2 Questions

[dapperdon]

Hello everyone. This is my first post here and am amazed and the extensiveness of the coverage of the forums.

Anyways, I just have a few questions.

1. Who created the supposedly evil serpent? I thought everything God created was good?

2. Why are we "punished" because of Adam and Eve's disobedience to God's order not to eat from the tree? Adam and Eve did not know what good and evil was prior to the eating of the fruit; ergo, even though they actually disobeyed God's order, they did not know it was wrong (to disobey God, that is). Eating the fruit was, for them, value neutral, similar to choosing to go east or west when wandering around Eden.

I'll be anticipating your insights. Thanks.

 

[armothe]

1. Who created the supposedly evil serpent? I thought everything God created was good?

God created every beast of the field - of which the serpent was the most crafty. More importantly, God created Satan for the specific role of antagonist/adversary to man. The popular belief is that Satan utilized the serpent to tempt Adam & Eve. We can only trust God as to why He created Satan as an agent to bring about His will.

2. Why are we "punished" because of Adam and Eve's disobedience to God's order not to eat from the tree?

We aren't. Don't let the doctrine of inherited sin lead you astray. The Bible clearly says that sin passed down from Adam because "all have sinned". God's Word also states that sons are not directly punished for their father's sins and that we are responsible for our own sins.

No doubt Adam and Eve knew it was wrong to disobey God - this wasn't a neutral decision for them. Sure, they may have been ignorant, but they still disobeyed God in lieu of obtaining the same knowledge He had.

-A

 

[Alphadux]

Armothe is right. God created the serpent which was good in itself. Satan used this creation to decieve Adam and Eve.

I disagree though when it comes to sin. The doctrine of original sin is taught in the Scriptures.
Romans 5:18-19 demonstrates this.

"So then as through one transgression there resulted
condemnation to all men...For as through the one man’s
disobedience the many were made sinners..."

Now I come back to agreeing with Armothe. Adam and
Eve most likely knew it was wrong to eat of the tree. He
gave them clear instructions not to do so.​

 

[Ben12]

Armothe is right. God created the serpent which was good in itself. Satan used this creation to decieve Adam and Eve.

I disagree though when it comes to sin. The doctrine of original sin is taught in the Scriptures.
Romans 5:18-19 demonstrates this.

"So then as through one transgression there resulted
condemnation to all men...For as through the one man’s
disobedience the many were made sinners..."

Now I come back to agreeing with Armothe. Adam and
Eve most likely knew it was wrong to eat of the tree. He
gave them clear instructions not to do so.​

Romans 5:18-20 (Weymouth’s)​

It follows then just as the result of a single transgression is a condemnation which to the whole race, so also is the result of a single degree of righteousness is a life giving acquittal which extends to the whole race. (19) for as thought the disobedience of one individual the mass of mankind were constituted as sinners, so also though the obedience of one, the mass of mankind will be constituted righteous. Now law was brought in later on so that the transgression might increase, but sin increased, grace is overflowed

Luke 3:6: And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.

1 Corin 15: 21: For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22: For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23: But every man in his own order:

 

[holyrokker]

I disagree though when it comes to sin. The doctrine of original sin is taught in the Scriptures.
Romans 5:18-19 demonstrates this.

"So then as through one transgression there resulted
condemnation to all men...For as through the one man’s
disobedience the many were made sinners..."​

The doctrine of Original Sin isn't clearly taught in Scripture. It is taught in a few denominations and through a few systems of theology, but is not universally accepted within the Church.

As for the passage to which to refered: you have left out a few key portions:

"...so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men...so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous..."

The apostle is not teaching universalism in these passage, but that is what would need to be assumed if you assume that the portions you quoted mean universal condemnation through Adam.

 

[kulenok]

GOD did create the serpant, the serpant is Lucifer. Lucifer was the angleof light before hemisused free will and was cast to a place made by GOD for punishment, hell. we are punished for their sins because they represent humans, being the first humans alive.

 

[holyrokker]

Ezekiel 18:17-20

He will not die for his father's sin; he will surely live. But his father will die for his own sin, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was wrong among his people.
"Yet you ask, 'Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?' Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son.

 

[JolieHeart]

I don't think we are punished for what Eve and Adam did. God gave us free will. Adam and Eve disobeyed God, eating that forbidden fruit. We all have free will to obey or disobey God's commands. It is His hope that we will freely obey and love one another in peace and harmony. Those who choose God's ways, will then be God's chosen ones.

