Original Sin

Joykins · Aug 19, 2005

I am having some trouble understanding the implications of this doctrine.

As I understand it:

God created people good. (Genesis 1)

Adam and Eve chose to disobey God and eat the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. As a result God cast them out of the Garden of Eden and denied them the fruit of the Tree of Life. This would seem to mean that at some time we (as a species) became capable of knowing the consequences of our acts and were able to distinguish between Good (beneficial and pleasing to God) and Evil (not beneficial and not pleasing to God). Once we were able to make the distinction, we became responsible for the fact that we will inevitably do deeds which are Evil. As a result of knowingly committing Evil deeds, we were denied communion with God (on this earth) and access to the Tree of Life (eternal life in the presence of God).

The only way to restore communion to God and the access to life eternal is not under our control. God accomplishes it, through his infinite grace and mercy.

We are still capable of performing good deeds and being "good" (although not perfect) people. However our best is not good enough.

My question is, what is the "sinful nature" of man. If God created man "good", and we discovered there were other options and acted on them, which nature predominates? Why are babies who have not yet had a chance to act at all doing anything, already condemned by this nature? Is there nothing of God's goodness left in us at all, unless we consciously invite God to rule in our hearts? Or is there still the good of his creation, struggling there, a spark trying to get out?

ScottBot · Aug 19, 2005

Joykins said:
I am having some trouble understanding the implications of this doctrine.

As I understand it:

God created people good. (Genesis 1)

Adam and Eve chose to disobey God and eat the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. As a result God cast them out of the Garden of Eden and denied them the fruit of the Tree of Life. This would seem to mean that at some time we (as a species) became capable of knowing the consequences of our acts and were able to distinguish between Good (beneficial and pleasing to God) and Evil (not beneficial and not pleasing to God). Once we were able to make the distinction, we became responsible for the fact that we will inevitably do deeds which are Evil. As a result of knowingly committing Evil deeds, we were denied communion with God (on this earth) and access to the Tree of Life (eternal life in the presence of God).

The only way to restore communion to God and the access to life eternal is not under our control. God accomplishes it, through his infinite grace and mercy.

We are still capable of performing good deeds and being "good" (although not perfect) people. However our best is not good enough.

My question is, what is the "sinful nature" of man. If God created man "good", and we discovered there were other options and acted on them, which nature predominates? Why are babies who have not yet had a chance to act at all doing anything, already condemned by this nature? Is there nothing of God's goodness left in us at all, unless we consciously invite God to rule in our hearts? Or is there still the good of his creation, struggling there, a spark trying to get out?

because if we don't have a fallen nature (original sin) then we don't need a savior. This was the error of Pelagius.

stumpjumper · Aug 19, 2005

Joykins said:
Adam and Eve chose to disobey God and eat the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

{snip}
My question is, what is the "sinful nature" of man. If God created man "good", and we discovered there were other options and acted on them, which nature predominates? Why are babies who have not yet had a chance to act at all doing anything, already condemned by this nature? Is there nothing of God's goodness left in us at all, unless we consciously invite God to rule in our hearts? Or is there still the good of his creation, struggling there, a spark trying to get out?

Putting aside the fact that the Garden of Eden is a mythical story with real implications, don't you think that the knowledge of Good and Evil is a good thing? Knowing the difference between right and wrong is a positive attribute and something God would not forbid us to attain. The hebrew word for "to know" is yada and it is an overreaching verb and meant to connotate the universal knowledge that man seeks to attain. In the history of humanity, every time we attempt to create our own rules and go against our moral goodness and favor one group over the other the results are disasterous. IOW, the moral of that story is that we should follow our sense of right and wrong and not yield to the temptation to create our own rules.

I don't really believe in Original Sin but John Haught in God After Darwin defined it as our current estrangement from God and our free will choices to disobey the universal law of right. In essence, Haught made a relation between the natural evil that was a result of evolutionary history and the pure goodness of God. Natural evil was a perversion of the good of God and since evil does not have ontological status we are estranged from God because of our past.

johnd · Aug 19, 2005

God created intelligent beings (angels and people) with a self will (within the bounds of individual ability and the bound of the sovereignty of God's over all will). This he did to have fellowship with beings who would love him and choose his ways rather than mechanically perform the function of following instructions or a program base.

