The Evangelical Universalist Forum

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

Evangelical Universalism
#21

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.

#22

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).

#23

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.

#24

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.

#25

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

#26

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.

#27

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.

#28

"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.

#29

What a facinating discusion :sunglasses:

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

#30

I simply mean that we are born with a sinful nature. We have a heart that is born bent toward sin, not simply curiosity and self preservation, as Aaron puts it. Take your child and teach them how to say “yes” and you’ll find that the word “NO!” comes a thousand fold easier. Teach your child to share and you’ll find the words “NO, MINE!” come immensely easier than, “Why I’d love to share my toy with you.” :wink: Teach your children the concept of keeping peace with one another and then watch them consistently try to find ways to annoy one another simply because it makes the other one angry. :open_mouth: I’ve observed, more times than I can count, my kids (and other kids as well!) jump at the chance to deprive the other of something of theirs that they weren’t even playing with, or thinking of, simply because doing so puts them in a position of power to deny them of the object of their desire! Just yesterday, after church, we were at a restaurant and my son was still hungry. My teenage daughter had some tortillas on her plate that she **never eats **and doesn’t even like, and when my son asked her for them she replied, “No, I might want to eat them.” When I confronted her on this she repeatedly tried to defend herself until she finally admitted that she was saying no because she simply wanted to irritate her brother. And this all in the context of teaching my children about Christ, love, peace, sacrifice, etc.

So, I think babies are “innocent” in that they are initially without sin and are untainted by man’s corrupt actions, but at the same time they have a bent nature, inherited from Adam, that tends toward sin in such a way that they are born slaves to sin and that sin nature and desperately in need of Jesus to be born again.

#31

Ok, so I believe and have stated in this thread:

  • That children are prone to gratify “fleshly desires.”
  • That if you tell a child not to do something, they will almost invariably do it.
  • That human beings are highly curious creatures who want to find things out for ourselves, and that when someone tells us not to do something we naturally wonder what is being kept from us.
  • That human beings are naturally drawn to happiness and are willing to do anything that we think might make us happier than we are at the moment.
  • That human beings are by nature self-centered creatures whose desires are self-preserving and self-gratifying.
  • That although human beings are sinful “from youth” (Gen 8:21), they are not sinful “from birth” or “from conception,” and are thus born innocent rather than “spiritually dead.”
  • That children will inevitably yield to temptation when they become intellectually/rationally mature enough to sin, and that the only human being who hasn’t been a sinner “from youth” is Christ.

Chris, you believe:

  • That babies have not sinned.
  • That babies are not innocent and do not have the same nature as Adam (for you stated in a previous post, “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…”)
  • That the heart of babies is “desperately wicked.”

*Updated: In your most recent post you now claim that babies are “innocent” in that “they are initially without sin and are untainted by man’s corrupt actions.” So we’re agreed on this. But with Alex, I’d like to know when you think babies become sinners if they aren’t born sinners.

You also state that “we have a heart that is born bent toward sin.” But this is essentially what I’ve been saying is true of both Adam and his descendents. You add: “…not simply curiosity and self preservation, as Aaron puts it.” I think you’re somewhat misrepresenting my position here, for this is just one of several ways in which I’ve described human nature on this thread, and is not the “whole truth” of my position. I’m under the impression that you’ve been misunderstanding the position for which I’ve been arguing.

Regarding Jer 17:9: According to Strong’s, the Hebrew word translated “desperately wicked” in the KJV (and “desperately sick” in more modern translations) is 'ânash. It means, “To be frail, feeble, or (figuratively) melancholy: - desperate (-ly wicked), incurable, sick, woeful.” I think this word expresses my view quite well (i.e., that God created human beings with an inherent weakness that makes them prone to sin). I believe Adam had this kind of “frail” and “feeble” heart as well - hence he sinned when the only commandment he was given by God was to not eat the fruit of a single tree. Since Adam miserably failed his first test, what should this tell us about human nature, and the human heart? I wonder if Adam would’ve failed so epically if he’d had the same spiritual advantages that Christ evidently had which kept him from yielding to temptation during his earthly ministry?

#32

Hi again Aaron!

This is all very interesting to me. And let me just say straight away that, given your patience and humble persistence (in this and all the rest of your writings here) I am certain you shall be an absolutely wonderful Father when that blessed day arrives! So blessings upon you – in advance!! – for this task!!!

