On 'Original Sin'

[darinhouston]

Speaking of Eve. It's at least worth noting that it was Eve who committed the "original" sin. Could we not say: The first Adam responded wrongly to her Sin and His response condemned the world from that sin, removing us from the perfect Creation and union with God. The second Adam responded rightly and His response saved the world from its sins, ultimately restoring the perfect creation and reuniting us with God.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jaydam]

If Adam would have refused to cave to sin, after Eve had already sinned and eaten of the apple?

In that case, woman has sinned, but man has not.

Would that consideration have an impact on the conception if original sin?

Because, while Adam is blamed for sin entering the world, Darin is right that Eve really committed the first sin.

What if Adam had never sinned, but Eve already had?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Paidion]

Faith, although something we do, is not a good work because by definition it is trusting in someone else's good work on your behalf (not according to works, as Rom 4 says).

Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?”
Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” (John 6:28,29)

Jesus said that having faith in Him is tantamount to doing the work of God. Is that work of God not a GOOD work?

[Singalphile]

Thanks for the notes and thoughts.

These statements all seem pretty obvious to me (though Augustine of Hippo might have disagreed):

1. A baby/infant/fetus has not committed any sinful or righteous act.
2. A baby is not "born again", walking in the Spirit, etc.
3. A baby who dies isn't going to be eternally kept alive in order to suffer.
4. Everyone sins, out of selfish, "fleshly" interests, before long.

Other than that, this paraphrased quote seems fitting:
"You want an explanation? I just gave you six, all reasonable. You want the answer? Pick one. It won't change anything." ~ from an interesting movie (so far) called "Interstate 60" that I just happened to have on (and I've only watched the first 45 minutes).

[darinhouston]

Steve, was this lecture recorded?

[dizerner]

Faith, although something we do, is not a good work because by definition it is trusting in someone else's good work on your behalf (not according to works, as Rom 4 says).

Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?”
Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” (John 6:28,29)

Jesus said that having faith in Him is tantamount to doing the work of God. Is that work of God not a GOOD work?

It is not a meritorious work, but a work of faith is a good thing in the general sense that it allows the goodness of God's grace to work in our lives. By believing into Christ, while the light was still with them, those Jews would become children of the light (new creatures, born again), and would no longer be what they were, children of darkness and slaves of Satan. Surprisingly to some, Christ was as heavy on original sin as Paul was in Romans 7, when carefully read. He attributed their rejection of him to the fact, not that they did not feed enough widows, but their spiritual essence and origin were connected to the wrong source. Truly good or evil deeds can only be generated sincerely by a spiritual connection to the source of good or evil, Christ or anti-Christ.

[dizerner]

I have a separate question for you as well.

If 'original sin' (as defined by Augustine, passed on genetically by Adam) is so important for establishing our utter need for a Savior... is Eve off the hook?

Matt you know they both ate of the knowledge of good and evil, and you know God said the day they did that they would die. Now if you insist that dying is just a physical dying of the body, I think a lot of Scriptures become meaningless and contradictory. If you are born into a cursed world, physical death is a rest and a blessing, not a curse, and indeed even wicked people often saw it that way.

Now a careful reading of Romans 5-7 shows that all humans who were ever going to be born were in Adam when he sinned, just as truly as believers are in Christ. Now logically, if all humans are in Adam and Eve when they sinned, and Adam and Eve died when they sinned, then all humans died when Adam and Eve sinned.

Look at how this principle is described in Hebrews:

9 In addition, we might even say that these Levites—the ones who collect the tithe—paid a tithe to Melchizedek when their ancestor Abraham paid a tithe to him. 10 For although Levi wasn’t born yet, the seed from which he came was in Abraham’s body when Melchizedek collected the tithe from him.

The main argument against original sin that I see is one emotionally based, and not Scripturally based. People have a strong desire for God to be just, but the way they emotionally feel justice should be, so if they consider original sin to make any victims anywhere, they will see God as unjust. In other words, somehow a baby seems to them so emotionally pure and innocent that they then will make a judgment based on their emotions. Consider the fact that most people don't see their little sins as that bad, that they would need God to come and be crucified for those sins. Most people probably didn't rape or murder, maybe a little lie here or there and stealing a candy bar once. Yet for our sins, whatever they may be, Christ had to die. Now if we can't truly judge how heinous our sin is in the eyes of God, how do we think we can emotionally accurately judge the doctrine of original sin? If we "close our emotional eyes" and look solely to the Word of God for guidance, we get a very clear picture of original sin, in my opinion. Most objections against it seem to stem from some emotional offense to the idea that it is unjust for one person's sin to affect another person so deeply. I feel this offense keenly as well. So I don't think Biblically, righteousness is painted as a works righteousness, in fact there is some very, very strong passages that indicate grace alone will produce righteousness. The reason I connect works righteousness with original sin, which I had imagined would be obvious, is it seems to be the main reason people reject original sin: they want everyone to stand or fall by their own sins alone, like it says in Ezekiel, that every man will only pay for his own sins.

[willowtree]

If Adam would have refused to cave to sin, after Eve had already sinned and eaten of the apple?

In that case, woman has sinned, but man has not.

Would that consideration have an impact on the conception if original sin?

Because, while Adam is blamed for sin entering the world, Darin is right that Eve really committed the first sin.

What if Adam had never sinned, but Eve already had?

My reading of the temptation story seems to indicate quite a difference between the responses of Eve and Adam.

The discussion between Eve and the serpent centered around the quality of the fruit, how good it looked, how beneficial it was to eat it, and inspired a desire to eat it. What began as a question of what God required was quickly turned to the merits of eating the fruit alone.

The story does not suggest much time elapsed between Eve's tasting the fruit and Adam's eating it as well - "She also gave some to her husband , who was with her, and he ate it. (Gen: 3:6).

I consider there was enough time however, for Adam to process some of these thoughts.

- Eve has eaten of this fruit, and God said she would die if she did so, but since she has not dropped dead yet, the problem in God's instruction is not due to the fruit being laced with poison, but that he has simply declared that eating the fruit is entirely an act of disobedience. The problem is not in the apple, but in what God requires.
(The fruit was not prohibited because it was poisonous; it was poisonous because it was prohibited).

- Now, I, Adam, have a significant problem. Eating this apple is not simply an act of obedience/disobedience, but becomes also an expression of allegiance. If I eat the fruit, I will be offering my allegiance to Eve over God, and If I do not eat it, I will be separating myself from Eve (the most beautiful woman in the world) and perhaps destroying my marriage.

That there is some substance to this is found in verse 17 where God spells it out for Adam. "
To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the fruit of the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it''... Regardless of what Eve did, God surely expected Adam not to eat of the fruit, even though the consequences for doing so would have torn his life apart. The result of Adam's sin was much more than simple disobedience (as Eve's was), but was also an expression of his rejection of God's lordship.

After Eve had eaten the fruit, Adam was placed in a very difficult, if not impossible position.

(This all looks forward the work of Christ on the cross, who not only forgives us from our sins, but also insists that we make him Lord of our lives in obedience to him. Both are necessary for our redemption).

[Paidion]

Why are you guys talking about Adam and Eve eating an apple? If it was merely eating an apple, hadn't we better all avoid apples in our diets?
However, it wasn't an apple that they ate. It was the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Even that wasn't intrinsically wrong. Indeed, why had God placed that tree in the garden? My view was that He intended them to eventually eat from it. But there was an order. First they were to eat from the tree of life. Then they would have reached a maturity where they could have eaten from the tree of knowledge without becoming subject to death from it. But that old serpent, the devil, got them to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil FIRST. Isn't that how he usually operates? He gets people to do good thing, but in the wrong way or wrong order. Nearly every evil is but a twisted good.

[Singalphile]

However, it wasn't an apple that they ate. It was the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Even that wasn't intrinsically wrong. Indeed, why had God placed that tree in the garden? My view was that He intended them to eventually eat from it. But there was an order. First they were to eat from the tree of life. Then they would have reached a maturity where they could have eaten from the tree of knowledge without becoming subject to death from it. But that old serpent, the devil, got them to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil FIRST. Isn't that how he usually operates? He gets people to do good thing, but in the wrong way or wrong order. Nearly every evil is but a twisted good.

I can't say you're wrong, but I don't understand why you have that view ... unless it's just that any theory is better than no theory.

I read through the thread again. I'm very much in agreement with mattrose.

I think we all agree that ...

1) We are all affected by the sin and death brought into the world because of Adam, for all now sin and die and are affected in other negative ways, along with nature itself, (Gen 3:16-24, 1 Cor 15:21-22, Rom 5) and ...

2) Anyone who denies that he or she has sinned (1 John 1:8) is a liar or self-deceived, and that ...

3) Only through the Father, Son, and Spirit is anyone ever rescued, cleansed, forgiven, reconciled to God, able to overcome fleshly desires, etc. (Col 1:9-20, Gal 5:16, etc.).

If all that is what someone wants to call "original sin", then, fine. But the idea of inherited guilt (i.e., our collective guilt for Adam/Eve's sin) seems extraneous (at best). It adds nothing useful that I can see. I can see the infant baptism angle, but other than that ... it's just strange.

Incidentally, the point of Hebrews 7:4-10 is that the order of Melchizedek, with whom Jesus is likened, is greater than the Levitical priesthood. The argument is that Abraham, the great patriarch, tithed to Melchizedek. In the side reference to Levi, the writer's introductory "so to speak" gives evidence that the author was not saying that Levi (Abraham's great grandchild) was actually, literally responsible for tithing to Melchizedek.