform any of the spiritual good which accompanies salvation. As a natural man, he is altogether averse to spiritual good, and dead in sin. He is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself for conversion.
9.4 When God converts a sinner, and translates him into a state of grace, He frees him from his natural bondage to sin, and by grace alone He enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good. But because of his remaining corruptions he does not only (or perfectly) will that which is good, but also wills that which is evil.
9.5 The will of man will only be made perfectly and immutably free to will good alone in the state of glory.​

 

[bling]

From the Baptist Confession of Faith;

6.3 They being the root, and by God’s appointment, standing in the room and stead of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and their corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation. Their descendants are therefore conceived in sin, and are by nature the children of wrath, the servants of sin, and the subjects of death and all other miseries, spiritual, temporal, and eternal, unless the Lord Jesus sets them free.
4 All actual transgressions proceed from this original corruption, by which we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil.
5 During this life the corruption of nature remains in those who are regenerated, and although it is pardoned and mortified through Christ, yet this corrupt nature and all its motions are truly and properly sinful.
​

9.2 Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom and power to will and to do that which was good and well-pleasing to God, but he was unstable, so that he might fall from this condition.
9.3 Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has completely lost all ability of will to perform any of the spiritual good which accompanies salvation. As a natural man, he is altogether averse to spiritual good, and dead in sin. He is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself for conversion.
9.4 When God converts a sinner, and translates him into a state of grace, He frees him from his natural bondage to sin, and by grace alone He enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good. But because of his remaining corruptions he does not only (or perfectly) will that which is good, but also wills that which is evil.
9.5 The will of man will only be made perfectly and immutably free to will good alone in the state of glory.
​

What scripture backs that up?

 

[~Anastasia~]

1. The Bible never refers to Adam and Eve’s first sin as a “fall”.

But we all acknowledge what it means, and as a matter of convenience it's easier to say "the fall" than it is to say "when Adam and Eve ate from the fruit of the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and were cursed as a result".

2. Yes, with Adam and Eve’s sin knowledge increase (the knowledge of good and evil) which seems to suggest all mature adults “know” it is wrong to hurt others (sin), but is knowledge itself a change in “man’s nature”?

I don't believe the knowledge is the only change.

What I mean by "nature" is essentially - I believe that people born after the fall are not able to live sinless perfect lives. I'm thinking more and more that Adam and Eve might have been able to do so. That is the most important factor of change I was concentrating on.

3. Having “knowledge” of good and evil would provide a great deal more ways to “sin”, but does that mean a fallen state?

I think it is our inability to live perfectly sinless lives from birth that defines our "fallen state".

4. Since Adam and Eve (described by God as being very good) given only one way to sin did sin, why would the rest of us need a change in our nature to sin?

Why do we need it? I don't follow where the question is necessary? Have not given it any thought, I'm sorry.

5. To be very good by God’s standard would mean to me as good as humans could be made in every way (physically and mentally) but that is not “perfection like Christ since Christ was not a made being, so what did they lack that God could not create in them from the beginning?

Deity? Compared to Christ, that is. Other than that, compared to Christ, I believe their human-ness was probably the same as that which Christ was incarnate with - which is to say I believe Christ's human-ness was of an unfallen nature.

6. Adam and Eve would have had the same “objective” as the rest of us so what was it and what was keeping them?

I don't follow you. Their personal objective? Their reason for being created by God? I'm guessing you mean God's reason for creating them which I think would be several-fold: to worship God, to share in relationship with Him, as an object of His love, for the sake of His glory (and I may be forgetting some).

7. Does this show sin has “purpose” in that it helps man in his fulfilling of his objective?

Interesting question, and I've thought of it. Possibly. Probably even. I don't know all the nuances. For example, I think it is to God's glory that He accomplishes redemption of mankind. It also gives us reason to love Him more than we might if we never needed forgiveness.

8. Do these curses brought upon man, do they also help man fulfill his objective?

I would suppose that they help mankind to appreciate what was lost, and perhaps provide some incentive to seek God, as well as giving Him a setting in which He is able to more obviously express His lovingkindness toward us. If our environment were perfect, we would have less need of Him, so we might think.

9. Is physical death in and of itself bad for Christians?

I don't think so. I believe Adam and Eve were prevented from the Tree of Life as a matter of mercy. Death is necessary - or at least the ending of our time in these bodies on earth is necessary. Which means death, translation, or rapture, afaik.

 

[~Anastasia~]

but they sinned, which is the point...if Adam and Eve were unable to sin, why did they sin?

I think the point is that Adam and Eve were able to choose. They were able to lead perfect, sinless lives, if they chose not to sin.

Or they were able to choose to sin.

I think the result of the fall, and the fundamental difference (the main one) that happened as a result, is that we no longer have the ability to live perfect, sinless lives in our own strength.

All have sinned. Everyone. So, mankind sins. But God has made the way for reconciliation, and our sins can be forgiven, and He has also given us the Holy Spirit, who through the power of Christ enables us to once again resist sin. In that way, we are partially restored in this body.

Once we receive our glorified bodies, we will certainly be able to resist sin and live perfect, sinless lives once again, and things will be as God intended them to become from the foundation of the world.

That's my best explanation - I do hope it helps. I can't prove it from Scripture, but I have examined the teachings of a range of churches, and while there are "extras" added to this by many of them, these basics are pretty much agreed upon by all the churches I checked (there may be very minor differences with what I posted).

