How was Adam’s choice to sin any different from ours?

[Jamdoc]

Fait enough, perhaps, and yet we observe the traces of his family tradition in each other and within ourselves everyday: the unreasonable pride and self-righteousness that keeps us separated from God, from each other, and even from ourselves to one degree or another-and which can cause great harm to each other. Sumpthin's wrong here on planet earth, if we're willing to examine it, and only humility before God cures it.

I never said he was perfect, but his faith in God certainly serves as a model for the right way for a human to proceed.

Sure, and that's not what I do, as I said. OTOH, if I happen to be in line with a great many believers, great and small, who've maintained a consistent belief down through the centuries, I don't mind. Either way there have been many, many opinions regarding the story of creation and the Fall, and also some weeding out of some rather absurd ones. The basic teachings on Genesis 1-3 end up comparatively minimalistic, while those chapters still provide much fodder for further pondering.

There are still people who do this, Catholics and Protestants alike. Its just a remnant of human shame that's been operable since the Fall and Catholic teaching opposes it. But marriage and procreation are simply God's will for man on earth- and aren't described or designated any other way.

Some people look at things through the lens of Eden was just a setup, almost like God planned the fall, and His plan was always to just have us go through the curse so that we can enjoy standing around a throne and singing to Him 24/7 was His REAL ultimate plan.

I view things a bit differently, that Eden was not set up to fall, and Eden was God's original intent, and it pleased Him. So I see the New Earth as more Eden like and less standing around the throne playing singalong.
In fact I get depressed when I start believing that first view because so many others believe it, that was one of the motivations for "okay forget what "great theologians" and other people say, I'll just base everything I believe on what the bible actually says".
I got depressed because the idea, that God would go from a creator who provides all things, and only gave the command to "be fruitful and multiply" while He gives everything needed in Genesis 1, to a god who had.. killed off all marine life, made us all a bunch of Eunuch slaves, and just wants his ego stroked for all eternity is kind of a selfish, disappointing god.
In the beginning God didn't command all this obsequious outward worship displays. His commands allowed for a lot of freedom, there was no religion, God just commanded that things lived according to the way He designed them to work. God's self esteem didn't need a bunch of people falling on their face and praising how great He is, He already knows He's greater than everything. He didn't need our verbal praise, or any rituals or sacrifices, just live according to the purposes that you were created for. In Human's case, to have dominion of the Earth, and to keep and dress the garden.
The idea that God had changed into some praise starved egomaniac kind of diminishes it all.
and it lowered trust in God.

but what I read, is things like Isaiah 65, where it's a very earthly scene, and also an Edenic scene. Earthly activities, people building houses and planting vineyards and having children, and God hears and answers prayer before people even ask, and God Himself is rejoicing on the Earth.
I see that and I think.. yeah, that's righteousness, restore things to how they were supposed to be, How He meant them to be, and then creation makes more sense, He wasn't creating a bunch of slaves to stroke His ego, He created a world He wanted to live in, and people He wanted to live with. I can love that.
I don't know if I can love someone self absorbed in ego who just expects you to stand around a throne singing their praises.


So the consideration of things in the beginning , and things in the end, are very important to me, because they reflect the nature of the God am supposed to love and worship.
I guess along with Adam's motivations, God's motivations are also important to meditate on for me.
Yes I'm aware God's motivations are ultimately unfathomable for me, but a self absorbed ego starved god is so alien that I don't know that I could love them
like I stopped listening to John Piper because ultimately his central theology is that God just wants praise and glory and that God radiates glory off and we basically get high on it like a drug and that's our fulfillment. He even terms it "Christian Hedonism" Once he went off about the "God centeredness of God" it became .. either my faith had just been shipwrecked by a self centered god... or I go to the bible and stop listening to John Piper.
I chose the latter.

 

[fhansen]

I like that. The most important thing to keep in mind IMO is that the God who created beauty, pleasure, all things good, will only give a better life yet in the next. But love is the center of it all. And as we come to increasingly know a God of infinite love, then we come to increasingly trust that, “No eye has seen, no ear has heard, and no human mind has known that which God has prepare for those who love Him." 1 Cor 2:9

 

[Jamdoc]

I like that. The most important thing to keep in mind IMO is that the God who created beauty, pleasure, all things good, will only give a better life yet in the next. But love is the center of it all. And as we come to increasingly know a God of infinite love, then we come to increasingly trust that, “No eye has seen, no ear has heard, and no human mind has known that which God has prepare for those who love Him." 1 Cor 2:9

I think one of the most reassuring passages for me is
Isaiah 65

18 But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.
19 And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.