And speaking of children, I might say that my challenge of this whole dynamic (questioning original sin idea) began for me many years ago with my own son. From the very beginning, he’s had the kindest soul of anyone I’ve ever known. And one night as we’re saying prayers at bedside (he’s maybe 5, or 6) and he’s passionately praying: “and Dear Jesus, please forgive me from my sins…”

And for the life of me, I had no idea what possible “sins” he could have committed. He is uniformly kind, considerate, thoughtful, unselfish, empathetic, gracious, loyal, and honest. He’s never been materialistic, is always eager to share what he has, and has an uncanny ability to see things through the eyes of the other… Now lest you think I’m merely blind to my own children’s failings, his elder sister clearly had demonstrated his opposite. And I noticed all of them.

It occurred to me that he was asking forgiveness, in essence, for being born human!!! ie with the what I’ve been calling the “sinful human nature”. That seemed to me simply absurd; to ask forgiveness for that over which he had NO control!! To imagine that God desires this sort of request boggles my mind.

So what you are saying about this whole dynamic resonates deeply with me… (Have not yet, or course, worked through all the implications however…) And what I am simply unable to say is that, because of my sons apparently “perfect” record (his patterns of behavior demonstrated early on follow him even now; he’s the nicest damn kid I’ve known by far! And no, I have no idea what struggles might transpire in his thought life…) he therefore
A) has no sin or
B) has no need to ask forgiveness or
C) does not need the Grace of God

Anyway, enough about my son (hope none think I’m bragging… it humbles me deeply that such a one is born in my household…) But given the reality that you portray of sin being actually necessary for our perfection (or, maybe moral maturation) I must tell you I’m very worried that somehow it is necessary, in the plan of God for His perfection/moral maturation, that he experience a great, well, what better word can I find than “fall”. Which makes sin a crucial and necessary ingredient in God’s arsenal of tools whose purpose is to bring us to maturity.

I trust you see the problem…

At any rate, I an curious to know if you see any merit, or usefulness at all, to the terms “sinful nature” and “sinless nature”. You seem not to see them in scripture, yet you’ve no trouble seeing the dichotomies of

which seem to me pretty close to the dichotomies of sinful/sinless natures…

You seem not to argue that we do have now a tendency to sin (I’ll say! since it’s 100 percent going to happen!) but what you doubt is that it wasn’t always this way or that it doesn’t apply to all of us.

I wish you would look again at the diagrams on the pages I referred to in MacDonalds book. The progression is, from left to right, up, then descent, then ascent back to the original plane. I’ve always read into that progression something akin to “the fall” – yet you don’t see that at all it seems. Still curious how that can be…

Further, there is the whole notion – quite biblical it seems – of restoration; of recreation. Doesn’t that prefix “re” mean something like a return, or recapture of something that once was? Yet you seem to be saying it never was! nor was it ever intended apart from the slow route via “sin”.

So Aaron, helpful as you’ve been, I do feel a bit “stuck” here.

(To parenting!!!)

Bobx3

#33

I question the whole focus on “sin”. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Why did “knowledge of good” bring death? The OT law was “knowledge of good” yet Paul calls it a “ministry of DEATH”! 2 Cor 3:7…
which he contrasts with the glorious ministry of the Holy Spirit (who brings NEW LIFE/new birth. There was a tree of LIFE in the garden of Eden too and I think the Tree of Life represents Jesus)

Focus on SIN- whether its because “I’m so bad/evil” or “I’m so good/righteous” removes the focus from Jesus through whom we have “remission of sins”. We can ask forgiveness from our neighbors when we offend them, but asking forgiveness from God strikes me as belittling what Jesus has done. We can “REPENT” but repent does not translate “please forgive me for my sins”. Repent translates “TURN AWAY” from sin/flesh/carnal man/from following in Adam’s footsteps. When the focus is “please forgive me for my sins” I’ve seen two (sterile, deadly) fruits of that:

  1. self righteousness/“holier than thou” and
  2. “I’m just human, I’m stuck this way, I’ll never have victory over this, I can go out and sin all I want and then go into my ‘woe is me, please forgive me’ mode”

And I question “othering” Jesus to be unlike us, I think Jesus came to deal with the inheritance of carnal flesh- which all humanity shares, regardless of guilt or innocence, and Romans 8 says Jesus came “IN THE LIKENESS OF SINFUL FLESH”

The whole point of His coming is that we are NOT trapped and doomed to keep on sinning. If we follow Him, take up our cross, crucify our flesh, we CAN build our houses upon the rock and live what Matthew 5-7 preaches. The chains of the dna of Adam are broken. And I think that is what “thy KINGDOM come on EARTH as it is in heaven” means. I can choose TODAY to walk in Jesus’ footsteps.

