Are we born condemned with Adams sin...or innocent at birth?

[childeye]

childeye said: ↑
I believe sin is passed on from Adam

Via what verse(s)?

I feel that this verse implies that sin is in mankind through Adam. Romans 5:12. I note that Paul said that sin was in his members, meaning his flesh, while also proclaiming that his mind yet possessed the Word of God in some degree. Romans 7:23. Romans 8:3. These verses imply that all men have sin and do sin at some point. 1 John 1:8, 1 John 1:10. Romans 3:23. I am currently studying genetics and how certain tendencies can be inherited which then can result in related behavioral patterns.

I am aware that death spread to all from Adam (including the innocent, naked Jesus Christ, BTW). But I am unaware of how "condemnation" has spread to all from Adam (including the innocent, naked infant or pre-born, BTW)

I believe that Jesus through dying defeated death even because he was without sin. I also note that Enoch and Elijah did not die. I don't believe that condemnation spread to all men through Adam. I figure we are all currently born with various forms of weakness of the flesh, therefore condemnation is formed through hypocritical judgment. Romans 2:1.

​

 

[ezrider]

God told Adam that he would die if he ate of the forbidden tree. Do you think Adam wanted to die? It seems to me that the only way Adam could have "willfully" sinned would have been if he was sufficiently convinced that God was a liar. Do you think that Adam believed that God was a liar?

will·ful
(of an immoral or illegal act or omission) intentional; deliberate:
"willful acts of damage"
deliberate · intentional · done on purpose · premeditated ·

Have you considered that it was willful on Adam's part because he was willing to give his life to protect his bride? Only he had no knowledge of the consequences of death.

 

[childeye]

Have you considered that it was willful on Adam's part because he was willing to give his life to protect his bride? Only he had no knowledge of the consequences of death.

That's a possible motive that I have heard mentioned before. It's hard to square with why God would then say that Adam shouldn't have listened to the woman. But it's interesting to compare it with what scripture says about Abraham.
Hebrews 11:17-19
17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:
19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

 

[chessman]

I feel that this verse implies that sin is in mankind through Adam. Romans 5:12.

Yes, there is implication. Been taught that the verse actually says so my whole life. But it is not clearly stated as such. I note Paul's immediate comparison of the reception of sin/death through Adam to it's contrasting reception of grace/life through Christ in verse 19. Are infants born with grace/life now through Christ or is some act of personal obedience required first? Same with sin/death, if they truly are "just as" each other. Are infants born with sin/death or is some act of personal disobedience required first? I say the later to both questions and note that Adam was naked/innocent until his personal disobedience occurred.

Romans 5:19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one, the many will be made righteous.​

If the making of sinners through Adam is "just like" the making of the righteous through Christ, there is some level of obedience/disobedience required on the part of the many that infants/pre-born simply do not have the capability to perform, right?

I note that Paul said that sin was in his members, meaning his flesh,

Good point, altough Paul was a fully grown man at that time who'd been both disobedient and obedient multiple times over by that time in his life. If Paul would have said sin was in his members while in the womb (as people assume to be the case), there's a proof text for sure. But he's clearly talking about his adulthood struggles, not infancy. But then again, infants have flesh too. And minds...

while also proclaiming that his mind yet possessed the Word of God in some degree.

Even better point.

Romans 7:22 For I joyfully agree with the law of God in my inner person, ​

Do you think infants joyfully agree with the law of God in their inner person?

Romans 8:3 For what was impossible for the law, in that it was weak through the flesh, God did. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and concerning sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, ​

Yes, that's my point. In order to believe infants have sinful flesh at birth (prior to any obedience/disobedience) and are thus condemned if they die at birth, you'd need to also believe God's own Son had sinful flesh (like them) prior to His obedience. Luckily we don't have to find out what would have happened to grace/life through Christ should He have died at birth. But I do wonder if baby Jesus had died at birth, would his being in the likeness to sinful flesh have provided a path to grace. I think His obedience was required first.

These verses imply that all men have sin and do sin at some point. 1 John 1:8, 1 John 1:10. Romans 3:23.

How do they imply that infants have sin at birth? I don't see it:

1 John 1:8 If we say that we do not have sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. ​

1 John 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with him and walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. ​

6-10 (parallels) is talking about (once again) waling obedience versus disobedience choices that infants don't make.

I appreciate your contributions, time amd effort on these threads. You are obviously well studied.

