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

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.

Aaron · April 9, 2018, 4:29pm

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.

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.”*

I agree that we must be born again after we’ve become sinful. But I don’t think being “born again” in the sense of which Jesus and John speak means having one’s DNA replaced.

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

How does this verse teach that Adam’s DNA was altered when he sinned? We are said to be the “children” of something when we are characteristically like it in some way. Just as the personified “serpent” of Gen 3 was a liar and a murderer, so were the unbelieving Jews. But for people to lie and have murderous intent does not mean their DNA is different from the DNA with which Adam was created.

“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” )

Yep, and I believe the word “seed” (sperma) is being used figuratively by John, just as a similar word (spora) is being used figuratively by Peter in 1 Pet 1:23. I don’t see any evidence from this verse that Adam’s DNA was changed when he sinned, or that believers receive a “DNA transplant.”

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

I’m not sure what your point is here.

Gem · March 9, 2018, 1:55am

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).

dirtboy · March 9, 2018, 1:55am

Aaron:

Hi Chris,

You asked:

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

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.

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.

Aaron · March 9, 2018, 1:55am

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.

TotalVictory · March 9, 2018, 1:55am

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

Aaron · March 9, 2018, 1:55am

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:

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

Aaron · March 9, 2018, 1:55am

Hi Bob,

You wrote:

I think this instantaneous “change” will be a change in certain aspects of our existence (e.g., mortal to immortal, “natural” to “spiritual,” “dishonorable” to “glorious,” “weak” to “powerful,” etc.). But I don’t think Scripture reveals it will be the restoration of a nature you and I previously had, or which Adam had when he was created.

I’m not sure Scripture reveals the kind of progression of which you speak, at least in the way in which many understand it. Surely you don’t think Adam and Eve were created in the same state in which all mankind will one day exist after God has become “all in all.” Isn’t it your view that one day sin and death will be just as impossible for mankind to experience as it presently is for Christ? If so, then the end for mankind will be better or more ideal in one sense than our beginning. God is not merely going to restore all things to a supposed former perfection (if it was really “perfect” it wouldn’t have ceased to be perfect); he made everything imperfect to start off with so that he could ultimately perfect it and thereby “make all things new.” But because this imperfect state was perfectly suited for God’s redemptive purpose and according to his sovereign plan, he pronounced it “very good.” I don’t think God’s sovereign plan was at all thwarted or “messed up” by Adam’s sin.

What necessitates our redemption from sin and spiritual death is our becoming sinners, or “hostile in mind.” And what necessitates our redemption from physical death is our being dead or mortal (hence the abolishing of death will involve not only the resurrection of the dead but also the “change” of those still alive). I believe God created mankind in a state that would inevitably require redemption from both of these evils.

Yeah, I do think it’s hard for a lot people to believe that God planned sin and death for a benevolent reason. Nevertheless I believe this to be consistent with what Scripture reveals. God declares the end from the beginning and works all things according to the counsel of his will. Adam’s sin in the garden was, I believe, just as predetermined by God as Christ’s death at the hands of sinful men (Acts 2:23; 4:27-28). It was God who, I believe, subjected the creation (mankind) to futility in hope that it will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God (Rom 8:20-21). If there was nothing from which mankind needed to be saved then God couldn’t manifest himself as a Savior. I also believe the good that will result from mankind’s being saved from evil is greater than the good that would result if mankind never had to be saved from anything.

I’m not sure how what I’ve said entails that we can somehow raise morally perfect/mature children or produce morally perfect/mature adults. My position is that all human beings are prone to sin and will become sinners as soon as they become able to sin (unless God is at work in the person’s life in a unique and powerful way, as was, I believe, the case with Christ). As Paul writes (quoting the Psalmist), “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one” (Rom 3:10-12). What Paul says here (no matter how figuratively or hyperbolically one understands the language) is, I believe, just as applicable to Adam when he first sinned as it is to every child when he or she first sins. I believe the first generation of human beings on earth was just as likely to sin as every subsequent generation of human beings is.

dirtboy · March 9, 2018, 1:55am

Aaron:

Hi Chris,

You wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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."

Hey Aaron,
No, after reading through your posts I can say we are on very different pages as to the nature of children. I do believe that babies, of course, have not sinned. But the similarity stops there. I’m afraid we’re going to need to have this conversation after you have had kids for a while. I know that sounds condescending and I really don’t mean it to be. I truly believe that there are limits to what we can understand when we haven’t experienced certain things, like raising children. When Jeremiah said that the heart of man is desperately wicked, I think he is talking about babies and adults. As soon as they are able to exert their will they exert much more than “curiosity” and self preservation. I don’t expect to change your mind. I’ve read many of your posts over the months and you are quite secure in your opinions and are not apt to change, but I would love to have this conversation again in ten or fifteen years. Even hanging out with your nephews and nieces for the weekend, etc is not the same thing.

Alex_Smith · March 9, 2018, 1:55am

What a facinating discusion

sorry Chris, I’m confused. When do babies become sinners?