 

[LibraryOwl]

No, what you want to look into is the eastern doctrine of "ancient sin." I learned about it from an Orthodox priest who taught me about Orthodoxy. Every time we met for instruction, I would argue and debate with him very much. But when he told me this, I listened to him for thirty minutes straight and said "yes, this makes quite a lot of sense."


Ancient sin teaches that when they sinned, Adam and Eve became perverse, and began creating perverse childeren. Because we are their offspring, we too are perverse. This is why it is necessary for us to be born from above (the word in the Bible is "Born from above" not "born again") that is, to be remade as children of God (rather than of Adam) and thus removed from our perverse nature. Original sin (distinct from ancient sin) obviously has it's own problems and sholdn't be confused with this. God does not hate us because we are human. On the contrary, we hate God because we are human. Our flesh rebels against him. But if we become baptized and believe, he will give us a new flesh and a new heart- or so we are told.

As for the serpent, I urge you not to take the story to literally. It is highly alegorical in nature. Some say that the serpent was sent by God- this is trash. Do you really picture God as a god who tempts us into sin? Was it God the father who said to his son Christ "If you bow down in worship of me, all things shall be thine, an all the kingdoms of the world" ?

Other views include that the serpent was Satan. This is unlikely- at the least, we do not have to believe it. The text does not explicitly express it. It is easy to chose to beleive it because it helps the Bible make more sense and appear more true, but the serpent could have in fact been another "satan" perhaps from another planet or realm, an angel or being who had rebelled against God long before Lucifer- or a created creature of the garden who had discovered the knowledge of Good and Evil before adam and eve. Another possibility is that he never existed, that the story is entirely allegorical or even completely untrue. From what facts exist, we are unable to say. The important message of Christianity is "you, man, are not what you were supposed to be. God meant a better way for you."

 

[Reformationist]

The doctrine of Original Sin isn't clearly taught in Scripture. It is taught in a few denominations and through a few systems of theology, but is not universally accepted within the Church.

As for the passage to which to refered: you have left out a few key portions:

"...so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men...so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous..."

The apostle is not teaching universalism in these passage, but that is what would need to be assumed if you assume that the portions you quoted mean universal condemnation through Adam.

Actually, the passage in questions espouses the biblical view of federal headship. It is inaccurate to speak of the two groups in question, i.e., all men who are justified by the work of Christ and all men who inherit guilt through the trespass of Adam, as if they are, collectively, the same individuals. The passage is revealing that, in the same way, i.e., federally, all who are represented by Adam (mankind) inherit the fruits of his trespass, just as all who are represented by Christ (believers) inherit the fruits of His obedience.

God bless

 

[holyrokker]

Actually, the passage in questions espouses the biblical view of federal headship. It is inaccurate to speak of the two groups in question, i.e., all men who are justified by the work of Christ and all men who inherit guilt through the trespass of Adam, as if they are, collectively, the same individuals. The passage is revealing that, in the same way, i.e., federally, all who are represented by Adam (mankind) inherit the fruits of his trespass, just as all who are represented by Christ (believers) inherit the fruits of His obedience.

God bless

ACTUALLY, the passage in question does not espouse the theory of federal headship. Federal headship is an idea that is forced upon this passage.

Notice that the phrasing needs to be changed to fit the idea into the passage:

who inherit guilt through the trespass of Adam

in the same way, i.e., federally,

who are represented by Adam (mankind) inherit the fruits of his trespass

None of these phrases are included in the Biblical text.

 

[Reformationist]

ACTUALLY, the passage in question does not espouse the theory of federal headship.

ACTUALLY the passage in question does espouse the theory of federal headship. See, I can do it too, and it's just as unproductive when I do it.

We have a limited number of options in understanding Romans 5 and all you've done is reveal that you disagree with the teaching of original sin, a doctrine which, despite your attempt to minimize it, is almost universally common in the Christian faith, regardless of the brand.

So, for our edification, please enlighten us to how you understand the passage rather than how you don't interpret it.

Federal headship is an idea that is forced upon this passage.

Notice that the phrasing needs to be changed to fit the idea into the passage:

None of these phrases are included in the Biblical text.

The very evidence that "by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners" shows clearly that the progeny of Adam inherit his guilt. Death was not a necessary element of creation. Man needn't have suffered the condemnation, and death, that comes through trespass. The fact that we start our trek toward death the minute we are conceived shows that the doctrine of original sin is most certainly a biblical truth.

 

[holyrokker]

OK - I'll repeat myself once more.

The idea of federal headship is not stated in the text of Romans 5 (nor anywhere in Scripture, for that matter).

