Bible verses to show we confirm Adam's sin by ours?

Alex_Smith · March 9, 2018, 1:55am

Anyone??

Alex_Smith · March 9, 2018, 1:55am

awakeningaletheia · March 9, 2018, 1:55am

The doctrine of Original Sin shows a sad lack of wisdom. We are so brainwashed in the Protestant system, we think that there is only one way to interpret things, such as Penal Substitution and Original Sin.

“The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.”

Sounds pretty straightford to me, wickedness pretty much covers all sins doesn’t it? I see no reason to believe Ezekiel is talking about particular sins, sure he lists certain things in the previous verses, but wickedness is wickedness no need to limit it. Any good court of justice will see things the way that God sees in these verses. If my father murders someone why would I ever be held responsible for his crime? If the court condemned me it would be an injustice.

It won’t lead to a works based gospel since ‘all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God’. We all have enough sin of our own to be condemned with, we don’t need Adams.

AllanS · March 9, 2018, 1:55am

Since Adam is as mythical as the sky of crystal and the primaeval sea that lies above it, our historical inheritance of Adam’s sin is a non-question. Do we really need convincing that we are born with a tendency to sin?

Alex_Smith · March 9, 2018, 1:55am

Thanks awakeningaletheia. I really enjoyed reading all of Ez 18

Check out verse 32!!!

I totally agree.

I don’t think that would’ve helped Luke.

Humans can be very arrogant at times, I’ve come across people who seem to think they have never sinned, let alone have a tendency to!

sturmy · March 9, 2018, 1:55am

As I see it-
I sin because I’m a sinner; the one extends from the other (I’m not a sinner because I sin).
I’m a sinner due to a fallen nature inherited as the offspring of Adam. That doesn’t mean I inherit the guilt of Adam’s sin. Original sin doesn’t have to imply collective guilt.
Paul says that we have all been confined under sin- so that God can have mercy on all, and ‘As in Adam all die so in Christ all will be made alive.’
I didn’t ask to be born a sinner nor have I asked for the provision of salvation.

Luke Wrote:

I tend to think that if one doesn’t believe in Original sin (at least as I described it above) then indeed the implication is that it might be possible for a person to live a sinless life (other than Christ- who arguably wasn’t tainted with original sin). Hope this isn’t opening a can of worms! This could lead to a ‘works based gospel’.

S

Gem · March 9, 2018, 1:55am

When Adam sinned, death came.
The very DNA which was passed on changed.
Only Jesus did not inherit that DNA.
He was “the second Adam”
He was uniquely conceived.
Unlike the direction the first Adam took, He was “without sin”
Would He have lived forever, had he not CHOSEN to lay down His life (John 10:18)?

Romans 3:
For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, 10as it is written:
"None is righteous, no, not one;
11no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one."
13 “Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive.”
“The venom of asps is under their lips.”
14 “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16in their paths are ruin and misery,
17and the way of peace they have not known.”
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

And of course, there’s the proof text of David’s declaration of his sin from conception as I was tutored in original sin in my Roman Catholic childhood. Jesus, born of the Virgin Mary being the only exception to this rule:

Gem · March 9, 2018, 1:55am

Now that we know about DNA, we can take “sex” off the table as the root of original sin.
In our DNA we are “programmed” to die.
DNA is transferred at conception
All sin is said to be reckoned and inherited “through Adam” but Eve was promised a “seed” (Gen 3:15).
And Jesus was born of a Virgin.

http://hupotasso.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/adam_eve6aa.jpg

We are instructed that we must be “born again not of perishable seed but imperishable”
Could we say that we get a “dna transplant”?
The dna of Adam is replaced with the dna of the second Adam?

TotalVictory · March 9, 2018, 1:55am

Alex:

Not sure any of this will help but here are a few thoughts I’ve had over the years. And by the way, I’ve found this to be one of the very most vexing problems in Christian theology… Here goes…

Much as I don’t like it, there seems to be a dualism at work here; a dichotomy of sorts. For it seems sin has two parts and two meanings…
A) those innate tendencies, proclivities, what we’ve taken to calling our sinful “nature” – this is the “part” that we are said to have inherited from Adam
– and –
B) those specific acts which we’ve got awareness of and reason NOT to do, but which we do anyway… Maybe we can call this “chosen” or “cultivated” or “harbored” sin.

When Paul calls himself “chief of sinners” he surely can’t mean in the sense of “B” can he? Therefore it seems “A” makes better sense. And when we are called to battle sin, run the race, remain true, and all those sorts of things, This surely must be talking about “B” right?