#34

One question I have pondered which seems to fit here is whether something really fundamental about humanity changed when the Holy Spirit was poured out on all flesh.

In the OT, only a few had the Holy Spirit, and the law was external, written on tablets of stone.

In the NT, the Holy Spirit is poured out upon all flesh (Acts 2) and Paul says that we now have the law “written upon our hearts” Rom 2.

Was “conscience” around in the OT? Or is “conscience” something which was implanted in mankind when the Holy Spirit came?

#35

Hi Bob,

You wrote:

While I chew on what you’ve said, here are some initial thoughts:

First, a person’s sin is not always obvious to others. If your son has ever violated the law of God written on his heart (i.e., his conscience) at some point in his life then he’s already experienced a “fall” from a state of innocence and can be counted among those are in need of a “restoration” to innocence. And second, grace is not merely something that I believe God gives to “big” sinners who’ve had “big falls” but also to “little” sinners, and even to those who haven’t sinned at all! Those who die before committing any sin will, I believe, still receive and enjoy the grace of God by being raised by Christ on the “last day” to an immortal existence where they will be both without a desire to sin and without pain or sorrow. And this blessing that I believe is the destiny of every “child of Adam” is, of course, not deserved or merited. It’s not a reward for anything done or not done during this mortal existence. It’s all grace.

Right; I believe we were all created with a tendency to yield to temptation, and that the only reason why anyone is less sinful than anyone else is because of God’s grace in a person’s life counteracting or overpowering the natural tendency of the nature with which Adam was created, and with which his descendents are born. If your son’s record really is as spotless as it appears to you to be, and he sees no sin in his life of which he needs to repent and for which he needs to seek forgiveness, then he can (in contrast to the proud, self-righteous Pharisee of Lk 18:9-14) humbly and sincerely thank God for his grace in keeping him from becoming what his nature would have naturally led him to become. With Paul, all who are conscious of being blameless and in right-standing with God should say, “By the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain…” (1 Cor 15:10).

My emphasis has certainly been elsewhere as I’ve argued for my position on this thread, but that’s only because I’ve felt it necessary to distinguish, as clearly as I can, my view from the more traditional, Augustinian one. But to be clear, my understanding is that we are restored to a state of innocence and non-condemnation. The difference is that the righteousness of those in Christ is not the default status with which man was created or with which we are born but rather the result of God’s working in our life to produce spiritual growth and maturity - i.e., being “conformed to the image of Christ,” rather than merely the image of Adam before his fall. We do become innocent again rather than condemned (as Adam was before he sinned, and as I believe all children are before they first sin), but it’s not just the mere restoration of this only. It’s so much more than that. I’ve heard one Christian put it this way: the purity and innocence that Adam possessed pre-sin (and which his descendents also possess pre-sin) can be likened to a white, blank page (albeit one that will inevitably be filled with at least some lies and some record - no matter how small - of wrong-doing, assuming they live long enough). But the purity and innocence of those who are being conformed to Christ’s image can be likened to a white page that is being filled instead with the holy words of Scripture.

Also, my position affirms the restoration of humanity (believers now, everyone else later) to a state in which they (like Adam before he sinned) enjoy full access to the “tree of life” rather than “exile” from the “garden.” What Adam had before his sin is, in a sense, “regained.” But as with what I’ve previously said, it’s so much more than that. We aren’t merely placed back into the garden with the same kind of innocence (and naivety) of Adam; rather, we’re actually ushered into a state in which we not only may but are partaking of the “tree of life” after having become like God in knowing good and evil (as we’re told was the case with Adam after he sinned - Gen 3:22). We’re not merely walking around naked in a garden naming animals and neglecting the tree of life in favor of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, we’re before the throne of God serving him day and night after having washed our robes and made them white in the blood of the lamb (Rev 7:14-15) and having thus reached a state in which, by God’s grace, we really want to choose the good and please God.

#36

I agree that even from a very young age that children quickly begin to make self-centred choices, which is sin. My impression is that Aaron is saying something similar in regard to when babies start sinning.

However, I as far as I know, Original Sin means God condemns all, babies included, to ECT/P purely because Adam sinned. i.e. the sins we do are only the icing on the cake, everyone is already their way, before they even commit their first sin.

I’m been told it has to work this way, so that the opposite, grace, is something we are purely given by God, and that the good deeds we do are only icing on the cake, not what justifies us.