Like.. so many people just put forth this image.. of God sitting on a throne.. just.... sitting there, basking in worship.
like this fat king being served grapes.
I hate that.

What defeats that image is God not just wanting you to center only on Him, but on the creation that reflects its creator (which it does, if God, the creator, creates an uninspiring creation, what does that say about Him?). Like it makes it possible to enjoy Him more when creation is beautiful and reflects Him.
and the image of God walking around mingling with people, relating to people celebrating with them.... it's a much more empathetic vision than the fat glowing king one.

 

[Josheb]

We often hear that we are able to sin because of our “sin nature” which we inherited from Adam. How was Adam able to sin without already having a “sin nature” and how was his ability to choose sin any different from our own? It seems, biologically, socially, and psychologically Adam was just as human as us.

Adam was the last good, unashamed, and sinless person. Everyone born after him was born with the effects of Adam's disobedience existing in the human constitution and they are all born into a sinful world, a world yearning for the sons of God to be revealed. As far as "sin" nature goes, that's a theological and/or doctrinal construct, not something scripture explicitly states exists. We read it in the dynamic translations like the NIV. What scripture states is we are all "dead in sin" or "dead in transgression" and many do not know the difference. An ability to discuss sin and its effect(s) very much depends on a correct understanding of sin. Most people define sin by 1 John 3:4 (sin equals any breaking of the law)but that one verse does not define the subject apart from the whole of scripture and scripture defines sin in multiple ways. For example, sin is any unrighteousness (1 Jn. 5:17). Here, again, we see the importance of having a good translation and/or consulting the Greek because the dynamic translations render "adikia" as "wrongdoing," or doing... wrong, but adikia has to do with injustice and the absence of righteousness, being moral, and excellent. Another example of how scripture defines sin apart from the Law is as an absence of faith; anything not done in faith is sin (Rom. 14:23). In Romans Paul is talking about eating food offered to idols and celebrating holy days but the principle he is leveraging (faith) is universal and therefore generalizable to other circumstances beside what a person eats or what days s/he considers special. This particular definition would explain how Adam sinned without already being sinful. Not only did he not obey God, but he did not demonstrate a trust in God or God's edict.

Conceptually, sin is about missing a target. The Hebrew, Greek, and English words for sin all literally mean missing the target. The English word "sinn" was the Old English term used in archery when a person's arrow overshot (or undershot) the target. That shot was scored as a sinn, a missing of the target. So, what is the target to which a human is supposed to aspire? Here, again, the Bible offers a few different answers but the most salient one is perfection (Mk. 5:48). There are others (like holiness) but none of them are achievable by sinless man without the aid of God. This also explains how it was Adam could sin and not yet be sinful: he was not perfect. In the NT the word "perfect" can have to meanings (depending on the Greek term used). It can mean mature (which does not mean a person cannot have flaws) and the other is a literal perfectness that entails any and all absence of imperfection. Adam did not have any flaws, but he was not mature. He became flawed.

How is it possible he could be immature and then flawed. Without going into too great detail, the answer lies in 1 Corinthians 15, where we read we were "sown" corruptible, or perishable. The word here in the Greek means rot or decay. God made us good and sinless, but He also made us able to become corrupt. We were not corrupt in the good state but we were able to become corrupted while in the good state. We became corrupted and thereby lost all goodness and sinlessness. Those who believe ion the resurrected Son of God will be raised incorruptible, that is, unable to become corrupted.

Lastly, we must all remember that when these doctrines were first prayed about and debated by the ECFs they lacked a lot of the knowledge we possess in modernity. For example, we now know extremely adverse events or traumatic events affect the human physiologically, and they do so at a cellular level. We have brain scans of people's brains before and after psychological traumas showing changes in neural pathways, changes in the way the traumatized person processes in formation, changes in the way information is stored, accessed, and recalled in memory. In recent years we've also begun to document correlations between trauma events and autoimmune diseases. In other words, there is very real evidence for the concept of original sin, one that is not theological in basis. We have proof the psychophysiological changes in the brain 1) get replicated into every cell of the human body (it takes several years) and 2) get passed on to progeny through procreation.

So, Adam was good, unashamed, and sinless. He made his choice in a good, unashamed, and sinless state simply because he could, and he did so absent all the influences we now experience as his (and Eve's) progeny. The only person ever born into a post-disobedient sinful world who has not sinned in all the many ways defined by scripture is Jesus, the incarnate Son of God.

