Were Adam and Eve different from mankind after the fall?

[razzelflabben]

This is along the lines of what I have heard before - I was told that sin was "inherited" from the father, rather than the mother, which is why Jesus had no earthly father.

I am not positive it is the right explanation, but that is what I was told and I see nothing that would go against it in Scripture.

(Unless it is that it was simply necessary that God be the Father of Christ so that He could be "only begotten".)

would that mean that woman do not sin? or just that they don't pass on the gene of sin?

 

[Tangible]

There is no 'sin gene'. A modern understanding of genetic inheritance should not be read into the scriptural accounts.

 

[Optimax]

This is along the lines of what I have heard before - I was told that sin was "inherited" from the father, rather than the mother, which is why Jesus had no earthly father.

I am not positive it is the right explanation, but that is what I was told and I see nothing that would go against it in Scripture.

(Unless it is that it was simply necessary that God be the Father of Christ so that He could be "only begotten".)

I just reread the passage that talks about God creating Jesus to be just a little lower than the angels...iow's Jesus as fully man and fully God was made like man as well (as to the just below God status) so if Jesus was made to be like mankind, then...He had this sin nature too...which again, brings us back to the discussion of whether or not we choose to sin....I say, yes, we have been given free will, that is choice, and in that choice, we all choose sin over righteousness, but it is our choice whether or not we sin. Jesus on the other hand, chose to be without sin, which is the fundamental difference between us and Christ.

Jesus was born of a woman, which made him 100% man.

Jesus was conceived in Mary, by the receiving of the word of God, which made Him 100% God.

Just as Adam was created without a "sin nature".

Jesus was born without that sin nature.

He had to live without sin.

If Jesus had sinned then He would not have been able to make redemption possible for mankind.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I was going to say this in your thread, razzle, as I think it speaks to your question there but ...

Do you think it is possible for any human to live a sinless life (not speaking of Christ).

The Bible says all have sinned. I think we can extend that to say all will sin. (If they reach enough of an age to be able to be deliberate in action - I do not say that infants sin.)

So ... do we actually have a choice? Is it really possible for anyone to simply choose not to sin?

I don't think we can.

 

[~Anastasia~]

would that mean that woman do not sin? or just that they don't pass on the gene of sin?

Yes, sorry for my analogies. I do not say it is a "gene" or a "mutation" in actuality.

I do think it is passed down to us.

And of course women sin too.

(The explanation I was given is that they sin because they have earthly fathers, just as every human ever born has an earthly father - except Jesus. And so all humans ever born sinned because of that sin passed down - except Jesus. That is what I was told, at least.)

 

[razzelflabben]

There is no 'sin gene'. A modern understanding of genetic inheritance should not be read into the scriptural accounts.

I was using it to make a point if sin is inherited, then we have no say over our actions, this does not seem consistent with scripture.

 

[Tangible]

(If they reach enough of an age to be able to be deliberate in action - I do not say that infants sin.)

If the essence of sin is being selfish, totally consumed with ourselves and our own wants and needs (homo incurvatus in se), then can we say that infants do not sin?

 

[razzelflabben]

Jesus was born of a woman, which made him 100% man.

Jesus was conceived in Mary, by the receiving of the word of God, which made Him 100% God.

Just as Adam was created without a "sin nature".

Jesus was born without that sin nature.

He had to live without sin.

If Jesus had sinned then He would not have been able to make redemption possible for mankind.

I've said this several times now on the other thread, just plan on saying it once here, it is well worth the time to study it....for the last 7 or so years, I have been in deep study of the biblical Love God talks about in the scriptures. One of the biggest surprises so far is that Christ was sin free because He lived in the power of the HS, the exact same HS we are given upon belief with the heart unto salvation. As such, we have the same power to live without sin as Christ did, which might just be why scripture tells us to be perfect as God is perfect.

 

[Tangible]

I was using it to make a point if sin is inherited, then we have no say over our actions, this does not seem consistent with scripture.

We are born without the ability not to sin and for that we are under the wrath of God. That we then go on to enthusiastically choose to revel sin does not make us any less accountable to God. We are by nature children of wrath.

 

[razzelflabben]

I was going to say this in your thread, razzle, as I think it speaks to your question there but ...

Do you think it is possible for any human to live a sinless life (not speaking of Christ).

The Bible says all have sinned. I think we can extend that to say all will sin. (If they reach enough of an age to be able to be deliberate in action - I do not say that infants sin.)

So ... do we actually have a choice? Is it really possible for anyone to simply choose not to sin?

I don't think we can.

goes back to the post i just made...Jesus was without sin because He lives all out in the power of the HS...what if we live all out in the power of that same HS? Why should we expect the outcome to be any different especially in light of the passage that tells us to be perfect as He is perfect.