Amen!

When I had Levi, it certainly put a new perspective on it for me.

You express well my concern.

I’ve been trying to figure that out too!

I hadn’t thought of it like that before. What about the Lord’s prayer where it says “Forgive us our sin, as we forgive those who sin against us”?

I always assumed it was there, because of Romans 1:20

i.e. I thought this was talking about our consciences?

Thanks, that’s a very helpful analogy :sunglasses:

#37

I think that is speaking about horizontal relationships, not repentance nor salvation.

“Wherefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature: the old things are passed away; behold, they are become new. But all things are of God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and gave unto us the ministry of reconciliation; to wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not reckoning unto them their trespasses; and having committed unto us the word of reconciliation.” (2 Corinthians 5:17-19)

Jesus came to take away the ordinances of the Law, nailing them to the Cross. Where there is no Law to transgress, there is no need for “forgiveness of sins.”

The place for forgiveness is in relationships. If we walk in the Light we “have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanses us from all sin.” I Jn 1:9 is another passage about our relationship with one another, not a “salvation” passage . It says if we acknowledge our offenses, God is faithful and just to forgive us (lay aside) our offenses, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

#38

If “forgiveness” could make a new creature, Jesus died for no reason.

Ever since Adam, we have been born of flesh.

Our sinful deeds come out of a carnal nature.

To be forgiven for sinful deeds does nothing to alter the uncircumcised heart which birthed the deeds.

#39

Is there a relationship between the Holy Spirit and conscience? In the OT, the HS was not yet poured out upon all flesh. What happened when she was? For one thing “you shall BE my witnesses” Acts 2 which is about BEing not DOing. ie Christians ARE Christlike.

13 The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God,* cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death,**[c] so that we may serve the living God! Hebrews 9*

#40

Hi Aaron:

I’m less convinced than are you that “innocence” best describes what I’m preferring to call (or at least have in the past) the unfallen nature. Innocence only takes its meaning when there’s something to compare it with; and sure enough, it’s defined as not doing a crime or offense. But for there to be a crime in the first place, there must be a law. Yet it’s in the presence of that law where we’ve all admitted that we humans are uniformly and totally a failure. So innocence is meaningless apart from law; yet with law, as you’ve said, we are uniformly failures! Makes innocence rather meaningless in this context it seems to me.

Thinking back on some memorable discussions (maybe arguments? :blush: ) with UR deniers I recall one man who insisted that, if we all were saved, that this whole drama of sin – what I’m calling “the fall” – was meaningless and for no purpose. Not true at all! I insisted; for what we ALL have now, because of the fall, is CONTEXT. From the best to the worst of us; we have, because of sin, the ability to ***“compare and contrast”***. (I think this is in large measure what Romans 11:32 means…)

Now one of my favorite theologians is Richard B. Hays. And in his book “The Moral Vision of the New Testament” he talks about how the listing of sins at the end of Romans 1 represent a departure from the created order intended by God. It was God’s plan that we behave like X; we have fallen from that ideal and now behave like Y (see list in NIV: “filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.”)

This suggests (or even explicitly asserts) that once we were in a state where these things did not exist, then – presumably because of Adam’s act – we began to display these departures from our originally created tendencies. And some day we will return to that original state of our creation. That sure sounds to me like perfection - fall - redemption: the very thing that is not possible according to your formulation.

Something happened because of Adams actions that has been transferred down through the generations (skipping no one). And that something was reversed by what happened at the cross. That’s gotta be the message of Romans 5:18 – and 1 Cor 15:22 as well. “Because of” Adams actions; not actions first seen, and now also seen in us…

… Or WAS Adams action simply an expression of the first of it’s type? All the rest of us destined to follow in his same path? Did Adam bequeath us this tendency (fallen nature?) or was Adam simply the first to demonstrate and illustrate it’s inevitability in sentient creatures? Adam thus serves as some sort of pattern of typical human behavior…

That’s an intriguing possibility to me to be sure… Salvation then would be about getting to a higher state that has never been; not regaining a higher state that once was. I think the bible reads with a heavy emphasis on the later; yet you seem to endorse the former. The knowledge of good and evil has been historically (in Protestant realms) portrayed as a bad – and unnecessary – thing. Yet if you are correct, it is the very vehicle of redemption. Providing the context in which our choices have real meaning, weight, moral legitimacy, and depth of comprehension.

As I say, most interesting…

Bobx3