Problem: I’m obviously not responsible for “A” – my nature, and just as obviously I am held (as I’m seeing it) accountable for “B”…

But I can’t get too comfortable with the above idea because of the fact that when giving the list of specific sacrifices for specific sins in the OT, there was explicitly NO possible sacrifice for intentional sins! – So does that mean the only kind of sin which matters is the one which stems from our very nature; a nature we had nothing whatsoever to do with in acquiring??
Yet another problem enters the picture in Romans 11:32 “For God has shut up ALL in disobedience so that He may show mercy to ALL.” – yet none of us ever argue that this offers us some kind of excuse to misbehave!!
Why on earth would God call us to “be ye perfect…”? if perfection looms as impossible given that “A” reigns within us? Add to this the idea that in the Hebrew, one definition of sin is “missing the mark”… So is that “mark” measured in terms of Doctrinal correctness? – or in terms of behavioral diligence?

What does God really want from us and our worship?
Is it measured in Doctrinal terms, or in Behavioral terms??

5 things according to ===>
Deuteronomy 10:12-13 NIV And now, Israel, what does the LORD your God ask of you but to (1)fear the LORD your God, to (2)walk in obedience to him, to (3)love him, to (4)serve the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, 13 and to (5)observe the LORD’s commands and decrees that I am giving you today for your own good?

3 things according to ===>
Micah 6:6-8 With what shall I come before the LORD and bow down before the exalted God? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousand rivers of olive oil? Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To (1)act justly and to (2)love mercy and to (3)walk humbly with your God.

11 things according to ===>
Psalm 15 (NIV)
1 LORD, who may dwell in your sacred tent? Who may live on your holy mountain?
2 The one whose (1)walk is blameless, who (2)does what is righteous, who (3)speaks the truth from their heart;
3 whose tongue (4)utters no slander, who (5)does no wrong to a neighbor, and (6)casts no slur on others; 4 who (7)despises a vile person but (8)honors those who fear the LORD; who (9)keeps an oath even when it hurts, and does not change their mind; 5 who (10)lends money to the poor without interest; who (11)does not accept a bribe against the innocent. Whoever does these things will never be shaken.

6 things according to ===>
Isaiah 33:15 (NIV)
Those who (1)walk righteously and (2)speak what is right, who (3)reject gain from extortion and (4)keep their hands from accepting bribes, who (5)stop their ears against plots of murder and (6)shut their eyes against contemplating evil

One can wonder why God would beseech us to behave in these transformative ways if it’s not even in our power to do so…

It seems that ALL of us operate in an environment which Paul describes as seeing through a glass darkly (1Cor13:12
(Eugene Peterson’s The Message puts it this way-- We don’t yet see things clearly. We’re squinting in a fog, peering through a mist. ) yet no one offers this as an excuse to sin! Is seeing through a glass darkly sin? – or is it simply a way of conveying the reality of our distortions of perception which became a part of us via Adams sin?
The problem with saying our sins are a result of our nature and of the “dark glass” is that we might be tempted to just give up and not try! And yet we know as well that it is NOT our “trying” that gets us there, but is the grace of God alone! (Romans 9:16)
None of this is to be taken to mean that sin doesn’t matter; that it is unimportant. Paul talks about the law coming to be our tutor; tutor whose job was to bring us to Christ! So we are to live with the dual awareness of sins presence and its reality AND we are to live in the truth that God, in Christ, has made a way out. So take it seriously, but also have hope and courage!
If sin “came” from Adam, or the Devil, is not so much the issue. Christian confession demands an awareness that sin dwells “in here” – not “out there”. It is I who needs to be fixed, made whole, healed, transformed, changed.

Just a few thoughts…

Bobx3

Aaron · March 9, 2018, 1:55am

I don’t really have a problem with the idea that we “confirm Adam’s sin by ours” (and thus incur the same penalty he experienced when he sinned), as this seems to be taught in Rom 5:12-19. But assuming Adam is a historical rather than a mythical person, I don’t see it revealed that we are born with and “inherit” a nature any different from the nature with which he was created by God.

dirtboy · March 9, 2018, 1:55am

I recently read this article from this site and it deals with this topic:
biblicaluniversalism.com/The … Saved2.htm

Posting 11 EVANGELICAL INCLUSIVISM IN THE CHRISTIAN REFORMED CHURCH

       In 1977 Dr. Harry Boer submitted a serious charge against the teachings of the creeds of the Christian Reformed Church. Boer said that “The heart, the soul, the essence, the sine qua non” of his complaint was that the Canons of Dort teach that "a segment of mankind . . . is consigned to everlasting damnation before they ever come into being” (p. 497*).

       Boer's complaint was a well-structured summary of an objection that has been raised against Calvinism for hundreds of years. An historic formulation of this complaint is that Calvinists teach that God at times consigns infants "only a span long" to everlasting damnation. Because this charge has often been alleged against Calvinism, a committee of well-qualified theologians and philosophers was appointed to study Boer's complaint. After three years of study they submitted their report (Report 30) to the 1980 Synod of the Christian Reformed Church.

REPORT 30

       Whatever else Report 30 (pp. 486 – 558*) may or may not say, it gives a resounding “NO” to the notion the Canons of Dort teach that a "segment of mankind . . . is consigned to everlasting damnation before they ever came into being." The very first ground for rejecting Boer's complaint states: "The Canons of Dort do not teach . . . ‘that God has consigned certain human beings to damnation apart from any merit or demerit on their part’" (p. 76*, emphasis added). This is a direct refutation of Boer’s complaint.

       What did Synod 1980 intend by the phrase "apart from any merit or demerit on their part”? This phrase cannot refer to the "merit or demerit" attributable to the whole human race by their identification with the first Adam. If there are persons who are consigned to damnation solely on the basis of their original sin in Adam (inherited sin), then Boer's complaint is valid. A "segment of mankind . . . . is consigned to everlasting damnation before they ever came into being."

THE LIGHT SHED BY REPORT 30

      The following quotations from Report 30 tell us what “merit or demerit on their part” refers to. The basis or cause of consignment to hell is said to be:

—Man’s “sin” (pp. 516*, 517*)“Sin and unbelief” (seven times, pp. 516*, 517*, 522*, 548* [twice], 553*, and 554*)

—“God consigns to destruction only on the basis of what that person does and whatever evil actions that person performs” (p. 521*)

— “So can we say that God rejects only those who reject him? Most emphatically we can” (p. 521*)

— “Damnation is a response to the evil the ‘reprobates’ do” (p. 522*)

— “They themselves are the agents of unbelief” (p. 530*) [An agent is one who acts for himself or for another person.]

—“God condemns to destruction only those who do, in fact, sin and exhibit unbelief” (p. 530*)

— “Human beings are condemned only on the basis of what they actually do in history” (p. 530*)

— “Those not selected have disqualified themselves through their sins” (p. 537*)

— “The condition of the non-elect results from their unbelief” (p. 538*)

—"Condemnation, however, is to be found solely in the persistent unbelief and sin of those so condemned.

      These quotations from Report 30 establish beyond all doubt that “merit or demerit on their part” refers to the “willful, persistent sin” committed by the person consigned “to damnation.” No one is consigned to damnation APART FROM such individual, willful, persistent sin.

      [Note: This study committee had access to Chapter IV of

      my book Unconditional Good News (pp. 24-26), in which

      one finds all the texts referred to in the above quotations

      that indicate that God never consigns anyone to eternal

      death “apart from” work which the person so consigned

      has either done or left undone. This fact undoubtedly

      accounts for the similarity of the conclusion reached by

      Report 30 and my book.] 

         The entire Report was referred "to the churches for elucidation of the teaching of the Canons on election and reprobation. —adopted" (p. 76*). What the Christian Reformed Church confesses relating to "the teachings of the Canons on election and reprobation" is to be understood in the light that is shed by Report 30.

          I consider it providential that my book, Unconditional Good News (Eerdmans, 1980), appeared in print the very same week that Report 30 was referred “to the churches for elucidation of the teaching of the Canons on election and reprobation.” The quotations from Report 30 (above) clearly show that Report 30 and my book both reach the same conclusion, that “No one will be finally lost apart from individual, willful, persistent sin on the part of the person consigned to eternal death.”

A GOOD AND NECESSARY IMPLICATION OF REPORT 30

      I had been studying this subject for 16 years in preparation for the publication of my book when Report 30 appeared in the Agenda for Synod 1980. Therefore I instantly recognized what Report 30 was saying and the many good and necessary implications that follow from the report’s conclusion. This conclusion directly refuted Boer’s complaint that a "segment of mankind . . . is consigned to everlasting damnation before they ever came into being.”

