What exactly happened in the fall?

[Guest]

This central event in several theological systems seems to receive little notice in scripture. A cursory examination shows ...

1. A passage in Hosea describing Adam as breaking his covenant with god.

2. A passage in Romans describing Adam's actions as introducing sin and death to mankind (and as describing Christ reversing those curses).

3. A passage in 1 Corinthians describing Adam actions as bringing death to all men (and as describing all men made alive in Christ).

What is the possibility that Adam was not changed in the fall, except for the experience and awareness of sin and the shame and conviction of guilt that came along with that awareness. He was subject to temptation before, he is subject to temptation afterward. The descendents of Adam share in the weakness of his flesh and inevitably sin.

What is the possibility that the sinful nature of man is the same on both sides of the fall. What changed is the environment. Before the fall, God placed Adam in an environment with only one temptation. Because of Adam's sin, God drove Adam (and his descendents) into a cursed world filled with temptations. What is the possibility that we do no inherit Adam's guilt? We only inherit the weakness of His flesh, and a cursed world filled with temptation to which we inevitably fall?

How many heresies have I advocated here?

[Guest]

How many heresies have I advocated here?

Depends on how many rabid fundamentalists read it. I believe that a lot of the theology surrounding this is based on an argument from silence. We see all the "bad" around us today and, knowing that God called the creation "good", paint a picture of life in the garden that the much rosier than the text portrays. We are not told that animals didn't die. We are not told life outside the garden was a utopia of perfection. We are not told that Adam laid around gazing at Eve and eating peeled grapes all day. I find the whole idea that suddenly, with the fall, that man had to work for the first time, that women were no longer going to have painless childbirth, that animals teeth and digestive systems were re-engineered so that they would become carnivorous, that new "cleanup" species were created to manage carcasses, and other such talk to be something read into the text and not from the text. I believe that God placed Adam in a pretty cool garden. He had to work to tend it. When he was expelled from that "environment" as you call it, he faced a whole different prospect. It could very well be that the reason that Adam now faced thorns is that God hadn't put any in the garden and Adam's tending it had kept them from coming in. It could be that they faced carnivorous animals outside the garden for the first time because none existed inside the garden. It could be that Eve would have had (or possibly already had) painful childbirth inside the garden, but it was going to be even worse outside the garden in much harsher surroundings. In short, I see a lot of spiritual and locational changes with the fall, and not as much physical changes in the creation.
D.

[_Steve]

[DJ posted while I was writing this response, so what follows is a response to Sam, not DJ]

Sam...

What you are suggesting is similar, in one sense, to what Pelagius taught. He believed that man is not born with a "sinful nature" but each person is born just like Adam, at the time of his creation--i.e., innocent and subject to temptations, but not necessarily predisposed to rebel against God.

There is not much to base the doctrine of original sin upon, other than the fact that all men, without exception (other than Jesus), sin. If there were not some element in human nature that is predisposed toward sin, it would be difficult to explain this universal phenomenon.

In Romans 7:14ff, Paul seems to bemoan the fact that, even though he desires in his mind to be obedient to God, yet he finds "a law" (a principle or a force) within his flesh that resists what his mind has chosen. This seems to speak of a mysterious element in human nature that is determined to sin, even when a man's rational powers are determined not to do so.

Of course, this does not prove that the "law" of sin is inside of man from birth. One might argue that, upon committing one's first act of sin, a person then becomes a slave to sin (as Adam apparently did), and is inclined that way forever thereafter.

The statement of scripture that comes closest to supporting the idea of people being born with a propensity to sin is Psalm 58:3: "The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies."

If one wished to refute the point, it could be pointed out that there surely is hyperbole in the statement, since no one really "speaks lies" the moment they are born! Also, the verse speaks only of "the wicked." It does not say that this is true of all men, including the "righteous"--a class which the Psalmist acknowledges as existing (v.10).

If a sin principle is indeed passed down from our first father to all his children (as I personally believe to be the case), it does raise the question of whether this is carried in the genes (and if so, which ones?), or whether it is a non-biological inheritance. If the latter, then it is a phenomenon unknown to science, unparalleled and unexplained anywhere in scripture. If such a strange thing is true, it is surprising that the scriptures would say nothing clearly about it.

I do believe in the inheritance of the sin-principle (meaning a propensity to self-gratification, rather than glorifying God), but I cannot prove it definitively. Many babies appear to be born surly, though others seem to be sweeter-natured. Nothing is proved by this observation, but it is an observation of interest.

In any case, it can hardly be a sticking-point among Christians as to whether people are born with a sin-nature or not. After all, it is our actual sins (not our nature) that bring condemnation--and we have all sinned since birth--making our state at birth a rather moot point.

It would seem only to be relevant to the case of infants who die at infancy. But then, if we believe in an age of accountability, even this case would render the question only academic, it seems.

[Guest]

SamIam,

You wrote:

What is the possibility that we do no inherit Adam's guilt?

See Ezekial 18. The Jews were essentially saying that very thing and (paraphrased) God said to knock it off!

And:

We only inherit the weakness of His flesh, and a cursed world filled with temptation to which we inevitably fall?