Now, that being said, we live in a fallen world and that world teaches us to rely on self, parents, friends, sensual desires, etc everything but God. Let me see, an analogy...if I take a child, and from the moment of birth, I teach them that saying the word fragglemar will get them everything they desire, what do you think they will grow up seeing as the best word in the world? Yep, fragglemar. Likewise, when we teach our children from the moment they take their first breath that sin is good, what do you think will happen when they have an opportunity to sin? Yep...sin. Sin isn't inherited, it is taught because of a fallen and sinful world we are living in.

 

[razzelflabben]

Yes, sorry for my analogies. I do not say it is a "gene" or a "mutation" in actuality.

I do think it is passed down to us.

And of course women sin too.

(The explanation I was given is that they sin because they have earthly fathers, just as every human ever born has an earthly father - except Jesus. And so all humans ever born sinned because of that sin passed down - except Jesus. That is what I was told, at least.)

shoo thanks for the clarification, that at least makes more sense now. Still disagree as per the previous posts I made but thanks for the clarification.

 

[razzelflabben]

We are born without the ability not to sin and for that we are under the wrath of God. That we then go on to enthusiastically choose to revel sin does not make us any less accountable to God. We are by nature children of wrath.

then you are saying that Adam and Eve are no different than the rest of mankind, because they too were apparently unable to NOT sin....

 

[razzelflabben]

I guess that at this point in the conversation...that being that some things have previously been cleared up...I am very concerned about this idea that the HS does not have the power in our lives for free us from sin. Especially in light of II Timothy 3:5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.

 

[~Anastasia~]

If the essence of sin is being selfish, totally consumed with ourselves and our own wants and needs (homo incurvatus in se), then can we say that infants do not sin?

I have in mind an infant of the age to be an infant-in-arms, who carelessly bops someone on the nose. I mean that is no sin.

When a child the age of a toddler wants all the cookies, and snatches them away from another toddler selfishly - then I think that is a display of our sin nature / selfishness / whatever one wants to call it?

I'm not sure I would say that God counts that as sin (where there is no law, sin is not imputed - so if the child is incapable yet of understanding then I don't think God counts it as sin) ... and yet it is a demonstration of what is in the child that will surely cause it to sin.

At least that's where my thinking is at the moment.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I guess that at this point in the conversation...that being that some things have previously been cleared up...I am very concerned about this idea that the HS does not have the power in our lives for free us from sin. Especially in light of II Timothy 3:5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.

I'm sorry, we have to draw lines in everyone as far as time.

No, I do believe that the Holy Spirit enables us not to sin! (I am not saying we will be perfectly sinless, but that certainly He enables us to resist temptation, if we allow Him to help us.)

The line in Adam and Eve was drawn at the fall. I believe before the fall, they may have had the ability to choose not to sin. And ... they chose to sin. I think they lost something in that (in your other thread you mentioned grace - that can be a very good answer imo!)

I think because of Adam and Eve's fallen condition, every child of theirs down to us being born today (with the exception of Christ) is born with the effect of their sin.

As a result, when we are born, we are incapable in ourselves to resist sin perfectly. We are unable to live a perfectly sinless life. All have sinned, all will sin. But ...

In Christ, when we are saved and we have the Holy Spirit, and we are further empowered to resist sin. So the line with humankind today is drawn at salvation.

I don't think we are restored to every benefit Adam and Even enjoyed in their created nature, but we have something of it at least.

 

[Wordkeeper]

Original sin is a result of Greek dualism (matter is evil, our spirit is good, life is about shedding our evil bodies and going to a spiritual heaven). George Eldon Ladd's book details how Greek philosophy changed Christianity. Here is a short explanation.

http://www.vision.org/visionmedia/article.aspx?id=227

Quote
Augustine was challenged by the question that philosophers inevitably posed to Christians: “How could sin have entered the world, if God is good?” Augustine sought to answer this challenge and in so doing adopted many of the philosophers’ ideas.

The result, as evidenced by his writings, was that Augustine reinterpreted the Bible in light of philosophy. With respect to original sin, he understood the account of Adam and Eve as a description of humanity’s fall from grace. They sinned and were punished by God, and thus all subsequent humanity, being at that time biologically present within Adam, was party to the sin. The idea of innate sin and guilt became a widespread doctrine, as is shown by the following words from a popular American schoolbook used in the 17th and 18th centuries: “In Adam’s fall, we sinned all.”

But Augustine did not devise the concept of original sin. It was his use of specific New Testament scriptures to justify the doctrine that was new. The concept itself had been shaped from the late second century onward by certain church fathers, including Irenaeus, Origen and Tertullian. Irenaeus did not use the Scriptures at all for his definition; Origen reinterpreted the Genesis account of Adam and Eve in terms of a Platonic allegory and saw sin deriving solely from free will; and Tertullian’s version was borrowed from Stoic philosophy.

Though Augustine was convinced by the arguments of his earlier patristic peers, he made use of the apostle Paul’s letters, especially the one to the Romans, to develop his own ideas on original sin and guilt. Today, however, it is accepted that Augustine, who had never mastered the Greek language, misread Paul in at least one instance by using an inadequate Latin translation of the Greek original.

In Romans 5, Paul addresses the matter of sin. In verse 12 he states, “Therefore . . . sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned” (NRSV). Later in the chapter, Paul juxtaposes the sin of Adam with the righteousness of Christ: “Just as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous” (Romans 5:19). In contrast to his contemporary theologians, Augustine drew from his reading of these scriptures that sin was passed biologically from Adam to all his descendants through the sexual act itself, thus equating sexual desire with sin. But why should he have reached this interpretation when marital sexual relations in Jewish society at the time of Christ and Paul were considered honorable and good?

Augustine’s outlook on sex was distorted by ideas from the world outside the Bible. Because so much philosophy was based on dualism, in which the physical was categorized as evil but the spiritual as good, some philosophers idealized the celibate state. Sexual relations were physical and therefore evil.

Augustine’s association with Neoplatonic philosophers led him to introduce their outlook within the church. This had its effect in the development of doctrine. For example, Jesus was considered immaculately conceived—without sin in that His Father was God. But because His mother, Mary, had a human father, she suffered the effect of original sin. In order to present Jesus Christ as a perfect offspring without any inherited sin from either parent, the church had to find a way to label Mary as sinless. They did this by devising the doctrine of her immaculate conception, though this inevitably leads to further questions.

Other babies were not so fortunate. Some eight centuries later the Catholic theologian Anselm extended the implications of Augustine’s concept of original sin and claimed that babies who died, did so as sinners; as sinners, they had no access to eternal life but were condemned to eternal damnation.

The world from which Paul came had a very different view of sexual relations, especially within marriage. Sex was not evil; it was part of the physical creation that God had decreed was good (Genesis 1:31). The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews supports this view in describing the marital bed as “undefiled”—that is, pure or sacred; in other words, the sexual act did not impair a person’s relationship with God (Hebrews 13:4). The apostle Paul takes the idea further in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, where he instructs married couples not to defraud one another but to render appropriate conjugal dues. He states that in the sexual relationship each partner should focus on providing benefit to the other, not just on his or her own satisfaction. Hence Augustine’s view of sex as sin does not match New Testament teaching. Nor does it coincide with the Old Testament statement that a child does not carry its father’s sin (Ezekiel 18:19–20).



Quote
The blood of the high priest has special value. In agreement with this principle, Zech. 3 uses all the symbolism of a defiled human high priest Joshua and then speaks mysteriously of the Branch in connection with which “I will remove the sin of this land in a single day” (Zech. 3:9).

The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses | The Works of John Frame and Vern Poythress


Mankind was separated from God after the fall. Death is separation from God, so Adam did "die". Whatever he did was futile, with no lasting, "eternal" value.


Joshua brought Israel into the Promised Land, but he did not give them rest. The Land is a type of mankind and the promised Land is the first Adam. Christ's blood cleansed mankind, and those who abide in Christ find rest in the second Adam.

The first type was not rest, but it was the interim solution for Israel. Staying in the Land required work, resulting in the blessings of Deuteronomy 28. Disobedience led to judgment, wrath and exile. Even surrogate populations were obliged to meet the requirements:

2 Kings 17:19Also Judah did not keep the commandments of the LORD their God, but walked in the customs which Israel had introduced. 20The LORD rejected all the descendants of Israel and afflicted them and gave them into the hand of plunderers, until He had cast them out of His sight.

[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]21When He had torn Israel from the house of David, they made Jeroboam the son of Nebat king. Then Jeroboam drove Israel away from following the LORD and made them commit a great sin. 22The sons of Israel walked in all the sins of Jeroboam which he did; they did not depart from them 23until the LORD removed Israel from His sight, as He spoke through all His servants the prophets. So Israel was carried away into exile from their own land to Assyria .

[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]24The king of Assyria brought men from Babylon and from Cuthah and from Avva and from Hamath and Sepharvaim, and settled them in the cities of Samaria in place of the sons of Israel. So they possessed Samaria and lived in its cities. 25At the beginning of their living there, they did not fear the LORD; therefore the LORD sent lions among them which killed some of them. 26So they spoke to the king of Assyria, saying, “The nations whom you have carried away into exile in the cities of Samaria do not know the custom of the god of the land; so he has sent lions among them, and behold, they kill them because they do not know the custom of the god of the land.”