      Boer’s complaint and Report 30’s conclusion cannot both be true. By referring the entire report "to the churches for elucidation of the teaching of the Canons on election and reprobation,” Synod essentially told Dr. Boer that he had misconstrued the teaching of the Canons of Dort.

      I seriously doubted that either the committee members who wrote Report 30 or the synodical delegates recognized the many good and necessary (unavoidable) implications that flow directly from the conclusion of Report 30.

      If "God consigns to destruction only on the basis of what that person does and whatever evil actions that person performs" (p. 521*) and the many other similar statements found in Report 30 are valid, then the most obvious implication of Report 30 is that no one dying in infancy would be “consigned to destruction.” The salvation of all who die in infancy had never before been the teaching of the Christian Reformed Church.

          Therefore, I wrote an “overture” that was adopted by Classis Chicago South and was sent to Synod 1980 (Overture 23, Acts of Synod 1980, pp. 592–594*). The overture alerted Synod 1980 to the fact that if they would adopt Report 30’s understanding “of the teaching of the Canons on election and reprobation” then “the church will, for the first time, accept the doctrine of the salvation of all who die in infancy” (p. 593*)

      In addition to writing Overture 23, I sent a letter to each of the Study Committee members pointing to what I called an "ambiguity" in their report. I used the word "ambiguity" in deference to the scholarship of the committee members. I did not want to tell them point blank that there was a good and necessary implication in their report that they had not considered. I received the following response from Dr. Nicholas Wolterstorff (a member of the study committee). Notice it is dated June 9, 1980, a day when Synod 1980 was still in session. I have Wolterstorff's permission to make this letter public.

                                   Calvin College
                                         EST. 1876

       June 9, 1980
       The Rev. Neal Punt
       Christian Reformed Church of Evergreen Park
       9547 S. Homan Ave.
       Evergreen Park, IL 60642

       Dear Rev. Punt,

           The ethics pertaining to individual members of a synodical study

       committee are not very clear to me. Perhaps they aren't very clear

       to anyone! But I trust that I'm not going outside the bounds of

      those ethics in composing this response, purely as an individual

      and without talking to my committee members, to your

      ommunication sent to our study committee.

           In working on the report with the committee, and in composing

     part of the repormyself, I throughout worked with the conviction

     that the Canons teach that it is only on the basis of actual individual

     sin that a person is condemned, not on the basis of original sin. You

     are quite right to read the report along those lines. This clearly

     does have the implication concerning the salvation of infants that

     you point out. Obvious as it is however, once it is pointed out, I

     didn't notice this implication, nor do I remember any committee

     member pointing it out.


           In the quotations you give from some of your own theological

     work, you make some interesting suggestions about the difference

     between "being under the sentence of death" and "the actual

     implementation of that sentence." Those are suggestions that I

     hope our community reflects on in the coming years.

           So I guess I would have said about our report not that it has an

     “ambiguity” in it, but rather that it has an important implication that

      the committee has not reflected on. But I do think that on the most

      charitable, and not implausible, reading of Dordt, all they meant by

      "passing some by in electing" is electing not all. I would myself

      prefer putting the situation your way, “All persons are elect in

      Christ except those who the Bible declares will be lost." But

      Dordt's phraseology is, in my judgment, at least compatible with

      that.

            Let me add my Thank You for the seriousness with which you

      have taken the committee's work, and the good spirit in which you

      have raised some important questions about it. And let me do what

      I can to encourage you to think through some of these issues, and

      publish them for consideration by the church.

            With all best wishes, (signed) Nicholas Wolterstorff



           REPORT 30 WAS CONFIRMED BY SYNOD 1981

       The decision of Synod 1980 was appealed to Synod 1981. As a delegate to Synod 1981, I called attention to Overture 23 that was sent to Synod 1980. I also read Dr. Wolterstorff's letter on the floor of Synod 1981. Thus the delegates to both of these synods knew, or should have known, what light Report 30 shed on "the teaching of the Canons on election and reprobation." Synod 1980 adopted and Synod 1981 confirmed Report 30 as an "elucidation of the teaching of the Canons on election and reprobation” thereby necessarily teaching, among other things, that all who die in infancy are saved.

       This elucidation confirms that, "Condemnation [consignment to hell] is to be found solely in the persistent unbelief and sin of those so condemned" (p. 553*). This is, consequently, the synodically approved understanding “of the teaching of the Canons on election and reprobation” (p. 76*).



       This understanding “of the teaching of the Canons” is the premise of Evangelical Inclusivism, namely, that “All persons will be saved except those who the Bible declares will be finally lost.” Therefore I can and do say that this is the perspective of the Christian Reformed Church on the doctrine of “election and reprobation.”

      The report that Synod 1980 referred to the churches and the premise of Evangelical Inclusivism do not constitute a change in or a revision of the creeds of the church. They are a clarification of what the Canons of Dort mean. They are “an elucidation of the teaching of the Canons on election and reprobation.” Neither Report 30 nor Evangelical Inclusivism impinge in the least bit upon any of the doctrines represented in the acronym TULIP: Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Preservation of the Saints.

      As members of the Christian Reformed Church, we can rejoice in and work out all the good and necessary implications of Evangelical Inclusivism. That is, that no one is ever sent to Hell solely on the basis of their sin in Adam, apart from willful, personal, and final rejection of or indifference to the revelation God has given of himself to him or her. This is the synodically approved "teaching of the Canons on election and reprobation.” From this we can conclude that “All the others will be in heaven.”

Page references are to the 1980 Acts of Synod of The Christian Reformed Church.

firedup2000 · April 9, 2018, 4:29pm

Interesting discussion It deals with many of the points I raise in what has become a critique John MacArthur’s book, Safe in the Arms of God at Safe in The Arms of MacArthur?. The books explains his view of the universal salvation of people who die as children but ends up having profound implications for Evangelical Universalism. And it all revolves around the doctrine of original sin and salvation.

Alex_Smith · March 9, 2018, 1:55am

Thanks everyone for your input, it’s certainly more complex than I expected!

I’ve just joined a Christian Reformed Church, so I must read and ponder that article!

Gem · March 9, 2018, 1:55am

Adam was created “in the image of God”

Then Genesis 3 happened. Death entered.

And when they had a son, he was in ADAM’s likeness

*“And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth.” Gen 5:3
*
Jesus came to restore “the image of God” which was lost in the Garden.

*9 Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds, 10 and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him, Col 3:9-10

14As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, 15but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, 16since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.” 17And if you call on him as Father who judges impartially according to each one’s deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile, 18knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, 19but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. 1 Pet 1:14-18

TotalVictory · April 9, 2018, 4:29pm

Hi Aaron:
In saying this, am I to hear you suggesting that the entire Doctrine of original sin (history, formulation etc etc) is without merit and has no biblical basis?
If so, that’s very intriguing to me and I wonder if you’d be willing to expand a bit?

While I do have my own quarrels with the doctrine, I do think it’s a reasonable theory given that the biblical narrative seems to posit a state, if not of “perfection” then certainly at minimal a “neutral” one. Then something happened, a “something” from which we need redemption (or release or recreation or salvation etc etc). And that ‘something” unquestionably applies to all.

For example It’s not hard to see this progression from Good to Bad to Redeemed/Reconciled in the narrative sequence of Colossians 1:15-20. That it was “good” clearly is inferred from the source of it’s origins; God HImself, through Christ. That it became “bad” (the fall?) can reasonably be inferred from the fact that it needed to be reconciled. So I don’t think it’s a difficult thing at all to place the biblical narratives on to this basic “theological grid” as MacDonald puts it in his discussion of Colossians 1 on page 41 of his book “THE EVANGELICAL UNIVERSALIST”. And since everyone is in the exact “same boat” as it were (ie none are immune from this “fall”) it seems reasonable indeed to speak as if we have all simply inherited this “nature” from Adam because of his first sin.

So I’m curious as to what you mean Aaron.

Now I have entertained for some time the possibility that the Adam and Eve story can be taken as a metaphor in that we are all born in the likeness of Adam and Eve in important ways. Our initial “goodness” is more of an uninformed innocence in that we do not yet have any “knowledge of good and evil”. (Tom Talbott speaks briefly to this idea in the thread “Mustn’t Adam be one literal man?”)
[Mustn't Adam be one literal man??)

And our created goodness is also seen in our potential to grow into the likeness and image of God. That path however inevitably gets diverted (that’s just part of the learning/growing process; the process of providing context to all our future choices and decisions) and the reality is that all are bound in this dynamic. (ie Romans 11:32) In this way we not so much inherit Adam’s sin as we do simply follow in the same path he does as a human.

At any rate, that theory is not perfect to be sure.
But I am curious as to what you mean Aaron!!

Thanks,

Bobx3

Aaron · April 9, 2018, 4:29pm

Hi Gem,

You wrote:

I just don’t see any indication from Scripture that the death which Adam experienced on the day he sinned changed his nature. Sinning is, I believe, a violation of our conscience and thus contrary to our moral nature, but it does not change our nature or alter our DNA. Nor do I read that Adam lost the divine image/likeness in which he was created when he sinned. I believe the divine image/likeness is a capacity with which we were created (and which all other animals lack), and that this capacity was fully realized by Christ. This capacity which defines us as God’s image-bearers can certainly fail to be fully realized for a period of time (as I believe is the case with all who are not yet sinless as Christ is), but it is not something that can be lost without our ceasing to be human. The apostle James lived long after Adam, and he seemed to believe that human beings even in his day still possessed the same divine likeness in which Adam was created (James 3:9).

I don’t see anything in these words suggesting that Seth was any less in the image and likeness of God as Adam was when he was created. To say that Adam begot a son in his own likeness is, I believe, simply to say that the nature with which Adam was created by God - and by which he was defined as a human being - was passed on to his posterity. The image and likeness in which God created Adam defined and belonged to Adam, and was thus his to “transfer.” I believe Seth - like all children - was born just as innocent as Adam was when he was created, and possessed the same original human nature and capacity to be like God. And if Seth had been born before Adam sinned I believe it could still be said that Adam “begot a son in his own likeness and after his image.”

I don’t think these verses either say or imply that Adam lost the divine image in which he was created. He failed to fully realize his potential as an image-bearer, yes, but he didn’t lose anything with which he was created. He was, I believe, just as much made in God’s likeness after he sinned as he was made in God’s likeness before he sinned. His nature as a human being didn’t change and his DNA wasn’t altered. Again, I believe the divine image/likeness is our created capacity as persons (as opposed to mere animals) to be like our Father in heaven. When we begin to resemble God more closely in character the capacity with which we were created can be said to be more fully realized. Whereas I believe all human beings are children of God by virtue of being created as persons, when we begin to resemble God in character we become his children (and God becomes our Father) in a fuller and more realized sense (Mt. 5:44-45, 48). For more on my understanding of the “Fatherhood of God,” you can check out the following post: The Universal Fatherhood of God

So basically I understand the new identity to which Paul refers when he speaks of the “new man” to be not the result of a “DNA transplant” (as you’ve said earlier in this thread) but rather as a result of the capacity with which we were created being more fully realized, and which we posses by virtue of being human. One has put on the “new man” when one has begun to not only be a child of God by virtue of being made in God’s image and likeness but to actually think as God thinks and be guided by the same desires, motives and values as God is.

Again, there is nothing said in this passage about Adam losing the divine image/likeness in which he was created, or of anyone inheriting anything from Adam with which he wasn’t created. Those to whom Peter wrote didn’t inherit an image-less nature from Adam but rather the “futile ways” of their “forefathers” (on the expression translated “futile ways” commentator Adam Clarke notes, “Empty, foolish, and unprofitable conduct, full of vain hopes, vain fears, and vain wishes”). Peter is, I believe, talking about unrighteous behavior and conduct which they are said to “inherit” from their forefathers because they were living like their forefathers lived and imitating them. Peter is talking to 1st generation Christians who, before coming to Christ, lived the way they did because they were brought up and entrenched in the beliefs and ways of their forefathers. Those whose parents and grandparents and great-grandparents were Muslim or Hindu - and who were thus raised Muslim or Hindu and grow up practicing Islam or Hinduism - can, in the same sense, be said to have “inherited” their beliefs and ways from their forefathers.

But even if one believes that Peter was speaking of something genetically inherited, I would simply argue that Adam was created with the same “fleshly” inclinations or disposition possessed by all of his descendents. Adam certainly didn’t need a genetically altered or “fallen” nature in order to so easily yield to temptation and violate God’s law, and neither do his descendents. And if Adam had been created not just innocent (as all newborn children are) but just as morally perfect as Christ is, I think he would’ve been just as unlikely to sin as Christ was and is (and I believe there is zero probability that Christ will ever sin).

Aaron · March 9, 2018, 1:55am

Hi Bob,

You wrote:

I do believe Adam lost his innocence when he sinned, but I think the same thing happens to every human being when they first sin. I don’t see it revealed that Adam’s nature was altered by his sin any more than the nature of any other human being is altered by their sin. I believe infants are born with and “inherit” the same nature with which Adam was created, and that Adam was created with the same potential and inclination to yield to temptation as is possessed by every one of his descendents. Just as Adam didn’t need a “fallen nature” in order for him to so easily yield to temptation, neither do we.

For example It’s not hard to see this progression from Good to Bad to Redeemed/Reconciled in the narrative sequence of Colossians 1:15-20. That it was “good” clearly is inferred from the source of it’s origins; God HImself, through Christ. That it became “bad” (the fall?) can reasonably be inferred from the fact that it needed to be reconciled. So I don’t think it’s a difficult thing at all to place the biblical narratives on to this basic “theological grid” as MacDonald puts it in his discussion of Colossians 1 on page 41 of his book “THE EVANGELICAL UNIVERSALIST”. And since everyone is in the exact “same boat” as it were (ie none are immune from this “fall”) it seems reasonable indeed to speak as if we have all simply inherited this “nature” from Adam because of his first sin.

I believe God pronounced his finished creation “very good” because it was perfectly suited for God’s purpose, not because it was perfect in every conceivable way, or because human beings were created just as morally mature as Christ is. I do believe Adam began his existence in a state of innocence, but again, I think the same can be said for every newborn child. There is no indication that Adam began his existence in a state of moral maturity and subsequently fell from this perfect state. So I don’t think God’s creation ever ceased to be “very good,” even after Adam sinned. I believe God has always intended to reconcile (and by the word translated “reconcile” in Scripture I understand to be meant God’s putting an end to our hostility so that we coexist in a harmonious relationship) sinful human beings to himself, and that God created Adam in such a way that his sin in the garden was inevitable, and that both he and his descendents would be in need of redemption by Christ.

I think the last three words above are key: “…as a human.” While Adam was created innocent, I believe he was still created by God with the same “weakness” that we see exemplified in the life of every human being. This “weakness” is a part of being human (at least, in this mortal state of existence!), and I believe requires divine influence and power to overcome (and I believe Christ received certain divine influence and power that no other man has ever received in this state, and that without this influence and power he too would’ve yielded to temptation). But while this “weakness” led to Adam’s sinning and his being put in need of redemption, I don’t think it led to a change in his nature (e.g., from immortal to mortal, or from morally mature to sinfully inclined) or a loss of the divine likeness in which he was created.

Hope that helps!

Gem · March 9, 2018, 1:55am

Jesus was tempted in every way as we are, yet without sin. And He was the second Adam. I think it was very hard for Jesus to resist temptation but He did.

To follow the dna “thread”, one needs to look at “seed”, inheritance, adoption, heirs, rebirth… Here are a few of many:

“And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy [the serpent’s] seed and her seed ; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” Gen 3:15

Satan fathered flesh when he planted in mankind the same sin that had been his downfall, exaltation of self. Satan became the god of this world (2 Cor 4:4), the realm of flesh.

Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, **“And to your Seed,”*who is Christ. *

John 3:3-9 Jesus explains to Nicodemus that he must be BORN AGAIN. “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”

John 8:39-44 Pharisees claim Abraham is their father, but Jesus tell them “you are of your father, the devil”

“Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.” 1 John 3:6 (the Greek word translated “seed” is “sperma” )

BTW, did I mention that the forbidden fruit did not have any SEED in it? Proof: Gen 1:29**

dirtboy · April 9, 2018, 4:29pm

Aaron:

Hi Gem,

You wrote:

Gem wrote:
Adam was created “in the image of God”

Then Genesis 3 happened. Death entered.

I just don’t see any indication from Scripture that the death which Adam experienced on the day he sinned changed his nature. Sinning is, I believe, a violation of our conscience and thus contrary to our moral nature, but it does not change our nature or alter our DNA. Nor do I read that Adam lost the divine image/likeness in which he was created when he sinned. I believe the divine image/likeness is a capacity with which we were created (and which all other animals lack), and that this capacity was fully realized by Christ. This capacity which defines us as God’s image-bearers can certainly fail to be fully realized for a period of time (as I believe is the case with all who are not yet sinless as Christ is), but it is not something that can be lost without our ceasing to be human. The apostle James lived long after Adam, and he seemed to believe that human beings even in his day still possessed the same divine likeness in which Adam was created (James 3:9).

And when they had a son, he was in ADAM’s likeness
“And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth.” Gen 5:3

I don’t see anything in these words suggesting that Seth was any less in the image and likeness of God as Adam was when he was created. To say that Adam begot a son in his own likeness is, I believe, simply to say that the nature with which Adam was created by God - and by which he was defined as a human being - was passed on to his posterity. The image and likeness in which God created Adam defined and belonged to Adam, and was thus his to “transfer.” I believe Seth - like all children - was born just as innocent as Adam was when he was created, and possessed the same original human nature and capacity to be like God. And if Seth had been born before Adam sinned I believe it could still be said that Adam “begot a son in his own likeness and after his image.”

Jesus came to restore “the image of God” which was lost in the Garden.

9 Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds, 10 and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him, Col 3:9-10

I don’t think these verses either say or imply that Adam lost the divine image in which he was created. He failed to fully realize his potential as an image-bearer, yes, but he didn’t lose anything with which he was created. He was, I believe, just as much made in God’s likeness after he sinned as he was made in God’s likeness before he sinned. His nature as a human being didn’t change and his DNA wasn’t altered. Again, I believe the divine image/likeness is our created capacity as persons (as opposed to mere animals) to be like our Father in heaven. When we begin to resemble God more closely in character the capacity with which we were created can be said to be more fully realized. Whereas I believe all human beings are children of God by virtue of being created as persons, when we begin to resemble God in character we become his children (and God becomes our Father) in a fuller and more realized sense (Mt. 5:44-45, 48). For more on my understanding of the “Fatherhood of God,” you can check out the following post: The Universal Fatherhood of God

So basically I understand the new identity to which Paul refers when he speaks of the “new man” to be not the result of a “DNA transplant” (as you’ve said earlier in this thread) but rather as a result of the capacity with which we were created being more fully realized, and which we posses by virtue of being human. One has put on the “new man” when one has begun to not only be a child of God by virtue of being made in God’s image and likeness but to actually think as God thinks and be guided by the same desires, motives and values as God is.

14As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, 15but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, 16since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.” 17And if you call on him as Father who judges impartially according to each one’s deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile, 18knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, 19but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. 1 Pet 1:14-18

Again, there is nothing said in this passage about Adam losing the divine image/likeness in which he was created, or of anyone inheriting anything from Adam with which he wasn’t created. Those to whom Peter wrote didn’t inherit an image-less nature from Adam but rather the “futile ways” of their “forefathers” (on the expression translated “futile ways” commentator Adam Clarke notes, “Empty, foolish, and unprofitable conduct, full of vain hopes, vain fears, and vain wishes”). Peter is, I believe, talking about unrighteous behavior and conduct which they are said to “inherit” from their forefathers because they were living like their forefathers lived and imitating them. Peter is talking to 1st generation Christians who, before coming to Christ, lived the way they did because they were brought up and entrenched in the beliefs and ways of their forefathers. Those whose parents and grandparents and great-grandparents were Muslim or Hindu - and who were thus raised Muslim or Hindu and grow up practicing Islam or Hinduism - can, in the same sense, be said to have “inherited” their beliefs and ways from their forefathers.

But even if one believes that Peter was speaking of something genetically inherited, I would simply argue that Adam was created with the same “fleshly” inclinations or disposition possessed by all of his descendents. Adam certainly didn’t need a genetically altered or “fallen” nature in order to so easily yield to temptation and violate God’s law, and neither do his descendents. And if Adam had been created not just innocent (as all newborn children are) but just as morally perfect as Christ is, I think he would’ve been just as unlikely to sin as Christ was and is (and I believe there is zero probability that Christ will ever sin).

Hey Aaron, out of curiosity, do you have children of your own?

Chris

Aaron · March 9, 2018, 1:55am

Hi Chris,

You asked:

Not yet! But I have observed and interacted with children of all different ages (and used to be one myself ), and my wife and I would love to have some one day. And I hope those reading don’t think our being childless disqualifies me from making the following claims:

Rather than being born “spiritually dead,” human beings are born just as blameless and innocent as Adam was when he was created (Mt. 18:3; 19:14; Mk 10:13-16; Lk 18:16-17; Deut 1:39; Isa 7:15-16), and we remain innocent until we begin committing sin (Rom 7:7-11).
Children cannot sin until they have reached a certain level of intellectual, emotional and moral maturity. Until this level of maturity has been reached, their choices and actions are amoral.
By virtue of possessing the same human nature with which Adam was created, human beings are prone to yield to temptation when it arises and to gratify their own desires. If you tell a child not to do something, they will almost invariably do it. And this is exactly what happened with Adam. God essentially said, “Don’t eat from this one tree.” Predictably, Adam did exactly what God told him not to do (and there’s no indication from the narrative that Adam’s sin took place long after his creation). And just as Adam didn’t need a genetically altered nature to so easily sin, neither do his human descendents.