I hope that helps? The above is my belief as I have developed it (with a few minor additions), so at this point I do agree with it. I have not re-examined it, but I don't know of Scripture that contradicts it, and it seems a wide range of Evangelical and Protestant churches as well as Traditional and Catholic churches all teach these very things, so I don't really expect to find Scripture or reason to change them?

I'm not trying to make myself any expert by any means, just hoping to explain what you were asking, and letting you know how I arrived at the ideas and how I checked them out, so you can decide for yourself what you think of the whole thing.

I hope it helps.

 

[seeingeyes]

But we all acknowledge what it means, and as a matter of convenience it's easier to say "the fall" than it is to say "when Adam and Eve ate from the fruit of the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and were cursed as a result".

Just as a point of interest, the words we use do affect (and reflect) the way we consider things.

If you think about it, what we call "the fall", the Scriptures simply call "the beginning"...

 

[razzelflabben]

I think the point is that Adam and Eve were able to choose. They were able to lead perfect, sinless lives, if they chose not to sin.

not to stir things, but we choose as well. We choose to sin, we can choose not to sin as well, in fact in the power of the HS we can be without sin. The key is to be in constant fellowship with God...how is that different from Adam and Eve? We just had a longer discussion about this on the other thread...don't want to just beat my opinion as if I have some special place on here, so if we need to talk more about it, let me know.

Or they were able to choose to sin.

I see no reason to assume that Adam and Eve were no more or less able to choose sin than we are, the only difference is that we have God living in us and empowering us to choose not to sin whereas they were walking and talking face to face with God in the times they chose not to sin.

I think the result of the fall, and the fundamental difference (the main one) that happened as a result, is that we no longer have the ability to live perfect, sinless lives in our own strength.

in our own strength...that is the key, sure we need to be in fellowship with God to be sin free, but how is that not also true of Adam and Eve, the difference being how we are in fellowship.

All have sinned. Everyone. So, mankind sins. But God has made the way for reconciliation, and our sins can be forgiven, and He has also given us the Holy Spirit, who through the power of Christ enables us to once again resist sin. In that way, we are partially restored in this body.

but...other than how that fellowship happens, what is the difference?

Once we receive our glorified bodies, we will certainly be able to resist sin and live perfect, sinless lives once again, and things will be as God intended them to become from the foundation of the world.

we will also be in face to face fellowship...so we still need that fellowship, we still need that focus on God...in fact, scripture talks a lot about glory and very little about heaven itself.

That's my best explanation - I do hope it helps. I can't prove it from Scripture, but I have examined the teachings of a range of churches, and while there are "extras" added to this by many of them, these basics are pretty much agreed upon by all the churches I checked (there may be very minor differences with what I posted).

you know me, I don't buy into what others tell me to believe, I base it on what scripture tells me.

I hope that helps? The above is my belief as I have developed it (with a few minor additions), so at this point I do agree with it. I have not re-examined it, but I don't know of Scripture that contradicts it, and it seems a wide range of Evangelical and Protestant churches as well as Traditional and Catholic churches all teach these very things, so I don't really expect to find Scripture or reason to change them?

at this point, the only thing I don't get it how a different means of fellowship equals a difference in choice?

I'm not trying to make myself any expert by any means, just hoping to explain what you were asking, and letting you know how I arrived at the ideas and how I checked them out, so you can decide for yourself what you think of the whole thing.

I hope it helps.

other than the above, I am at the same place, I think I understand your position, at this point, can't agree with it, cause I still see no real difference, only a difference in how that is carried out.

 

[Wordkeeper]

bling wrote:

7. Does this show sin has “purpose” in that it helps man in his fulfilling of his objective?

I have often pointed out that the sons of Isaac were thrust into Egypt indirectly by God. Who gave Joseph a prideful dream that made him a stench in the nostrils of his brothers, his father too? God. In the mangler called Egypt, Israel was oppressed to the point of recognizing her need for God.

Who placed the tree of knowledge of good and evil with its attractive fruit in front of immature child like humans like Adam and Eve, leading to their disobedience and thrusting into the unforgiving world outside the Garden? God. Placing candy on the table and telling children not to touch it is a guarantee that they WILL touch it. In the midst of the oppressive life led outside the Garden, Abel, God's sheep, cried out for help and God revealed His Redeemer to him.

God puts His children in crisis situations He Himself creates to show how life is ideally lived: sacrificially. Israel rejected the sacrificial motif, Abel did not.

BTW, neither Judaism nor the Early Church had a doctrine of Original Sin. It was Augustine influenced by Greek dualism, body=bad, spirit=good, who formalized the view, prevalent amongst those who lived in a culture immersed in Greek thought, as the church moved its powerbase away from Jerusalem and towards Greek influenced regions. Even Luther and Calvin were exposed to Greek thought, education inevitably meaning a Classical education, with Homer and other Greek authors being required reading.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Just as a point of interest, the words we use do affect (and reflect) the way we consider things.

If you think about it, what we call "the fall", the Scriptures simply call "the beginning"...

Well ... I tend to think of "the beginning" as more encompassing Creation as well. Sometimes I say Creation and the Fall.

The reason I said "the Fall" is because I was trying to make a distinction between Adam and Eve before they sinned, and Adam and Eve after they sinned. I was specifically pointing to that event - and I know of no other succinct way to say it than "the Fall".

I didn't actually mean "the beginning".

Just to clarify, not arguing.

Calling it "the Fall" does imply certain thoughts theologically, I will agree with you on that. If one does not believe there was no "fall from grace" or however one wishes to interpret it, then that term wouldn't even make sense?