Did Adam sin?

[Theway]

IMO scripture is pretty clear on this...

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned

Paul is clearly teaching what was universally accepted by the Jews. Adam sinned and as a result death passed upon all men

Again you are correct... It is only your opinion.
You opinion however still brings up questions.
Is it that through Adam's act of transgression that sin entered the world? Or that Adam sinned and that is why sin entered the world?
Also, is the world the same as The Garden?
Begs the question; why Adam?
Eve was the one who sinned first... Does that mean that had Adam not of pertook of the fruit, then Eve would have remained innocent, without sin?

 

[Theway]

The heart is the seat of both the mind and your desires... generally speaking that part of you that motivates you to action.

Man has both the inclination to do that which is good and that which is evil. Yeshua said the mouth confesses what the heart believes. Since the heart has the inclination of both good and evil we must put our trust in that which is certain the Word of Gd.

This is closer to how I view it. Out of the heart of the wicked comes wickedness, however out of the heart of the righteous springs forth righteousness. We are the ones who determine our heart and must watch what we put into our spiritual, mental, and physical self. Proverbs 4:23
It is not that our heart is inherently evil, and therefore everything that comes from it is evil... As the heresy of Total Depravity would have people believe. I am more worried about people following the Total Depravity doctrine then following their hearts.

 

[GillDouglas]

This is closer to how I view it. Out of the heart of the wicked comes wickedness, however out of the heart of the righteous springs forth righteousness. We are the ones who determine our heart and must watch what we put into our spiritual, mental, and physical self. Proverbs 4:23
It is not that our heart is inherently evil, and therefore everything that comes from it is evil... As the heresy of Total Depravity would have people believe. I am more worried about people following the Total Depravity doctrine then following their hearts.

When we speak of man’s depravity we mean man’s natural condition apart from any grace exerted by God to restrain or transform man.

 

[fatboys]

Adam was blameless in his ways like Lucifer was morally, but he still had self-generated free will. He was a little creator
in God's universe placed in a beautiful garden/Eden. Adam did something that I believe most all of us would have done
in the same situation. I'm troubled by your use of "innocent of knowledge of good and evil" as though Adam had no
conscience being created in God's Image. I disagree if you believe that Adam had no moral conscience to struggle
with.... when he made his decision to die with Eve.



Some believe that satan had just fallen from heaven due partially to jealousy of what God was doing with Adam and Eve.
Clearly Lucifer had issues of pride as well... so his fall was not so monolithic.



Yet God had told them that they would die. In fact "dying ye shall die." How do we know that Adam didn't understand
what death meant? Clearly plants died by being eaten by herbivores...there are many animals which needed meat...
and those who misapply Romans 5:12 do not understand its context to apply to men and separation of fellowship from
Holy God (as well as physical death of men/women). I believe it is highly over simplistic to not allow certain verses
to be elliptical for the sake of concision in communication. I would have tremendous cognitive dissonance with such
a simplistic hermeneutic. Are we to believe no insects died before the fall? What did a spider eat?

Such rigid over simplicity misses the gist of the meaning of those verses. Adam had probably seen death from
various species in the animal kingdom who were not eating from the tree of life. Adam and Eve were eating from it.



It is true that they did not fully understand the consequences which need to be witnessed or experienced in order
to fully learn the ramifications of such consequences. This does not mean that they didn't have a moral conscience
to have some sense of "oughtness" (even if they didn't really know what evil was yet).



I would say that death came to humankind...and perhaps because of God's prior knowledge of Adam's sin... God created
things in a temporary state because God knew Adam would disobey (which is sin). The galaxies/stars/planets are clearly
a temporary creation (notice I didn't say universe).



God's plan can be inclusive of what God allows or what God knows will take place with free will as part of the
whole of all circumstances... I personally believe that there is something much much more sophisticated going
here with a possible infinite determiner (which is NOT a cause) which would demonstrate how God is fully justified
in allowing the inevitable with human free will and knowledge/experience/lack of loyalty/lack of faith/trust, etc.

To explain this, would take multiple posts... but it is sine qua non in understanding compatibility of human free
will in this schema alone (how God was fully justified in allowing Adam to sin... and in what way is moral evil
an inevitable byproduct of human freewill under certain conditions. It is a Neo-Federalist position rather than
a Realist' position related to the Fall).



Hold on here. Saying "God wanted Adam to sin" in non-sequitur. God doesn't "want" anyone to sin/disobey
or do what is morally not optimal for them to do. I agree with you that knowledge of contrasts are important
for our eternal state and part of God's plan... but it is very important to make distinctions between what God
allows to happen or knows will happen (and how God makes this part of His plan) verses God wanting us to sin.

