The Evangelical Universalist Forum

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

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)?

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:

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? :nerd:

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…

  1. 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”…

  1. 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??

  2. 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!!

  3. 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…

  1. 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?

  2. 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)

  3. 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!

  4. 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

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.

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

Interesting discussion :exclamation: 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.

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!

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

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

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).

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.

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!

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” :open_mouth: )

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

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

Chris

Hi Chris,

You asked:

Not yet! But I have observed and interacted with children of all different ages (and used to be one myself :slight_smile: ), 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:

  1. 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).

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

Hi Gem,

You wrote:

Yes, and I think Jesus resisted it in spite of his human nature. God was “with him” and empowering him in a way that cannot be said of anyone else. But what about Adam? The narrative suggests that Adam yielded to temptation just as easily as every one of his descendents does (Christ being the only exception). Adam certainly didn’t need a genetically altered nature in order to sin.

But how does this verse teach that Adam’s DNA was changed when he sinned?

By “Satan” I’m assuming you mean the entity referred to as a “serpent” in Genesis 3. My understanding of this entity can be found here: UK Radio Show - On Universalism. It is this that deceives the whole world (Rev 12:9), and can thus be said to be the “god” of this world. But I deny that this particular “satan” or “devil” caused Adam’s DNA to be altered.

I think the “dna transplant” is figurative. Nevertheless, now that we know about dna, we know how the brokenness passed down. I take the Genesis account as historical and I see evidence for a physical change which occurred upon eating the poison fruit. These physical changes which occurred in the man and woman began the dying process. I wonder if among these changes were hormonal changes which brought woman a monthly cycle, PMS, menopause, and increased desire for her husband and men a testosterone surge which feeds aggressiveness (“he will rule over you”) and polygamy?

The fact that the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil did not have seed. I think its an interesting fact upon which to meditate. What I have considered is that it is a sterile tree, does not reproduce, not life giving… To me, a passage which illustrated such a sterile, death dealing fruit was Matt 23:15

I don’t have time, but if I did, I would post verses on Jesus being the firstborn among many brethren (Rom 8), our receiving a new inheritance with Him (“imperishable, undefiled, unfading” 1 Pet 1), being heirs with Him, and the fact that Christ being formed in us is likened unto childbirth (Gal 4:19).

Sorry Aaron but if someone reads the bible and comes away from it thinking that man is born innocent with the same nature as Adam, I think the only remedy is to have at least 2 children of their own. The reason why I say 2 is that the sinful nature shows up pretty well with one, but when there are 2 children to interact with one another you will no longer believe what you currently believe. I won’t quote any scripture because I know you have studied quite well, which is why your opinion is so surprising to me. But I would love to have this conversation again in about 15 years after you and your wife have had a few kids that have lived a few years.

Hi Chris,

You wrote:

Innocent means “not guilty.” Do you think children are born “spiritually dead” and thus guilty of sin? Do you think children sin while in the womb? Do you think humans are born sinning?

Perhaps we simply have a different understanding of what “sin” is. I base my understanding of what sin is primarily on verses such as James 4:17 and 1 John 3:4, where sin is a violation of a known law (i.e., the law of God written on our hearts). I don’t believe we are born with an understanding of this law; I think it is something that we acquire after reaching a certain level of intellectual/rational maturity. Just as a dog does not sin or become spiritually dead when it bites someone or pees on the couch, neither does a child sin or become spiritually dead just because it acts in a self-preserving and self-gratifying way. When does a child become intellectually/rationally mature enough to sin? I don’t know. Scripture is clear that human beings are sinful “from youth” (Gen 8:21), but “from youth” is not the same as “from birth” or “from conception.” What I do know that children aren’t born sinning. And when they first begin sinning, I believe it’s only because their conscience has sufficiently developed to the degree that it can be violated.