[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]27Then the king of Assyria commanded, saying, “Take there one of the priests whom you carried away into exile and let him go and live there; and let him teach them the custom of the god of the land.” 28So one of the priests whom they had carried away into exile from Samaria came and lived at Bethel, and taught them how they should fear the LORD.

Believers today live in Christ, the real Promised Land, the second Adam, redeemed mankind, walking with the Father just as Adam walked with God in the Garden.

 

[Tangible]

then you are saying that Adam and Eve are no different than the rest of mankind, because they too were apparently unable to NOT sin....

Not after the fall they weren't. We are not born in the same state as pre-fall Adam. In Adam we have all fallen, and we can't get up.

 

[Tangible]

I have in mind an infant of the age to be an infant-in-arms, who carelessly bops someone on the nose. I mean that is no sin.

When a child the age of a toddler wants all the cookies, and snatches them away from another toddler selfishly - then I think that is a display of our sin nature / selfishness / whatever one wants to call it?

I'm not sure I would say that God counts that as sin (where there is no law, sin is not imputed - so if the child is incapable yet of understanding then I don't think God counts it as sin) ... and yet it is a demonstration of what is in the child that will surely cause it to sin.

At least that's where my thinking is at the moment.

I'm thinking of that three day old that wakes up hungry every time his poor tired parents start to doze off.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I hadn't really been interested in looking too deeply at my beliefs in this, but because of quite a bit of discussion in another thread here I've had to consider my answer.

I'm not even sure why I believe it, but I believe that Adam and Eve were created without the sin nature we have today, and that as a result of the fall, mankind now "inherits" something of their sin.

I imagine Adam and Eve to have fundamentally changed with the fall as well, and not only being subject to the different environment created by the curse.

I don't think I'm talking about "original sin" but I don't know that doctrine. Any discussion from any point of view is welcome though - I'd love to hear what everyone thinks, and why.

well they did change a lot . but they were also very different from all who followed . because they remembered what was .

 

[razzelflabben]

I'm sorry, we have to draw lines in everyone as far as time.

No, I do believe that the Holy Spirit enables us not to sin! (I am not saying we will be perfectly sinless, but that certainly He enables us to resist temptation, if we allow Him to help us.)

I wasn't worried, not sure why you are sorry...but to point, if we are able to resist temptation that according to scripture leads to sin, where is this sin coming from that we commit without temptation? Again, this makes no sense to me at all.

The line in Adam and Eve was drawn at the fall. I believe before the fall, they may have had the ability to choose not to sin. And ... they chose to sin. I think they lost something in that (in your other thread you mentioned grace - that can be a very good answer imo!) [/quote] I am sometimes tenacious, if I'm on your nerves at this point, just ignore me, wouldn't be the first time...the nagging question I can't get past, is that if Adam and Eve were different before the fall, what changed to cause them to choose sin at the fall? What changed, why did it change, and how did that change come about. If they were able to choose to be sin free before the fall, what changed at the fall so that further change could happen after the fall? This makes absolutely no sense to me at all.

I think because of Adam and Eve's fallen condition, every child of theirs down to us being born today (with the exception of Christ) is born with the effect of their sin.

effect, sure, that is the world we live in, but with the "necessity" to sin, sorry, I can't find a way to look at that and make it make sense in scripture or logically either one. I'm not saying you are wrong, just saying that so far, I haven't seen an argument for what you are saying that lines up with the totality of scripture or the logical conclusions of what I am hearing (could be my hearing)

As a result, when we are born, we are incapable in ourselves to resist sin perfectly. We are unable to live a perfectly sinless life. All have sinned, all will sin. But ...

wait...are you suggesting that because Adam and Eve lived in the presence of God they didn't have the HS or need the HS to be sinless? Thus, their power was in themselves through fellowship with God, where ours is in fellowship through the HS? That might make some sense...might have something to pray and meditate on there.

In Christ, when we are saved and we have the Holy Spirit, and we are further empowered to resist sin. So the line with humankind today is drawn at salvation.

what is salvation? Isn't it fellowship with the living God? freedom from sin? What did Adam and Eve have before their sin? wasn't it fellowship with God? freedom from sin? Now if you are referring to being in God's presence face to face vs. the presence of God through the HS, you might have something for us to explore...waiting for your response to see if I am finally figuring this out.

I don't think we are restored to every benefit Adam and Even enjoyed in their created nature, but we have something of it at least.

Now I'm confused again...what in their nature was changed? other than their shame? They lost their innocence, again, maybe that would be the difference you are talking about, their innocence? I thought we already agreed on that, but right now, I have a headache from allergies and am not doing well at all, so maybe it was imagined agreement on that issue.