We are all glad when our computers do what we want them to do. But there is much more to a pet who loves you just for being you. Or a son or daughter who lights up when Daddy comes home or runs to Mommy when they get hurt.

That being said, for there to be the choice to choose God there had to be the choice not to. God created people and angels in good standing (innocence) and even forewarned about the consequences of making the wrong choice. And he allowed both to make their own choice.

Some angels chose not to choose God. Evil, consequently, is th result of sin (bad choices). You use a Pipe wrench and a screwdriver to do some chiseling work, the work will not be as well done as if you had used the proper tools and the tools you used will be nicked and scarred or broken.

The improper choice was the sin and the evil was the resulting shoddy job and damaged equipment.

I cannot support this with passages of scripture except a few that hint at this supposition:

God created the spirit realm first. The angels (or more accurately cherubs and seraphs) were his creations in that realm. Some fell others did not. But there became the problem of both existing in eternity and God created the lake of fire to contain the fallen ones. These can be beared out in scripture. For example:

Matthew 25:41 Then he will say to those on his left, Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

People will end up there as well, but it was created for the devil and his angels.

Here's the part I'm supposing...

That the devil at the judgment charged God with being unfair... one sin and the angels that fell were eternally condemned...

And God, under no obligation to do so, set out to prove he is MORE than fair, and began to create the physical realm as the proving ground. The universe, earth and humanity were all created the way we were created to prove God is more than fair (thus glorifying him). So the sin nature test was conducted before A&E had children so the entire race would have the nature.

Some are unsettled by this supposition. That we could be such expendable pawns in the scheme of things. But consider this, God's plan involved one of the persons in the Trinity becoming a physical man (a sacrifice itself we cannot even fathom) and he laid down this life to save humanity from eternal death (an option humanity has because we die physically, angels cannot die and are not redeemable). And God has not USED humanity, God LOVES humanity.

John 3:16 For God so LOVED the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of Gods one and only Son.

What is a biblical hint for my supposition?

Revelation 13:8 All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beastall whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.

Joykins · Aug 19, 2005

Scott_LaFrance said:
because if we don't have a fallen nature (original sin) then we don't need a savior. This was the error of Pelagius.

But that's backwards; it puts the cart before the horse. You can't reason from the savior to the fact we need him--can you?

Metanoia02 · Aug 19, 2005

I think we need to be careful when we refer to our "sinful nature". Technically this is incorrect. Our nature is determined not by our action, but by the purpose for which we were created. And as was pointed out in the OP, we were created good. This is still the case, our nature has not changed. What has been corrupted is our will. Our will rebels against our nature, reulting in estrangement from our Creator, the one who gave us that nature. This comes more into focus when we study and understanding of the impact of Natural Law.

Joykins · Aug 19, 2005

This is the point where I'm stuck. I am currently studying Luther and I came across this part in the Augsburg Confession about Free Will (but really to me it's about original sin:

Of Free Will they teach that man's will has some liberty to choose civil righteousness, and to work things subject to reason. But it has no power, without the Holy Ghost, to work the righteousness of God, that is, spiritual righteousness; since the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 2,14; but this righteousness is wrought in the heart when the Holy Ghost is received through the Word. These things are said in as many words by Augustine in his Hypognosticon, Book III: We grant that all men have a free will, free, inasmuch as it has the judgment of reason; not that it is thereby capable, without God, either to begin, or, at least, to complete aught in things pertaining to God, but only in works of this life, whether good or evil. "Good" I call those works which spring from the good in nature, such as, willing to labor in the field, to eat and drink, to have a friend, to clothe oneself, to build a house, to marry a wife, to raise cattle, to learn divers useful arts, or whatsoever good pertains to this life. For all of these things are not without dependence on the providence of God; yea, of Him and through Him they are and have their being. "Evil" I call such works as willing to worship an idol, to commit murder, etc.

They condemn the Pelagians and others, who teach that without the Holy Ghost, by the power of nature alone, we are able to love God above all things; also to do the commandments of God as touching "the substance of the act." For, although nature is able in a manner to do the outward work, (for it is able to keep the hands from theft and murder,) yet it cannot produce the inward motions, such as the fear of God, trust in God,
chastity, patience, etc.

