Did Adam sin?

[LoAmmi]

Is this really the only other option?

Probably why I like the idea that my people agreed to the whole Torah thing and we get punished because we agreed to it. Breach of contract, basically.

 

[Theway]

At its core, it's a Promethean story: Man gains a piece divine insight, becoming more akin to the god(s), and is punished for it because the deity in charge does not want them to become fully equal.

Actually, it's the opposite.
Only after having been given divine insight can man become god, or like God.
The problem is that people, as well as almost all Christians see the fall as a bad thing.
The fall was merely the better of two choices.
For those who are disobedient to God, the choice to remain in the garden, would seem like it was the better choice. To those who are obedient; The Fall, together with the Atonement is obviously the far far better choice.

 

[smaneck]

There were more gospels, they are commonly referred to as the gnostic gospels.

Sure, but with possible exception of the Gospel of Thomas, they weren't written by disciples.

 

[Theway]

Nope. Not even this solves the initial dilemma, because then the only purpose of freedom is to UNLEARN it, re-creating a state of utter submission to another's will. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. Either God's Will is the only thing that matters, or freedom of choice.


Is this really the only other option? People keep repeating this even after being called out on it.
We've all heard the "robot"-argument a million times before, but nobody's ever bothered to reply to the rebuttal, namely that Jesus wasn't a robot, either, and fully human as well. In short: if we assume that an omniscient, omnipotent deity wanted to create a universe of free-willed creatures who choose to do the right thing of their own accord at all times (in spite of having the theoretical capacity of going astray), then that is EXACTLY what He'd have.

I would love to answer these questions as I find it refreshing to find someone who actually has thought seriously on these matters... Remind me if I forget to...
However because work is now consuming me, I will have to get back... I only ask that you maintain an open and learning mind.

 

[smaneck]

It's pretty irrelevant who invented farming, what *really* created the world as we know it was the vastly changed material living conditions created by the transition to agriculture:
land ownership, personal property, a more stratified society, etc.
Suddenly, fatherhood became an eminently important, and women's lives were determined in terms of being a wife or a daughter. The cult of virginity and other forms of controlling or curbing female virginity became the norm.

That is a good description of what happens in Near East (where the story of Adam and Eve originates) but not what happens with the agricultural revolution as a whole. For instance in neither sub-Saharan Africa or the Americas does agriculture lead to landownership. Instead slavery results, which I suppose as the same result as far as social stratification goes.

There is one thing about the Adam and Eve story which I find interesting and that is the notion that the serpent is Satan. There is nothing in Genesis itself that says this so I'm wondering is this an exclusively Christian interpretation or is it one shared by Jews as well?

 

[LoAmmi]

There is one thing about the Adam and Eve story which I find interesting and that is the notion that the serpent is Satan. There is nothing in Genesis itself that says this so I'm wondering is this an exclusively Christian interpretation or is it one shared by Jews as well?

As with most things, the Jewish answer probably is "it depends", though obviously the vision of Satan in Judaism is vastly different than Christianity. In this case, it's more likely for the snake to be described as the evil inclination rather than anything else.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

That is a good description of what happens in Near East (where the story of Adam and Eve originates) but not what happens with the agricultural revolution as a whole. For instance in neither sub-Saharan Africa or the Americas does agriculture lead to landownership. Instead slavery results, which I suppose as the same result as far as social stratification goes.

There is one thing about the Adam and Eve story which I find interesting and that is the notion that the serpent is Satan. There is nothing in Genesis itself that says this so I'm wondering is this an exclusively Christian interpretation or is it one shared by Jews as well?

Early Talmudic commentary suggests that the Serpent was originally interpreted as a literal snake, not a metaphysical force of evil. Judaism knows of the conflation of the Serpent and Satan, but has discarded the most obviously dualist concepts proto-Jewish folklore "borrowed" from the Zoroastrians.

 

[HolyisourGod]

Freedom of the will isn't true freedom. Today in a fallen world we are slaves to sin. It's a part of us. We cannot act outside nor against our nature. Christ offers freedom not only from the penalty of sin, but also from its chains and yoke. I do choose according to my "freewill" to surrender my will to His perfect will. I then become as Paul says "a slave for christ." Either way I'm a slave. Freewill isn't what so many think it is. There's not enough room here nor do wish to type till the cows come home, but for in depth study on the matter of freewill I'd recommend reading up on Calvinism and Arminianism, and possibly Molinism.

 

[GillDouglas]

Can a toddler sin?

No.

So, in your opinion, at what point does a person become a sinner? In your opinion, how is the curse of Adam (natural state of man) passed down if not through the flesh? If you say that we 'learn' to sin then how was Jesus tempted by sin? Because of His divinity He was incapable of sinning and therefore could not 'learn' to sin, if it had not already been a part of His flesh He would have not been tested by it. But He was tempted and He was made just as we are, born into sin.

 

[Catherineanne]

So, in your opinion, at what point does a person become a sinner? In your opinion, how is the curse of Adam (natural state of man) passed down if not through the flesh? If you say that we 'learn' to sin then how was Jesus tempted by sin? Because of His divinity He was incapable of sinning and therefore could not 'learn' to sin, if it had not already been a part of His flesh He would have not been tested by it. But He was tempted and He was made just as we are, born into sin.

I have already explained earlier, but here it is again.

Original sin is a propensity, not an actual behaviour. Any given child does not sin until they have the cognitive capacity to know the difference between doing the right thing and doing wrong, and choose to do wrong. We do not learn to do wrong; we all bear the propensity to sin, but do not actually sin until we are old enough to understand what sin is.

A baby or toddler lacks this capacity, and some people live their whole lives without ever gaining it; they are known in the church as holy innocents. They can do wrong, but they are not capable of knowing it. For most of us the ability to distinguish and understand right from wrong will come during our childhood; perhaps at around 7 or 8, perhaps later. This links with the age of criminal responsibility; young children cannot be convicted of murder, for example, because they lack the ability to know what they are doing.

The Lord is a different matter. He lived his whole life without ever making the choice to do wrong. When he was old enough to know the difference he consistently chose to do what was right. Theoretically we could all do the same; in practice none of us quite manages it. Being tempted is not a sin; he was tempted as we all are. The difference is, he chose not to give in to that temptation. He is not the only person ever to live a whole life without sin, but he is the only person with full cognitive function, full reasoning and thinking ability, to do so.

We become a sinner the first time we sin. Not before.

 

[ChetSinger]

I have already explained earlier, but here it is again.

Original sin is a propensity, not an actual behaviour. Any given child does not sin until they have the cognitive capacity to know the difference between doing the right thing and doing wrong, and choose to do wrong. We do not learn to do wrong; we all bear the propensity to sin, but do not actually sin until we are old enough to understand what sin is.

I agree, and it's a big reason why my church practices a believer's baptism: we're born inheriting death, and with a heart that is guaranteed to eventually become corrupt, but we're not born guilty.

 

[Hammster]

If you put a gun in front of a 2 year old and told the child not to touch it.... If when you then leave the room the baby picks up the gun, plays with it, and shots himself dead; whose fault is it? Yours or the baby's?

Though Adam did not sin, he could not escape the consequences of his actions.

I see it as more like a choice between two actions, each having their own results and consequences. To Adam and Eve, there was no bad or wrong choice, as they did not even understand the difference between right and wrong. I see it as God "priming the pump" when it came to their free agency; forcing them to make one of two choices "on their own" otherwise it would not of been true free agency. Had they truely of understood who God the Father was, or who Satan was, they may never have made any choices at all and simply blindly followed God without ever exercising their free agency.

Luckily they made the "BETTER" choice.

Romans 5 says Adam sinned.

 

[Hammster]

I agree, and it's a big reason why my church practices a believer's baptism: we're born inheriting death, and with a heart that is guaranteed to eventually become corrupt, but we're not born guilty.

Actually, we are born with a corrupt heart.

 

[GillDouglas]

Original sin is a propensity, not an actual behaviour. Any given child does not sin until they have the cognitive capacity to know the difference between doing the right thing and doing wrong, and choose to do wrong. We do not learn to do wrong; we all bear the propensity to sin, but do not actually sin until we are old enough to understand what sin is.

A baby or toddler lacks this capacity, and some people live their whole lives without ever gaining it; they are known in the church as holy innocents. They can do wrong, but they are not capable of knowing it. For most of us the ability to distinguish and understand right from wrong will come during our childhood; perhaps at around 7 or 8, perhaps later. This links with the age of criminal responsibility; young children cannot be convicted of murder, for example, because they lack the ability to know what they are doing.
<snip>

To me it seems that you are combining or comparing sin with doing right or wrong. Sin is simply a matter of rebelling against God, and we do that from the moment we're born. Right and wrong is a matter of opinion, and perspective. You can do 'right' in your sight and maybe in some other's sight but it still be an act of rebellion against God. My three year old is very much self-serving and rebellious against all authority including God's. Her choices of right and wrong matter not.

So is it your understanding that those who are 'holy innocent' have no need for Christ? If they are unaware of their ability to sin, why would they need a Savior?

 

[ChetSinger]

The whole "free will"-argument is built around two diametrically opposed tenets:

1. Free will is the greatest gift ever, and God wants us to be free to choose our own paths in life.

2. God's Will is the only thing that matters, and any deviation from that path is so utterly horrible that anyone found straying from this course only deserves to perish or suffer eternally.

These two are *utterly* incompatible the moment you penalize free choice. If only ONE path is acceptable, and that ONE path is whatever God wants, then free will can never be a blessing - not even if we strive to align our own will with the deity's. Because every ounce of freedom takes us away from the Divine Will.