Kind of sums up what I believe the scriptures teach.

Which, to many, puts me among the heretics. Oh well, Jesus was regarded as a heretic too.

[Guest]

Why should we say more than "the flesh is weak" and "all men have sinned?" Isn't going beyond that merely speculation?

[Guest]

If a sin principle is indeed passed down from our first father to all his children (as I personally believe to be the case) ...

Steve,

Is this "sin principle" a characteristic Adam acquired by virtue of his fall? Is a "sinful nature" a punishment from God, applied to Adam (and his descendents) because Adam sinned? If so, where is that taught in scripture?

What is wrong with the position that Adam was created innocent, yet subject to temptation? In like manner his descendents are born innocent, yet subject to temptation, to which they inevitably fall. Perhaps inclination to sin is a characteristic we acquire as our hearts are hardened by the sins we commit? Since we all sin, we are all hardened, perhaps some more so than others. Since we are all hardened, we are all inclined to sin, perhaps some more so than others.

Thanks.

[_Steve]

Perhaps you are correct. I do not know how one view or the other impacts us practically.

[Guest]

Scripturally sin and death entered the world through Adam. (And I'm no rabid fundamentalist or any other kind of fundamentalist). However, I do tend to be a Biblical literalist except where the words are clearly figurative, as in the parables of Christ, or most of Revelation.

I believe that all people inherit a propensity to wrongdoing, and this propensity was biologically inherited from Adam. That this tendency is biologically inherited is not unusual. I am sure you have noticed that mental characteristics are inherited as well as physical. A boy may be similar to his father not only in appearance, but in mental characteristics. I suppose we could ascribe this similarity to environment, were it not for the fact that identical twins raised apart in dissimilar environments have exhibited similar behavioral patterns. This seems to be clear evidence that mental characteristics are indeed inherited.

I don't think everyone inherits the same sinful tendencies. Some seem to inherit a violent temper. Others don't. Some seem to inherit more tendency to sexual sin than others. Some seem to inherit a tendency to abuse alcohol. Others don't. But all of us inherit tendencies to sin in some respect.

Since death came into the world through sin (I understand this to be physical death), man became subject to death from the time Adam and Eve disobeyed the only commandment God gave them. When God said, "In the day that you eat from [the tree of knowledge] you shall surely die," He wasn't lying. He did not mean that they would be dead and gone on that day, but that the death principle would begin to take effect.
One the day you eat from it, you will surely die." The future "will" could be any time after the day they ate from it. In Adam's case, that was over 900 years later. The death principle was working in him all those years. From that day to this, the death principle has been working in every human being.

At first most people lived to their 900s. By Noah's time, it was about 500. Then down to 120. Finally, to what it is today.

I think man's mental characteristics as well as physical characteristics have degenerated. In the beginning man was healthier in both respects.

Not only was man changed, but changes took place in the animal world as well. At first, God gave man as well as every beast and bird green plants for food.


And God said, "Behold, I have given you [humanity] every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food. Genesis 1:30

But apparently man as well as some animals and birds began to devour certain animals and birds. The offspring of those animals and birds who did so, who were born or hatched with characteristics which better fitted them to do so, tended to survive and pass on these characteristics.

As a teenager, I wondered about mosquitoes. Surely God would not create these insects to irritate people and mammals, and suck the blood out of them. I thought that they also must have changed from the effects of the fall of man. I speculated that in the beginning, mosquitoes sucked the juices of plants in order to produce their young.

Ten or fifteen years later, I ran across some material in a science book describing an experiment in which mosquitoes were isolated so that they had no access to mammals. It was found that they sucked the juices of plants and produced their young just as readily! I thought this experiment supported my hypothesis.

[Guest]

What is wrong with the position that Adam was created innocent, yet subject to temptation? In like manner his descendents are born innocent, yet subject to temptation, to which they inevitably fall. Perhaps inclination to sin is a characteristic we acquire as our hearts are hardened by the sins we commit? Since we all sin, we are all hardened, perhaps some more so than others. Since we are all hardened, we are all inclined to sin, perhaps some more so than others.

Thanks.

I've never figured out why man has to be worse than Adam. I mean, if Adam was "perfect" or "innocent" but still sinned, then it stands to reason that all his offspring will also sin, no matter what kind of "nature" they have. Maybe it has something to do with us being from the dust of the earth.

[Guest]

I've never figured out why man has to be worse than Adam. I mean, if Adam was "perfect" or "innocent" but still sinned, then it stands to reason that all his offspring will also sin, no matter what kind of "nature" they have.

Adam was created with a free will. He could have sinned, or he could have refrained from sinning. He chose to sin, and so his offspring have inherited a tendency to sin.

But one man was born who is called the Second Adam. He could have sinned or He could have refrained from sinning. He chose not to sin, and so His offspring have not inherted a tendency to sin.

Hebrews 2:11-15 For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified have all one origin. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brethren,saying, "I will proclaim thy name to my brethren, in the midst of the congregation I will praise thee." And again, "I will put my trust in him." And again, "Here am I, and the children God has given me."

Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same nature, that through death he might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage.