What impact did the FALL of Adam have ?

[Ben12]

The result of Adam's fall...depraved vegetation.

Amen, the roses have their thorns, the grass withereth away. Nature every year changes from one season into another and ultimately dies. What a beatiful pattern to show us what God is truly doing.

1 Peter 1:24
For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away


BUT.............

(NIRV) Romans 8: 20 The created world was bound to fail. But that was not the result of its own choice. It was planned that way by the One who made it. God planned 21 to set the created world free. He didn't want it to rot away completely. Instead, he wanted it to have the same glorious freedom that his children have.


Isa. 40: 6 The voice said, Cry. And he said, What shall I cry? All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field: 7The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the spirit of the LORD bloweth upon it: surely the people is grass.
8The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.
But the HOPE…..


Romans 8:20 (NLT) Against its will, all creation was subjected to God’s curse. But with eager hope, 21 the creation looks forward to the day when it will join God’s children in glorious freedom from death and decay.

(NLV) 20 Everything that has been made in the world is weak. It is not that the world wanted it to be that way. God allowed it to be that way. Yet there is hope. 21 Everything that has been made in the world will be set free from the power that can destroy. These will become free just as the children of God become free.

(NASB) 20For the creation (A)was subjected to (B)futility, not willingly, but (C)because of Him who subjected it, [a]in hope 21 that (D)the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.

MSG) 8-21 That's why I don't think there's any comparison between the present hard times and the coming good times. The created world itself can hardly wait for what's coming next. Everything in creation is being more or less held back. God reins it in until both creation and all the creatures are ready and can be released at the same moment into the glorious times ahead. Meanwhile, the joyful anticipation deepens.

(NLV) 20 Everything that has been made in the world is weak. It is not that the world wanted it to be that way. God allowed it to be that way. Yet there is hope. 21 Everything that has been made in the world will be set free from the power that can destroy. These will become free just as the children of God become free.

 

[Ormly]

Augustine understood Romans 5:12 as "in whom all sinned," with the implication that we are all guilty, not merely of our own sins, but of Adam's; that we are born guilty of Adam's sin. This is the foundation of the doctrine of original sin, which is foundational to the doctrine of total depravity. However, all modern translations recognize that the Greek of Romans 5:12 is better rendered, "because all sinned". Augustine was following an inadequate Latin translation at this point. Paul's point is not that we all sinned with Adam in the Garden of Eden, but that we have all sinned just as Adam sinned, i.e., that we allow or have allowed "Self", free expression irrespective of God's plan for our lives, as Adam did. Therefore we all need the gift of God's grace through the sacrifice of Jesus for forgiveness and, if we can more fully understand that we need it more to fulfill God's desire for Himself that He provided for it, for us to embrace.

Scriptures make it clear that in fact we all have sinned. But total depravity . . that not only can we not come to God on our own, but we cannot even respond to the Gospel without God enabling us, is not taught in Scripture. "Whosoever will, let him come".

Not only does this bespeak of the dangers of using an inadequate translation; it bespeaks of the dangers of building doctrine on so narrow a foundation as a single interpretation of a single passage.

 

[cygnusx1]

Augustine understood Romans 5:12 as "in whom all sinned," with the implication that we are all guilty, not merely of our own sins, but of Adam's; that we are born guilty of Adam's sin. This is the foundation of the doctrine of original sin, which is foundational to the doctrine of total depravity. However, all modern translations recognize that the Greek of Romans 5:12 is better rendered, "because all sinned". Augustine was following an inadequate Latin translation at this point. Paul's point is not that we all sinned with Adam in the Garden of Eden, but that we have all sinned just as Adam sinned, i.e., that we allow or have allowed "Self", free expression irrespective of God's plan for our lives, as Adam did. Therefore we all need the gift of God's grace through the sacrifice of Jesus for forgiveness and, if we can more fully understand that we need it more to fulfill God's desire for Himself that He provided for it, for us to embrace.

Scriptures make it clear that in fact we all have sinned. But total depravity . . that not only can we not come to God on our own, but we cannot even respond to the Gospel without God enabling us, is not taught in Scripture. "Whosoever will, let him come".

Not only does this bespeak of the dangers of using an inadequate translation; it bespeaks of the dangers of building doctrine on so narrow a foundation as a single interpretation of a single passage.

you have missed out the given parallel meaning of imputation of righteousness , Romans 5 should not be reduced to a single text and it is clear that some will find it objectionable that we should inherit sin , and that we should inherit righteousness. but scripture uses the one to show the other. between Adam and Moses men still died , and infants too , this cannot be accounted for simply by personal sin , such is the apostles arguement through Romans 5.

 

[cygnusx1]

Augustine understood Romans 5:12 as "in whom all sinned," with the implication that we are all guilty, not merely of our own sins, but of Adam's; that we are born guilty of Adam's sin. This is the foundation of the doctrine of original sin, which is foundational to the doctrine of total depravity. However, all modern translations recognize that the Greek of Romans 5:12 is better rendered, "because all sinned". Augustine was following an inadequate Latin translation at this point. Paul's point is not that we all sinned with Adam in the Garden of Eden, but that we have all sinned just as Adam sinned, i.e., that we allow or have allowed "Self", free expression irrespective of God's plan for our lives, as Adam did. Therefore we all need the gift of God's grace through the sacrifice of Jesus for forgiveness and, if we can more fully understand that we need it more to fulfill God's desire for Himself that He provided for it, for us to embrace.

Scriptures make it clear that in fact we all have sinned. But total depravity . . that not only can we not come to God on our own, but we cannot even respond to the Gospel without God enabling us, is not taught in Scripture. "Whosoever will, let him come".

Not only does this bespeak of the dangers of using an inadequate translation; it bespeaks of the dangers of building doctrine on so narrow a foundation as a single interpretation of a single passage.

next time leave a link for stuff you have used from other web sites , otherwise some may think these thoughts originate with you!

here's the link folks

http://schooleyfiles.blogspot.com/2007/08/augustine-misunderstanding-and-original.html

 

[cygnusx1]

here's a question posed by Sproul: If ‘original sin’ is not a reality, where is the ‘group of people’ that aren’t sinners?

 

[Ormly]

next time leave a link for stuff you have used from other web sites , otherwise some may think these thoughts originate with you!

here's the link folks

http://schooleyfiles.blogspot.com/2007/08/augustine-misunderstanding-and-original.html

Absolutely! But Schooley only got some of it right. That's why I didn't link him. What He did get right, is only a repeat of what I have written up many times. So they aren't original thoughts he wrote, but also my own. I am happy to have his agreement on what I could agree with.

Instead of doing what you hope to accomplish, why not argue the point made? Is it because you can't and believe you now see a way not too?

 

[cygnusx1]

Absolutely! But Schooley only got some of it right. That's why I didn't link him. What He did get right, is only a repeat of what I have written up many times. So they aren't original thoughts he wrote, but also my own. I am happy to have his agreement on what I could agree with.

Instead of doing what you hope to accomplish, why not argue the point made? Is it because you can't and believe you now see a way not too?

yes those were Schooleys words even if you did agree with them , it's curtousy to give credit where it's due... and the point is all men sinned because all mankind are seen as corporate , there are examples of this concept throughout scripture , even if our western minds are soaked in individualism , scripture speaks of mankind in Adam and in Christ respectively acting as one under their respective heads.

 

[vekarppe]

poetry and parables hey

Don't laugh; I [SIZE=-1]take the Bible interpretation seriously.[/SIZE]

yes , knowledge is no pre-requisite for sin.

Morality involves conscious decision-making. Infants are incapable of moral good or evil, because they cannot ponder the rightness or wrongness of their actions. You know what I mean? Animals don't sin; bacterium aren't moral or immoral. To sin means to fail to do what one knows is right (cf. James 4:17). Man is responsible before God for how he respond to the revelation of God he have.

i suppose you believe in the age of accountability , tell me when is a child accountable for their sin?

When he knows what is right but fails to do it.

 

[Ormly]

"Where there is no law, no knowledge of it, there is no penalty for sin imputed. . "

Except a man become as a little child he can not enter in . . . . to the Kingdom of God. Jesus made no distinctions about the child, when He said that.

 

[cygnusx1]

Don't laugh; I [SIZE=-1]take the Bible interpretation seriously.[/SIZE]

me too. and i think poetry and parables contain truth.

Morality involves conscious decision-making.

the guy who gets a lesser beating but did what deserved a beating does not get let off a beating ........ sin is more than conscious decision making... it is a state of being.

Infants are incapable of moral good or evil, because they cannot ponder the rightness or wrongness of their actions.

so you think they are incapable of faith ?

You know what I mean? Animals don't sin; bacterium aren't moral or immoral. To sin means to fail to do what one knows is right (cf. James 4:17). Man is responsible before God for how he respond to the revelation of God he have.

sin is any want of conformity to God's Law.
even the ploughing of the wicked is sin!


Prov.21

[1] The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.
[2] Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts.
[3] To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice.
[4] An high look, and a proud heart, and the plowing of the wicked, is sin.

When he knows what is right but fails to do it.

there are sins of omission as well as sins of commission , no infant is without the need of Christ as a Saviour , to such belongs the kingdom , ie , they are in need of saving.

some think sin is only that which is openly perceived by others , an act ,Christ came to dispel that myth.

 

[vekarppe]

me too. and i think poetry and parables contain truth.

I didn't said they don't. But poetry must interpret as poetry, and parables as parables; that was my point.

sin is more than conscious decision making... it is a state of being.

I think I can agree with that.

 

[cygnusx1]

here's the thing , if a person is not a sinnner he/she is considered righteous
1John.3

, Abraham interceeded on behalf of Sodom and Gomorah in order to secure the life of Lot , he did this by pleading that if there were so many righteous (50 , 40 , 30 , 20 10) would God have mercy and for the sake of those righteous/innocents and spare the cities . God says Yes , even if there be but ten righteous , He would have compassion for the sake of the innocent - the righteous .

But what do we find , God rescues Lot and his family , and notice , upon Lot a degree of force was used (so much for free-willism) and his family , save his wife was spared ........ but none other!


conclusion , there are none righteous no not one , not a baby , not a man women or child are innocent of sin.


how else could God be Holy and take the life of "innocent infants " but He did , Genesis 6 , Sodom and Gomorah and although God spared Nineveh with its children, he elsewhere commanded the deaths of infants (Deut. 20:13-18; Josh. 6:17ff.; etc.).

 

[Oye11]

But what do we find , God rescues Lot and his family , and upon Lot a degree of force was used (so much for free-willism).

There is the "freewillism" pegorative again. But frankly Bro, anyone promoting Black Sabbath videos on his forum webpage needs to find some "free will" from somewhere....

In any case, is it your contention that infants are born guilty of the sin of Adam? Also, would you argue that the "sin nature" resides in the physical body and is passed along from the male through the sperm? Thanks.

 

[vekarppe]

cygnusx1, I haven't said infants are free fom the moral depravity. But I myself find this more complicated than just either/or. What about those who have not heard about Jesus? What about infants or invalids etc. ?

 

[cygnusx1]

There is the "freewillism" pegorative again. But frankly Bro, anyone promoting Black Sabbath videos on his forum webpage needs to find some "free will" from somewhere....

i dare say , if i had the time and interest we would see this judgmentalism leading to your own self condemnaton , but hey who cares .

In any case, is it your contention that infants are born guilty of the sin of Adam?

yes , unless you wish to charge God with injustice , the soul that sins shall surely die.

Also, would you argue that the "sin nature" resides in the physical body and is passed along from the male through the sperm? Thanks.

until any other way of explaining it yes , I don't think sin is transfered through the etha.

 

[cygnusx1]

cygnusx1, I haven't said infants are free fom the moral depravity. But I myself find this more complicated than just either/or.

ok , distinguish moral depravity from , being a sinner.

 

[Oye11]

i dare say , if i had the time and interest we would see this judgmentalism leading to your own self condemnaton , but hey who cares . .

Black Sabbath? I cannot help but wonder about someone that lacks even that discernment, a rather extreme example....

yes , unless you wish to charge God with injustice , the soul that sins shall surely die. .

Scripture emphatically declares that each person is responsible for their own sin, no one else`s.

"The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself. Exekiel 18-20

And you never dealth with James 4-17....

Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin.

until any other way of explaining it yes , I don't think sin is transfered through the etha.

And coming from someone that only wants to go by scripture, the sin nature passed through sperm? Where does scripture say that? And it`s all consistent with Augustine, his past sexual problems, and emphasis on the sin of lust. It also works with his Manichean/Gnostic religion as well (the body is evil) that many feel he never purged himself from. Not a word about any such think in Genesis in the account of what is called "the fall." Man loses immortality, loses fellowship with God, the ground and the serpent are cursed. Man is not cursed.

 

[cygnusx1]

Black Sabbath? I cannot help but wonder about someone that lacks even that discernment, a rather extreme example....

don't judge by outside appearances , and try sticking on topic.

Scripture emphatically declares that each person is responsible for their own sin, no one else`s.

baloaney!

"The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself. Exekiel 18-20

yes , what has that got to do with corporate sin?

And you never dealth with James 4-17....

i think i did.

Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin.

now whose engaging in proof texting man you sure like doing the condemning and then doing what you condemn.

And coming from someone that only wants to go by scripture, the sin nature passed through sperm? Where does scripture say that? And it`s all consistent with Augustine, his past sexual problems, and emphasis on the sin of lust. It also works with his Manichean/Gnostic religion as well (the body is evil) that many feel he never purged himself from. Not a word about any such think in Genesis in the account of what is called "the fall." Man loses immortality, loses fellowship with God, the ground and the serpent are cursed. Man is not cursed.

sounds like you are reading your pet theories into Augustines mind , and scripture , how do you account for the entire human race being sinful if sin isn't transferred from generation to generation ?

 

[cygnusx1]

On the other hand, Exodus 20:5 says, "I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me."

 

[Oye11]

don't judge by outside appearances , and try sticking on topic. ?

Stay off the cute "freewillism" pegorative and just maybe I`ll leave you alone for pushing Black Sabbath....

yes , what has that got to do with corporate sin? ?

Each has the guilt of their own sin, not their ancestors, as Exekeil 18-20 empatically states. Period. Take it up with brother Zeke....

now whose engaging in proof texting man you sure like doing the condemning and then doing what you condemn. ?

Absolutely! Prooftext I will in order to deliver the message I so often deliver, that Calvinism isn`t so in the bag as you think...

sounds like you are reading your pet theories into Augustines mind , and scripture , how do you account for the entire human race being sinful if sin isn't transferred from generation to generation ?

Sounds like Augustine may well have been reading his sexual perversions into scripture. Guy was a philosopher hombre. Just take any secular philosophy class and he`ll be on the menu. And as to your question, I don`t need an answer but figure I could come up with a theory as good as the sperm, the body is evil hypothesis, if I think about it enough....