 

[childeye]

I suppose so, but have you ever pondered that thought with Hebrews 2:10

King James Bible
For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings

Excellent choice of scripture.

 

[stovebolts]

Have you considered that it was willful on Adam's part because he was willing to give his life to protect his bride? Only he had no knowledge of the consequences of death.

childeye
Have you ever considered that Jesus reluctantly, but wilffuly gave his life for his bride?

 

[stovebolts]

Excellent choice of scripture.

I take it you are tracking then. Hebrews 5:8-9 speaks further of this theology which encompasses a love story.

 

[childeye]

Yes, there is implication. Been taught that the verse actually says so my whole life. But it is not clearly stated as such. I note Paul's immediate comparison of the reception of sin/death through Adam to it's contrasting reception of grace/life through Christ in verse 19. Are infants born with grace/life now through Christ or is some act of personal obedience required first? Same with sin/death, if they truly are "just as" each other. Are infants born with sin/death or is some act of personal disobedience required first? I say the later to both questions and note that Adam was naked/innocent until his personal disobedience occurred.

I believe that Christ now holds the keys to death. I would say that in either case faith and lack of faith precede obedience and disobedience. But I would like to say something about sin that I feel is appropriate to this discussion.

Whether right or wrong, I have come to see sin as "a direction" away from and in direct separation from God, as if God were a Light and every direction away from the light was into darkness. Therefore an act of sin is a step into darkness, and two steps is even farther into darkness. With each step the separation from Light increases as does the darkness.

Of course I am talking about the soul losing it's light and adulterating it with darkness. In this way sin can be described as not only an action, but also a measure of distance in separation from God, where God's influence is diminished through greater degrees of darkness. So that sinfulness becomes more powerful or sinful according to the measure of distance in separation from God that the soul is experiencing. 2 Corinthians 4:7. Mark 10:18.

My point is that there is a difference between sinfulness/depravity/iniquity and... sin/action/disobedience, which oftentimes gets lost in semantics. So it is that I believe that a child can be born with a degree of sinfulness and yet without him or her having never disobeyed. Exodus 34:7.

Romans 5:19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one, the many will be made righteous.​

If the making of sinners through Adam is "just like" the making of the righteous through Christ, there is some level of obedience/disobedience required on the part of the many that infants/pre-born simply do not have the capability to perform, right?

I'm not sure what you would expect me to be able to say, because of course no action of obedience or disobedience could be carried out by a developing baby. But how does this prove or disprove whether or not we are born with sin/iniquity?

Moreover, I believe that the above scripture is meant to focus on the change in directions relative to God that affected all of mankind because of the two different Adams disobedience and obedience, one the fall of a corruptible soul and one a quickening spirit that is incorruptible. I see the disobedience and obedience as secondary events subject to their differing compositions. While pointing out that Adam's first step was provoked by the woman who was beguiled by the serpent, still it only took one step from one Adam to become corrupted.

So in the Grande scheme of things, we would probably never learn the value of God in relationship with the soul through obedience, since through ignorance of vanity we only became all the more vain in our obedience. Only through using our disobedience as proof of sinfulness in the flesh could God establish a comprehensive value of God, and reveal it to heaven and earth through mankind. Romans 3:7. 1 John 3:7. Therefore it makes sense that our weakness called sinfulness needs to be acknowledged categorically for God's power to be fully realized, otherwise why would scripture say this? 2 Corinthians 12:9.

Good point, altough Paul was a fully grown man at that time who'd been both disobedient and obedient multiple times over by that time in his life. If Paul would have said sin was in his members while in the womb (as people assume to be the case), there's a proof text for sure. But he's clearly talking about his adulthood struggles, not infancy. But then again, infants have flesh too. And minds...

It's reasonable to assume that Paul is giving his personal testimony as a grown man because it requires some maturity to articulate mature thoughts. However I can't say it proves anything so as to claim or disclaim sinfulness concerning infants, simply because he omitted describing his state of righteousness at infancy.

Even better point.

Romans 7:22 For I joyfully agree with the law of God in my inner person, ​

Do you think infants joyfully agree with the law of God in their inner person?

I can't say that an infant would understand what a law even is, but in a way I think they do agree with the law since I imagine they realize some value of Love in some basic capacity. His Word is the Light of every person born. John 1:9.