Hello! That's not how I see it. I see free will is simply the authority and ability to make choices beyond those driven by instinct. Both mankind and the angels have it. Having it doesn't guarantee that someone will commit sin, because most angels have never sinned.

Adam made many choices without sinning, such as naming the animals. The New Testament defines sin as "whoever knows what is right to do, and fails to do it, for him it is sin". Adam received fair warning regarding a particular choice ("if you eat it you will die"), made that choice anyway, and suffered the consequence: he died.

I've seen a similar dynamic between myself and my children (when they were small; they're grown now). They have free will, too, and when they obeyed me everything was cool; when they disobeyed me they suffered various consequences.

 

[Catherineanne]

To me it seems that you are combining or comparing sin with doing right or wrong. Sin is simply a matter of rebelling against God, and we do that from the moment we're born. Right and wrong is a matter of opinion, and perspective. You can do 'right' in your sight and maybe in some other's sight but it still be an act of rebellion against God. My three year old is very much self-serving and rebellious against all authority including God's. Her choices of right and wrong matter not.

So is it your understanding that those who are 'holy innocent' have no need for Christ? If they are unaware of their ability to sin, why would they need a Savior?

No, you are mistaken. Sin has to be deliberate. Adam and Eve had to make a conscious choice to do wrong.

Your three year old is not (yet) a sinner; she remains in a state of grace and innocence. For you to suggest otherwise is rather disturbing, to be honest. What you call rebellion against authority is perfectly normal developmental behaviour for a 3 year old; the Lord himself would have behaved in the same way towards his parents. It is an important part of defining the self in contradistinction to those around her for a child to learn to assert her own wishes; this is a good and normal part of childhood.

We all need the Lord. Those who are innocent need a relationship with God, the same as anyone else. They do not yet need salvation from sin, but the chances are that one day they will.

 

[ChetSinger]

Actually, we are born with a corrupt heart.

But not with a guilty one. I should've chosen my words more carefully.

 

[Catherineanne]

Hello! That's not how I see it. I see free will is simply the authority and ability to make choices beyond those driven by instinct. Both mankind and the angels have it. Having it doesn't guarantee that someone will commit sin, because most angels have never sinned.

Adam made many choices without sinning, such as naming the animals. The New Testament defines sin as "whoever knows what is right to do, and fails to do it, for him it is sin". Adam received fair warning regarding a particular choice ("if you eat it you will die"), made that choice anyway, and suffered the consequence: he died.

I've seen a similar dynamic between myself and my children (when they were small; they're grown now). They have free will, too, and when they obeyed me everything was cool; when they disobeyed me they suffered various consequences.

I see no reason to make parenthood a matter of obedience and disobedience. My daughter (now 22) has never in her whole life disobeyed me, because I have never in her life laid down the law in this way. The only rule I set is that she should treat me the way she wants to be treated. When she was old enough to understand I told her that if she were to lie to me, or to disrespect me, I would do the same to her. I said she could use what language she liked outside the house, but to keep it civil in the house unless she wanted to learn a few new words from me. Funnily enough, she has never rebelled. I have tried to accept that she is her own person, with the right to make her own choices. Wherever she could safely make those choices for herself, I let her make them. Where it was not safe, I made them. And where we could decide together, we did.

She has never sinned against me because I have never set her up to fail in that way. I don't really see the point. Life is going to be hard enough on her, without beginning that harshness at home. I see myself as her first and greatest ally in life, not her controller or dictator.

 

[Catherineanne]

I agree, and it's a big reason why my church practices a believer's baptism: we're born inheriting death, and with a heart that is guaranteed to eventually become corrupt, but we're not born guilty.

When we sin we do not corrupt our hearts, not at first. It takes a long time to reach the point where the heart may be regarded as corrupt. Normal, everyday sins separate us from God, but do not destroy our innate goodness.

 

[GillDouglas]

Hello! That's not how I see it. I see free will is simply the authority and ability to make choices beyond those driven by instinct. Both mankind and the angels have it. Having it doesn't guarantee that someone will commit sin, because most angels have never sinned.

Adam made many choices without sinning, such as naming the animals. The New Testament defines sin as "whoever knows what is right to do, and fails to do it, for him it is sin". Adam received fair warning regarding a particular choice ("if you eat it you will die"), made that choice anyway, and suffered the consequence: he died.

I've seen a similar dynamic between myself and my children (when they were small; they're grown now). They have free will, too, and when they obeyed me everything was cool; when they disobeyed me they suffered various consequences.

Free will is only possible when you have the ultimate determination of a choice. You have free will if the ultimate cause of your choice is your own self determination. Many things can influence a choice, but only one is ultimate or final. If you are the ultimate cause then sure, you have free will in choice.

So with that in mind I pose a question. Your decision to accept Christ, was your choice based on you or the grace of God? When you made a choice, what was the decisive influence? Your own power or God's grace?