What do you mean by “sinful nature?” If by this you mean a nature that is prone to gratify “fleshly desires” then of course I believe children have this. As I said in my previous post, if you tell a child not to do something, they will almost invariably do it. Anyone who has observed children knows this. This doesn’t mean they are born with a different nature than the nature with which Adam was created. We are highly curious creatures who want to find things out for ourselves; when someone tells us not to do something we naturally wonder what is being kept from us (think of Eve being seduced by the “serpent”). We are naturally drawn to happiness, and we are willing to do anything that we think might make us happier than we are at the moment. Human beings are by nature self-centered creatures whose desires are self-preserving and self-gratifying. Adam had this nature, too - hence, he sinned when the only commandment he was given by God was to not eat the fruit of a single tree.

Perhaps I’m mistaken, but I’m thinking we’re closer to being on the “same page” than you think, and that our disagreement isn’t so much on the nature of children but rather on the nature with which Adam was created. You seem to think Adam was created morally mature/perfect, and that his sinning was either a highly unlikely occurrence or something like a 50/50 chance. I think it was 100% likely that Adam would sin in the garden given the nature with which he was created, and that the same goes for all children when they reach a state in which it is actually possible for them to sin. Until then, their choices/actions are amoral and not something for which they should be considered guilty or blameworthy. Like Paul, we become “spiritually dead” and condemned when we sin (Rom 7:7-11), and we don’t sin until we have a rational understanding of what we ought and ought not to do. Although inclined to gratify their own desires, I don’t think young children are “dead” in the sense that Adam died when he sinned until they actually sin.

Hi Aaron – and yes it has; and interesting as well!

Still, can’t quite help but think that you seem to have found the original sin doctrine entirely useless and fabricated. I’ve found the doctrine a reasonable way of handling both the texts and the reality of life as we experience it.
It also occurs to me that the “Change - in a twinkling of an eye” that Paul looks forward to at the resurrection (1 Cor 15:52 I think?) has always seemed to involve something like a change in nature. At least that’s what I’ve always been taught.
So I am curious what you think that “change” involves. It’s clearly portrayed as some kind of relief from some prior condition.

Also, I don’t think your response really addresses the “Good to Bad to Redeemed” progression I had in mind. Under your formulation the good and bad seem to be the same state and indistinguishable. It is troublesome indeed to ponder being born and in need of redemption (or whatever you want to call what resulted from the act of Christ) from the get go. What is it that necessitates our redemption and our “recreation”? You say

that risks making it seem as if the whole flailing, sinning, failing thing we find ourselves in was not only inevitable, but somehow desirable! Which is really hard for me to see in scripture.

Lastly, I see your idea as risking the notion that if only we provide a good enough environment we can raise somehow create morally perfect/mature adults. I just don’t see that. Because the bible is unmistakably clear that every human that is made will suffer this predicament, (even Paul – surely morally farther along than most – insists he is the chief of sinners!) I find that the “sinful nature” explanation carries more weight than you seem willing to give it.

So, still curious!

Bobx3

Ok, so I think we’re agreed that we don’t receive new DNA when we become reconciled to God!

Here are two big problems I have with what you’re saying:

  1. We aren’t told that Adam was created immortal and that he ceased to be immortal when he sinned.

  2. The reason we are given for Adam’s having to return to the dust is as follows: “…for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return” (Gen 3:19). Adam died because he was created mortal. I think the most that could perhaps be said is that Adam’s natural life might have been indefinitely preserved or sustained if he had eaten from the “tree of life” (Gen 3:22), but that’s very different from saying that Adam was immortal by virtue of the nature with which he was created.

As far as Jesus being the “firstborn among many brothers,” I believe Paul is saying that Christ is the first among many who would become “children of God” in a characteristically new sense. But I don’t think this should be understood as our becoming like Adam was before he sinned.

As far as the inheritance referred to in 1 Pet 1:4, I understand this to be the inheritance of all people in the resurrection state, regardless of whether they become “children of God” by faith in this life.

As for Gal 4:19, I believe the “childbirth” imagery refers primarily to Paul’s frustration and anticipation in dealing with the immature believers of Galatia as he waited for them to become mature in their faith rather than so easily influenced by the Judaizers. I don’t think he’s saying that he was waiting for them to become like Adam was before he sinned.