The latter is error. It is often the result of looking at God with a monolithic view of His "will" as though God
were a man. God's desired "will" is distinct from God's sovereign will because the English word "will" is
in desperate need of modifiers in front of it when it comes to the sum total of all circumstances. "Will"
by itself is an insufficient word to address all of the dynamics of God's relationship to human freewill.
Mankind's human "will" is quite different from God's for several theological reasons.



Sin means to "miss the mark" and the term was derived from archery. Clearly Adam missed the mark of trusting
God to redeem Eve in some way or did not beseech God to die in her place. If you look at Romans you will see
that "sin" entered into the world by Adam... so clearly Adam DID sin. He had a moral conscience and he
violated it. Now, we do this all the time because we are cursed with original sin.

What I really feel is missing from your discussion fatboys is Adam's motive to die with Eve rather than live
with God. Some systematic theologians agree with Arthur Custance (in his Door Way Papers) that Adam and
Eve shared a tremendous LOVE relationship. That Adam DID know what a horrible thing Eve had done (by
eating the fruit) and this is where Adam's lack of faith/trust came into play. Rather than trusting God that
God would redeem Eve in someway or have mercy on her (of course how could he know what mercy/grace
was?) or raise her back from death or restore her (his love mate), that Adam chose to die with her rather
than have faith that God would do what was best for Adam. This is all very multifaceted related not only
to salvation (faith) but also to Adam's lack of knowledge about God. How could Adam know how much
God loved Him? How could Adam know about God's Self-Sacrificing love? These require Jesus.

But please don't over simplify and say that "God wanted it all to happen so He could someday send
Jesus." Often times the simple answer is either the wrong answer.. or the partial answer. In this
case I would argue that "God wanted Adam to sin" is categorically wrong. Question everything.

If you told a person who had never tasted salt what salt tasted like, are there words that would be suffient to be able to explain what salt tastes like without them actually tasting it? If you told a person that they were going to die if they had no knowledge of death would they understand what death was unless they somehow experienced it? If a person had only lived in darkness and they never knew anything else could you explain what light is? The whole plan of our Heavenly Fathers was for us to come to earth and experience the good from the evil, know light from darkness, learn for ourselves what physical pain is so we would know what pleasure is. To develop faith in him. His plan was perfect. Everything God does is perfect. There was no backup plan. Before we came to earth we knew we would sin and that we would have to be redeem from the clutches of justice though the mercy and atonement of our lord and savior Jesus Christ. God created Adam and Eve to live forever, in immortality. The only problem was that they did not know good because they did not know evil. If they did not know good how would they know what good was? How would they know what multiply meant? God had to bring mortality to this earth so we could experience these things things and progress. His plan was perfect. He created them with perfect bodies and as most believe they had been given freedom to choose. They chose the right way?

 

[fatboys]

When we speak of man’s depravity we mean man’s natural condition apart from any grace exerted by God to restrain or transform man.

The natural man is corrupt because we are subject to death and we are cut off from the presence of God. We are also subject to the buffeting of satan. Without the grace of God we would remain in a fallen state doomed.

 

[GillDouglas]

The natural man is corrupt because we are subject to death and we are cut off from the presence of God. We are also subject to the buffeting of satan. Without the grace of God we would remain in a fallen state doomed.

Exactly. Apart from the grace of God there is no delight in the holiness of God, and there is no glad submission to the sovereign authority of God. Of course a depraved man can be very religious and very philanthropic. They can pray and give alms and fast, as Jesus said in Matthew 6:1-18. Religion is one of the chief ways that man conceals his unwillingness to forsake self-reliance and bank all his hopes on the unmerited mercy of God (Luke 18:9-14; Colossians 2:20-23). God's grace forces us to recognize our depravity and our need for Christ because we are incapable of removing ourselves from that state.

 

[Theway]

If you told a person who had never tasted salt what salt tasted like, are there words that would be suffient to be able to explain what salt tastes like without them actually tasting it? If you told a person that they were going to die if they had no knowledge of death would they understand what death was unless they somehow experienced it? If a person had only lived in darkness and they never knew anything else could you explain what light is? The whole plan of our Heavenly Fathers was for us to come to earth and experience the good from the evil, know light from darkness, learn for ourselves what physical pain is so we would know what pleasure is. To develop faith in him. His plan was perfect. Everything God does is perfect. There was no backup plan. Before we came to earth we knew we would sin and that we would have to be redeem from the clutches of justice though the mercy and atonement of our lord and savior Jesus Christ. God created Adam and Eve to live forever, in immortality. The only problem was that they did not know good because they did not know evil. If they did not know good how would they know what good was? How would they know what multiply meant? God had to bring mortality to this earth so we could experience these things things and progress. His plan was perfect. He created them with perfect bodies and as most believe they had been given freedom to choose. They chose the right way?