Augustine also wrote (and I memorized this although I don't know where in Augustine it's from) "Thou hast made us for Theyself O Lord, and the heart of man is restless until it finds its rest in Thee." While I completely agree that we cannot attain perfection or salvation by works alone, I don't think I can agree that man is capable of no spiritual (only "civil") righteousness at all. God MADE him that way, to thirst for spiritual righteousness and to thirst for God. We are made in the image of God.

It seems to me to say that evil is more powerful than good, in that it can so totally corrupt the nature that God made good, that we are capable of no spiritual righteousness at all on our own.

Am I making any sense?

Joykins · Aug 19, 2005

stumpjumper said:
IOW, the moral of that story is that we should follow our sense of right and wrong and not yield to the temptation to create our own rules.

I am lost as to the distinction.

stumpjumper · Aug 19, 2005

Joykins said:
I am lost as to the distinction.

It is the reaching for a different kind of knowledge. Do not each of us at some times attempt to determine what is good and evil for ourselves. In essence we attempt to become "godlike" and define and create our own complex rules for living and in the process we deny that the goodness of God does not require our permission to be true in and of itself. IOW, we complexify our existence by denying that there are universal standards that apply to all. In the garden, Adam and Eve shared an innocent and simple love with each other and God. They "fell" when they complexified that existence in the process of judging the truth. The moral is that we do not judge the truth, the truth judges us.

In regards to Luther, I read a biography by Richard Marius and IIRC Luther denied free will in regards to salvation. Only through the work of the Holy Spirit and election from God can we be saved. In regards to everyday life though he accepted that we have free will choices.

mlqurgw · Aug 19, 2005

I am not convinced that Adam was created without a knowledge of the difference between good and evil but that he was created without an experimental knowledge of evil. He may very well have known what was evil and what was good but had not experienced evil. The Scripture says that Eve was deceived not Adam. I believe Adam sinned knowing full well what he was doing.

Now as to original sin, I believe it is in reference to Adam as a Federal head and representative of all his posterity. When he sinned we all sinned in him. In Adam all died. 1Cor. 15:22 Babies are under the same representation and die because of it. Rom. 5:14 Still the Scriptures are very clear that we are born dead in sin and that there is none good. We are said to be by nature the children of wrath. Eph. 2:3 Our hearts are corrupt. Jer. 17:9 We come forth from the womb speaking lies. Psa. 58:3

linssue55 · Aug 19, 2005

mlqurgw said:
I am not convinced that Adam was created without a knowledge of the difference between good and evil but that he was created without an experimental knowledge of evil. He may very well have known what was evil and what was good but had not experienced evil. The Scripture says that Eve was deceived not Adam. I believe Adam sinned knowing full well what he was doing.

Now as to original sin, I believe it is in reference to Adam as a Federal head and representative of all his posterity. When he sinned we all sinned in him. In Adam all died. 1Cor. 15:22 Babies are under the same representation and die because of it. Rom. 5:14 Still the Scriptures are very clear that we are born dead in sin and that there is none good. We are said to be by nature the children of wrath. Eph. 2:3 Our hearts are corrupt. Jer. 17:9 We come forth from the womb speaking lies. Psa. 58:3

Yes, all of mans sins (from Adam on) NOW are Imputted to ALL in time (old sin nature). Like you said, and it clearly states in the bible, Eve was Deceived, Adam knew exactly what he was doing, BUT they BOTH were in the transgresson. Both sinned.

mlqurgw · Aug 19, 2005

linssue55 said:
Yes, all of mans sins (from Adam on) NOW are Imputted to ALL in time (old sin nature). Like you said, and it clearly states in the bible, Eve was Deceived, Adam knew exactly what he was doing, BUT they BOTH were in the transgresson. Both sinned.