 

[DamianWarS]

We often hear that we are able to sin because of our “sin nature” which we inherited from Adam. How was Adam able to sin without already having a “sin nature” and how was his ability to choose sin any different from our own? It seems, biologically, socially, and psychologically Adam was just as human as us.

creation to Moses is about 1500 years if you follow biblical timelines. The traditional author of Genesis in terms of who penned the words is Moses. Modern scholarship sees Genesis a bit of a compilation that goes beyond which is another discussion but regardless of your views on who wrote it, it's still a distance greater than Jesus to now. The garden account of Genesis then was written for an audience no less than 1500 years removed form its when it happened. stay with me, the length of time is important.

Like many ancient texts and common in Hebrew accounts are written goals driven. The details that build the goals can be somewhat fluid and even contradict other accounts which is called hebraic block logic. If the goal is noble then the supporting points that build the goal is also noble by inheritance but it is important to note they are goal-driven/honor-driven not fact driven even if they do describe facts. Modern Western thinking puts facts as the highest value. Think of young Washington who famously said "I cannot tell a lie...." Washington is not reprimanded for pointlessly cutting down a tree but instead praised for being truthful. The irony is the account is a fabrication and did not action happen, the point of the account is to show how truthful Washington was that even at a young age he refused to lie. The account is an example of a goal-driven account, the goal is to show Washington is very honest and they accomplish that by fabricating this story about cutting down a tree. And this story worked because of accounts like these honesty is regarded as the highest virtue in the modern west.

This is not the same in ancient cultures. honesty/facts are not the highest virtue but instead honor. If you're mother and father met at a brothel then 1 week later met at a picnic which account do you tell others? modern cultural phenomenons may pick the former as we find the crass funny but not so long ago this would be embarrassing and dishonourable to your parents and to you and of course you would retell the account where they met at a picnic. This is because your respect and honor for your parents and yourself is more important and you choose the better of the stories to keep the honor. This is the same in ancient accounts and there is a blurred line between honor and fact as it pertains to the details of an account but so long as the goal is worthy then of course it's better to tell the account the best way possible. This honours the goal so that others would see it's value more.

when it comes to the fall of man I don't see this as any different. The goal of the account is to show that humankind has a stain of sin upon themselves they cannot remove thus establishing our need for a saviour. It does this by describing an account so far removed from it's audience right back to the first man and first woman that no one can refute it. So of course we are sinful because of this garden moment and we cannot escape this sin because they are the parents of all humankind. But it's important to note the goal is not that Adam and Eve sinned, who cares about them that was 1500 years ago or even more. the goal is to show that sin is a part of you. Once we change that thinking Adam and Eve are no longer the focus.

But did it really happen? it doesn't matter because they are not the focus, or the question on if it happened or not is the least important part of the account. Because of the fall of man we are sinful and need Christ and that's the point. So does this mean before the fall of man Adam and Eve didn't need Christ? what an absurd notion, of course, they needed Christ and in fact needed Christ as much as they did before the fall as they did after the fall. The "need" for salvation is not because of the fall of man, it is because we are not God. A pristine piece of paper and an old crumpled soiled piece of paper burn up just as fast in a furnace and it doesn't matter in the least bit how perfect or imperfect the paper was. fire is destructive to the paper and will always be but if we are one with the fire then it cannot destroy us and the goal of the gospel is be one with Christ as he is one with the Father (John 17:21). anything less we are burnt up into oblivion, this is not because we are tarred with Adam's sins, this is because we are not God. This is why the law condemns but does not save because even in the perfection of the law we still need Christ. Only when we are one with the one who is the same substance of the father can we be one with the father too.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

We often hear that we are able to sin because of our “sin nature” which we inherited from Adam. How was Adam able to sin without already having a “sin nature” and how was his ability to choose sin any different from our own? It seems, biologically, socially, and psychologically Adam was just as human as us.

Adam is a mythological figure who represents each of us. He was tempted to disobey and he let himself sin. As a result he was punished and eventually died.

 

[David Lamb]

Adam is a mythological figure who represents each of us. He was tempted to disobey and he let himself sin. As a result he was punished and eventually died.

If he was just a mythological figure, then where does that leave Jesus Christ? If the first Adam was as you say, a myth, what about the LAST Adam, a title applied to Jesus Christ?:

“And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being." The last Adam [became] a life-giving spirit.” (1Co 15:45 NKJV)