I agree with everything except for one... Which I recently had to change in one if my posts...
Had they choose to stay in the Garden, that would have been the right way also.
Adam and Eve choose the 'better' way... Albeit the harder and more dangerous way.

 

[Niblo]

Had they choose to stay in the Garden, that would have been the right way also.
Adam and Eve choose the 'better' way... Albeit the harder and more dangerous way.

Help me out here. It doesn't seem to me they had any choice in the matter at all:

‘Then Yawheh God said: “Now that the man has become like one of us in knowing good from evil, he must not be allowed to reach out his hand and pick from the tree of life too, and eat and live for ever!”

‘So Yawheh God expelled him from the garden of Eden, to till the soil from which he had been taken.

‘He banished the man, and in front of the garden of Eden he posted the great winged creatures and the fiery flashing sword, to guard the way to the tree of life.’

(Genesis 3:22-24).

Am I missing something?

 

[smaneck]

Why would Christ say that we were to become as a little child?

I think it was their trusting nature that Jesus wanted his disciples to emulate, not their innocence.

 

[GillDouglas]

Help me out here. It doesn't seem to me they had any choice in the matter at all:

‘Then Yawheh God said: “Now that the man has become like one of us in knowing good from evil, he must not be allowed to reach out his hand and pick from the tree of life too, and eat and live for ever!”

‘So Yawheh God expelled him from the garden of Eden, to till the soil from which he had been taken.

‘He banished the man, and in front of the garden of Eden he posted the great winged creatures and the fiery flashing sword, to guard the way to the tree of life.’

(Genesis 3:22-24).

Am I missing something?

You are correct, there was no choice. Things played out as they did because it is the way God intended.

 

[smaneck]

The Adam and Eve story isn't even true. It is a plagiarized version of the Sumerian text. Enlil and Enki are brothers. Enki takes on the role of the serpent and Enlil was the dictator God.

http://www.mega.nu/ampp/eden/roots.html

Actually your website indicates there is at least some historicity to the story of the Garden of Eden. It seems to tie with the beginnings of the Agricultural Revolution as Jane and I have suggested earlier. It also doesn't mention anything about Enlil. What it does talk about is Enki being brought back to life by the Mother Goddess. I don't find the linkage of that story with Adam and Eve that persuasive.

I mean, can one really believe in a talking serpent and that an apple can make one see the difference between good and evil?

It was never an apple. I think Jewish tradition has that it was a grape.

How can God WALK through the garden? He doesn't have a body. How did He talk to Adam and Eve? In the Sumerian version, Enlil is a physical god.

All the gods had physical bodies in Mesopotamian myths and I think Yahweh was originally perceived that way as well.

It's take to stop believing in things that just aren't true.

Or maybe it is time to start reflecting on which ways it is true. A myth is not an untrue story, it is a story which is true even if it never happened. I'm not entirely persuaded that the story intends to say that we are intrinsically sinful as the Christian interpretation seems to indicate, but there does seem to be a theme throughout the Bible that there is something intrinsically evil about civilization.

 

[LoAmmi]

It was never an apple. I think Jewish tradition has that it was a grape.

Not saying it isn't true, but that'd be something I hadn't heard before. I was always told that it wasn't anything we have today. It's a unique thing.

All the gods had physical bodies in Mesopotamian myths and I think Yahweh was originally perceived that way as well.

I think Jews would say that it's simply a way for us to envision things, not that there was a physical body. Like when it says He stretched forth His hand, we're not supposed to think of a guy on a throne reaching forward.

 

[LoAmmi]

Looked it up. There's grape and fig and a few others in tradition, but nothing concrete.

What's funny is that it says it was grapes made into wine.

 

[danny ski]

For ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of G-d. That is in Romans.

1 John 1: 8 If we claim not to have sin, we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we acknowledge our sins, then, since he is trustworthy and just, he will forgive them and purify us from all wrongdoing.

10 If we claim we have not been sinning, we are making him out to be a liar, and his Word is not in us.

Anyone, christian or not, who says they have no sin is deceived and a liar



HaMashiach is found clearly in the Hebrew Scriptures. The fact that you can not or refuse to see him there does not invalidate the very real fact that he is there.

Now, as for the gentile church... it has persisted in great error for almost 1800 years. Had the Gentile church remained in its roots of the sect of Judaism called The Way AKA the Sect of the Nazarene's the number of Jews who believe would be vastly greater than it is.