True both sinned, but Eve was not a representative person. She was taken from Adam as are all his posterity. He was the representative man and his sin is the one that makes us all guilty before God. Had he kept his first estate and not taken of the fruit God would have killed Eve and Adam would have remained as He was. I am certainly conjecturing here so this isn't something I can show by Scripture but Adam wanted Eve more than he wanted God.

linssue55 · Aug 19, 2005

mlqurgw said:
True both sinned, but Eve was not a representative person. What?? She was taken from Adam as are all his posterity. What? He was the representative <What does this mean?? man and his sin is the one that makes us all guilty before God. < yes this is now called the "Imputation of Adams sin". Had he kept his first estate <Estate, what?? and not taken of the fruit ((God would have killed Eve)) God would have killed Eve and Adam would have remained as He was. I am certainly conjecturing < more than conjecture, no offense, it sounds as though you don't know what happened at all here so this isn't something I can show by Scripture but Adam wanted Eve more than he wanted God.< Now this is the first thing you said that was correct, he loved Eve (he also loved the Lord) and he liked sex. [/QUOTE] Not to sure what you said here.

mlqurgw · Aug 19, 2005

linssue55 said:
mlqurgw said:

True both sinned, but Eve was not a representative person. What?? She was taken from Adam as are all his posterity. What? He was the representative <What does this mean?? man and his sin is the one that makes us all guilty before God. < yes this is now called the "Imputation of Adams sin". Had he kept his first estate <Estate, what?? and not taken of the fruit ((God would have killed Eve)) God would have killed Eve and Adam would have remained as He was. I am certainly conjecturing < more than conjecture, no offense, it sounds as though you don't know what happened at all here so this isn't something I can show by Scripture but Adam wanted Eve more than he wanted God.< Now this is the first thing you said that was correct, he loved Eve (he also loved the Lord) and he liked sex. [/QUOTE] Not to sure what you said here.

Click to expand...

Representative: He stood one and acted as the whole of his posterity. When he sinned we all sinned in him. The same way Christ is called the second Adam and is the representative for all believers. When He obeyed we obeyed in Him. Eve was formed from Adam. God made Adam from the dust. She wasn't a representative and could have died without the consequences of her sin carrying over to us. Estate meaning the position he was in.

linssue55 · Aug 20, 2005

mlqurgw said:
linssue55 said:

Representative: He stood one and acted as the whole of his posterity. I don't see him as an representative at all, after all it's not like he knew other people would come after him, before he sinned?! When he sinned we all sinned in him. No, we did not sin IN him, (his sin was a seperate act) what you mean is that by his sin, we now inherit the imputation of his original sin, the Imputation of Adams sin, the old sin nature, or old man. The same way Christ is called the second Adam Only in the respect that Adam was without sin before the fall, being perfect. This is the only correlation that Adam had to God, I do not see Adam as being a representor at all, he was just a man who later sinned. nd is the representative for all believers. Only God repesents us.When He obeyed we obeyed in Him. No....Adam had free will, what does his obeying have to do with me obeying or not? Eve was formed from Adam. God made Adam from the dust. She wasn't a representative and could have died without the consequences of her sin carrying over to us. NO...No... the only reason that Eve wasn't the one chosen to be the one which would later be imputted sin, was because she was DECEIVED, now Adam deliberately and knowingly knew what he was doing, and still ate, so he was to be the bearer of imputted sin to all future mankind. They both were in the transgresson, but Adam was not deceived. Estate meaning the position he was in.

Click to expand...

The only position Adam was in, was the fact that he was the first man, as a tri-kotomous being, living the perfect life until his free will was exercised, then he messed up.

holyrokker · Aug 20, 2005

Joykins said:
While I completely agree that we cannot attain perfection or salvation by works alone, I don't think I can agree that man is capable of no spiritual (only "civil") righteousness at all. God MADE him that way, to thirst for spiritual righteousness and to thirst for God. We are made in the image of God.

It seems to me to say that evil is more powerful than good, in that it can so totally corrupt the nature that God made good, that we are capable of no spiritual righteousness at all on our own.

Am I making any sense?

Maybe think in these terms:

An unregenerate person is living in sin. That means that self-gratification is the final rule for all action.

As an unsaved man, all I do revolves around me, how I feel, etc.

I can still do "good works" - I can feed the hungry, etc. I can even be a missionary and tell others about Jesus. But it is only "good works" if I am not born of the Spirit.

All actions that come forth from a heart that is dead toward God are sin, no matter how "good" they may be, since the motivation is self-preservation and self-gratification.

I might do all sorts of good things with the goal of my actions being to gain eternal life.

The pharisees thought they were righteous, because they lived "good" moral lives. They did what they interpreted the Law to be.

That isn't true righteousness, because it does spring from faith.

True righteousness comes from a heart of faith.

Abraham was considered righteous because of his faith.