It is an idea that must be presumed true, then read into the text. It is forced upon the text, unnaturally.

I "interpret" the text as it is plainly written:

Adam sinned, bringing sin into the world.

Death resulted from sin.

Everyone has sinned. As result, death has spread to everyone.

Because sin and death came into the world through a man (Adam), God brought righteousness and life back to the world through a man (Christ).

This is a VERY brief synopsis.

If you really want to know where I stand on the issue, I'll explain more fully. But I suspect that you are more interested in arguing with me and trying to tell me that I am wrong because I don't accept the Augustinian view.

I am already very familiar with the "federal headship" and "original sin" doctrines. I rejected them, not out of ignorance, but because they don't match up to the teaching of Scripture.

 

[Reformationist]

OK - I'll repeat myself once more.

So this is the last time, right? You promise?

The idea of federal headship is not stated in the text of Romans 5 (nor anywhere in Scripture, for that matter).

Who said it was stated in Scripture? Federal headship is an explanation of what is stated in Scripture, which is the belief that Adam acted as man's representative before God, for wealth or ruin.

It is an idea that must be presumed true, then read into the text. It is forced upon the text, unnaturally.

It's not forced at all. It is a logical explanation of the passage.

I "interpret" the text as it is plainly written:

Adam sinned, bringing sin into the world.

Death resulted from sin.

Everyone has sinned. As result, death has spread to everyone.

In what way did everyone sin? Do you mean to imply that man is born without the stain of sin and, as such, is not going to die until and unless he commits his own personal sin? Is that it? Or is this a seminal explanation of the passage?

Because sin and death came into the world through a man (Adam), God brought righteousness and life back to the world through a man (Christ).

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "came into the world" and "brought back to the world?"

If you really want to know where I stand on the issue, I'll explain more fully. But I suspect that you are more interested in arguing with me and trying to tell me that I am wrong because I don't accept the Augustinian view.

Better yet, instead of presuming that I'm more interested in arguing with you, maybe you could just engage in dialogue without the presumption.

I am already very familiar with the "federal headship" and "original sin" doctrines. I rejected them, not out of ignorance, but because they don't match up to the teaching of Scripture.

Please, for our/my edification, enlighten me as to what does match up with Scripture.

 

[holyrokker]

Better yet, instead of presuming that I'm more interested in arguing with you, maybe you could just engage in dialogue without the presumption.

More than happy to engage in dialogue.

Do you mean to imply that man is born without the stain of sin

What do you mean by "stain of sin"?

 

[Reformationist]

What do you mean by "stain of sin"?

I mean, is man a sinner from birth or does he become a sinner upon sinning?

I'm simply trying to figure out if you feel that man is in need of a Savior from birth or is it only after he sins. If the latter, at which point are his actions measured against God's Law?

 

[Tractor1]

2. Why are we "punished" because of Adam and Eve's disobedience to God's order not to eat from the tree?

The Bible's answer to the question is that each of us had our share in the sin that injured Adam and caused him to die physically.

It's a matter of imputation. An example would be (Hebrews 7:9-10) which reads "And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes, for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him." Though none would claim Levi conciously or purposefully paid tithes to Melchizedek, God declares that he did. Likewise, none would claim that each individual member of the race conciously or purposefully sinned in Adam, but God reckons that each member did so. Such is divine estimation.

In Christ,
Tracey

 

[Tkjjc]

This conversation actually intrigues me. I am still trying to pinpoint where after 3000 years of Jewish history,,did man invent the being called Lucifer or Satan, or the boogie man. Seems to convenient to blame our faults on a fallen being or a dead one"Adam", when the mirror is actually the better place to look.

Christ said to come to him as children. Why? Is it because they have no knowledge of sin? Once a person sins, they are separated from God forever. Only His redemptive Blood brings us back into the convent of grace that we as humans ALL long for. A piece of the missing puzzle so to speak. It makes us whole again, where we once where.

What was Adam exactly in the garden that made him not die? Was this a spiritual death and not physical? Was he going to die physically anyway?

thoughts?

 

[holyrokker]

I mean, is man a sinner from birth or does he become a sinner upon sinning?

The simple answer is that a person becomes a sinner upon sinning.

James 1:13-15 "Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God," for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death."

 

[Reformationist]

The simple answer is that a person becomes a sinner upon sinning.

So man is not born in need of a Savior?

James 1:13-15 "Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God," for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death."

No clue why you cite this passage as it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic about which we're conversing, which is whether man inherits guilt through his progenital relationship to Adam.