The Tanak speaks plainly that the Jews of that time would reject Mashiach when he came. This can be found in Psalms, Isaiah and Zachariah.

Plainly, like Matthew 2 15? Which is neither a prophecy nor about Jesus. Or the phantom prophecy about being called the Nazarene which does not exist. We could go on. I challenge you to put your belief aside and find messiah based on the Tanakh alone. Then, you can come back and tell us what is or is not in our Scripture.

 

[GillDouglas]

I think Jews would say that it's simply a way for us to envision things, not that there was a physical body. Like when it says He stretched forth His hand, we're not supposed to think of a guy on a throne reaching forward.

LoAmmi, when I think of a physical presence of God I'm reminded of the pillar of cloud that followed Israel in the Wilderness during the Exodus. Or whatever 'form' that came into the Holy of Holies in the Tabernacle. Because there are a few references to us not being able to look upon God because we'd die in our current state, I think it was a way of protecting man. "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live." (Exodus 33:20)

 

[single eye]

Then we must question why the Church rejected so much of this scripture; and why it does so to this day.

I was a Christian for just over sixty years. In all this time I never heard any priest or minister preach a sermon based on the Gospels of Mary, Thomas; Philip; or Judas; nor on the Gospel of Truth. Nor did I come across any pastoral letter based on the same.

How would you explain this neglect of scripture?

The gospel of grace Jesus taught the disciples counterdicts the blood atonement teachings of the o.t. writers and Paul and his followers. No matter how hard you try to mash the teachings together it won't work. Why monotheists prefer a god who threatens death and distruction for disobedience to one who heals is quite the mystery. Most of the people who heard Jesus preach and teach and witnessed Him healing the sick or casting out demons did not believe. It is not my responsibility to know and explain why people do not believe, only to sow seeds.

 

[LoAmmi]

LoAmmi, when I think of a physical presence of God I'm reminded of the pillar of cloud that followed Israel in the Wilderness during the Exodus. Or whatever 'form' that came into the Holy of Holies in the Tabernacle. Because there are a few references to us not being able to look upon God because we'd die in our current state, I think it was a way of protecting man. "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live." (Exodus 33:20)

Makes sense to me. I also don't believe He has a face. I think He used language that humans understand though.

 

[GillDouglas]

Makes sense to me. I also don't believe He has a face. I think He used language that humans understand though.

Exactly! It's like teaching children about something, you have to put in words they would understand. There are things about God's nature that we may be incapable of understanding in terms relating to it.

 

[LoAmmi]

the blood atonement teachings of the o.t. writers

Isaiah 1:
11 What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices?
says the Lord;
I have had enough of burnt-offerings of rams
and the fat of fed beasts;
I do not delight in the blood of bulls,
or of lambs, or of goats.




16 Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean;
remove the evil of your doings
from before my eyes;
cease to do evil,
17 learn to do good;
seek justice,
rescue the oppressed,
defend the orphan,
plead for the widow.

18 Come now, let us argue it out,
says the Lord:
though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be like snow;
though they are red like crimson,
they shall become like wool.



Psalm 51:
15 O Lord, open my lips,
and my mouth will declare your praise.
16 For you have no delight in sacrifice;
if I were to give a burnt-offering, you would not be pleased.
17 The sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit;
a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.


It's possible you might be a bit mistaken about all this blood atonement in the Tanach. Seems like it's quite possible to atone without a single drop of blood. (There are plenty more quotes that show this)

 

[Theway]

Help me out here. It doesn't seem to me they had any choice in the matter at all:

‘Then Yawheh God said: “Now that the man has become like one of us in knowing good from evil, he must not be allowed to reach out his hand and pick from the tree of life too, and eat and live for ever!”

‘So Yawheh God expelled him from the garden of Eden, to till the soil from which he had been taken.

‘He banished the man, and in front of the garden of Eden he posted the great winged creatures and the fiery flashing sword, to guard the way to the tree of life.’

(Genesis 3:22-24).

Am I missing something?

They had a choice to not eat of the fruit, which meant they would have remained in the Garden forever, God never said that was a wrong choice, and in fact, most Christians believe it was the only correct choice they had.
Did God want them to go out into the world and learn to become as He is... Of course God did, therefore that was also a right way.
The choice had to be completely ours, otherwise if it was forced on them they could rightly say that it was God's Will that the Fall happened, and therefore not a transgression or a sin.

The bottom line is that because of the Fall and then the Atonement, mankind can now co-inherent all the Father has... Where as before Adam would have remained a glorified gardener forever.
That is why I said that for those that will recieve God's eternal wrath, will say Adam should have stayed in the Garden.
However for those which are obedient to Gods commandments, they will see the Fall as a unmeasurable blessing.