The same is true for us. God considers people righteous who live by faith in Christ.

What is the heart's motive? If it is self - all actions are sin.
If the heart's motive is Christ, then all the person is truly righteous.

Rolf Ernst · Aug 20, 2005

mlqurgw said:
I am not convinced that Adam was created without a knowledge of the difference between good and evil but that he was created without an experimental knowledge of evil. He may very well have known what was evil and what was good but had not experienced evil. The Scripture says that Eve was deceived not Adam. I believe Adam sinned knowing full well what he was doing.

Now as to original sin, I believe it is in reference to Adam as a Federal head and representative of all his posterity. When he sinned we all sinned in him. In Adam all died. 1Cor. 15:22 Babies are under the same representation and die because of it. Rom. 5:14 Still the Scriptures are very clear that we are born dead in sin and that there is none good. We are said to be by nature the children of wrath. Eph. 2:3 Our hearts are corrupt. Jer. 17:9 We come forth from the womb speaking lies. Psa. 58:3

Migurgw--satan's statement to Eve that she would be as God, knowing good and evil, did not mean that she was without knowledge of right and wrong. It had to do with the source of her knowledge of right and wrong. Till they sinned, Adam and Eve knew good and evil according to God's view of good and evil rather than according to themselves. God knows good and evil according to the His infinite perfections, or according to who He is.

Satan was telling Eve that just as God knows good and evil according to who He is, after you eat the fruit you, just like God, will know good and evil according to who you are rather than according to who God is. In other words, you will have thrown off God's law and His reign over your conscience, and just like God, you will know good and evil according to who you are rather than according to who God is.

Joykins · Aug 20, 2005

holyrokker said:
All actions that come forth from a heart that is dead toward God are sin, no matter how "good" they may be, since the motivation is self-preservation and self-gratification.

That's a whopping huge assumption there. People without faith in God are capable of love, or so I have observed.

Fellowship · Aug 21, 2005

The first real problem in paradise is that Eve lacked faith in God before she bit into the fruit. Remember the snake lieing to her saying "If you eat the fruit you will not surely die." The fact that Eve put her trust in the snake instead of God, caused her to sin.

I'd like to make the point that lack of faith is the ultimate cause of all sin. Through faith there is not sin. When people put there trust in the world instead of God it leads them to break their laws and covenants with Him.

Dad Ernie · Aug 21, 2005

Greetings,

My own reasoning goes something like this:

1 Cor 15:53-56 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. 55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? 56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.

We know that as soon as Adam and Eve were to eat of the "bad" Tree, they "must" die. This was accomplished by God in evicting them from the Garden of Eden:

Genesis 3:22-24 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: 23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. 24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

With no further access to the "Tree of Life", Adam and Eve were doomed to die and suffer the consequences of their actions.

Now to understand WHY God had to evict Adam and Eve from the Garden, we must also understand:

1 John 1:9-10 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Did Adam or Eve make such a confession? Let's see:

Genesis 3:12-13 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. 13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

This is like us saying "The Devil made me do it." OR "You made me this way, and that is why I did it." I earnestly believe that if Adam and Eve had confessed their sin and taken the blame for their actions, instead of blaming it on someone else, that God could have forgiven them and allowed them to remain in the Garden, but that was not the case.

The one thing that is important for every person to do is to go to God and say: "I am a sinner Lord, please forgive me." Ackowledging up front WHO we are and that in us dwells no good thing. It is not, nor has ever been, either Adam's or our "righteousness". Our relationship with God has always depended upon the "righteousness of God" and trusting in Him to impart that "right standing with Him" to us.

I believe this is where the big problem was with Adam's sin. God first says: "Where are you Adam?" Can we also imagine God asking us: "Where is your head at right now?" or "Do you understand your own lostlessness?" Are we going to own up to our own sin, or are we going to shuffle the blame to someone else?

Blessings,

Dad Ernie

Original Sin

free Crazy Liz!

Revolutionary

Left the river, made it to the sea

Well-Known Member

free Crazy Liz!

Owner of the invisible &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;a mp;

free Crazy Liz!

free Crazy Liz!

Left the river, made it to the sea

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Contributor

Well-Known Member

free Crazy Liz!

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency

Owner of the invisible &amp;amp;amp;a mp;