Romans 8:3 For what was impossible for the law, in that it was weak through the flesh, God did. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and concerning sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, ​

Yes, that's my point. In order to believe infants have sinful flesh at birth (prior to any obedience/disobedience) and are thus condemned if they die at birth, you'd need to also believe God's own Son had sinful flesh (like them) prior to His obedience. Luckily we don't have to find out what would have happened to grace/life through Christ should He have died at birth. But I do wonder if baby Jesus had died at birth, would his being in the likeness to sinful flesh have provided a path to grace. I think His obedience was required first.

First, I'm going to disregard the mention of condemnation, as I consider it a different matter which could easily be confused with the reason why God restricted access to the tree of Life.

So here's the problem I have with this matter. If there is no iniquity in every baby born, then it seems to me that death would have no power over them and the gates of death would have been broken by the first baby that died. So yes while scripture does say that Jesus did come in the likeness of sinful flesh, this does not mean he actually had sinful flesh, for he was conceived of the Holy Spirit and was without sin. 2 Corinthians 5:21, Hebrews 2:14.

How do they imply that infants have sin at birth? I don't see it:

1 John 1:8 If we say that we do not have sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. ​

1 John 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with him and walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. ​

6-10 (parallels) is talking about (once again) waling obedience versus disobedience choices that infants don't make.

I think we're all going to sin inevitably because we're not God, which is why I think that vanity appears in the creature and not in the Creator. Romans 3:23. If a highly gifted angel was susceptible to vanity, why should I presume that I am immune to vanity? Isaiah 30:28.

To believe the Gospel is obedience to the revelation of Truth. Humility and honesty is required to obey, and therefore to admit that I am a hopeless sinner apart from Christ is also obedience. To me, the thought that as a baby I can have sinfulness, only serves to glorify God alone, and yet will compel me to show mercy, grace and understanding without becoming vain. Only God could bring about such perfection that enables corruption to put on incorruption. We are a people who find ourselves in darkness and the Light had to be given by God to show us the way.

I appreciate your contributions, time amd effort on these threads.

Thank you and I'm sorry for the long post. I also enjoy the discourse. Your thoughts have caused me to rethink the matter deeply.

 

[childeye]

childeye
Have you ever considered that Jesus reluctantly, but wilffuly gave his life for his bride?

You have reversed the connotation of willfully to be a positive. When applied to Adam, that really messes with my Grande picture puzzle.

I've considered that Adam is a piece of God, and Eve is a piece of Adam, and a child is a piece of Eve. It's her seed that will bruise the serpents head. It's hard to imagine that Adam did the right thing by disobeying God, but it's concievable that God could make something good out of something bad.
Of course I believe Jesus willfully gave up his life for his bride, but this was doing God's will. John 4:34.

 

[childeye]

I take it you are tracking then. Hebrews 5:8-9 speaks further of this theology which encompasses a love story.

Yes "encompasses", as in coming full circle, creating a circumspective view, and allowing circumspection. God is the beginning and the end, the Author and Finisher of our faith.
Do you consider yourself a romantic theist?

 

[stovebolts]

Yes "encompasses", as in coming full circle, creating a circumspective view, and allowing circumspection. God is the beginning and the end, the Author and Finisher of our faith.
Do you consider yourself a romantic theist?

New Exodus theology is my baseline. However, every great novel has a love scene....

 

[stovebolts]

In the story of the garden of Eden, Eve was tempted by the serpent. In that temptation, a thought was planted, did god really say? Once that thought was given, and she did not do as Paul says we should and go to her husband asking him. She allowed that thought to be concieved when she allowed that question to remain, she committed spiritual adultery with the serpent when his thought was concieved in her. Once she decided that the evidence was contrary to what God said, and it was good for food, she took it and ate it, when she brought it to Adam, he did not exercise the dominion he was given, he did not judge righteous judgment, and he took the fruit in disobedience. Adams first sin was not his disobedience, his first sin was not doing what he should have done in the first place, told Eve no and get that serpent out of the garden. His sin was a failure to exercise righteous judgment, which lead to his disobedience. In the spiritual world, this happens again today, we do not have shepherds that take the sheep to pasture while they sit and watch for wolves entering g the flock. We have wolves in the pulpits, destroying the flock. Why? Because we all fall into Adams sin, and would rather not question or judge righteous judgment. We fear what men would say to us too much.

That all sounds good and well, but it seems you have overlooked that Eve had already eaten when Adam comes on the scene. Adam does not know exactly what death is, and he senses something is terribly wrong with his wife. Where there was once harmony between them, was now replaced with anxiety, desperation and loss. This is a new experience for them both.

Adam was in no position to turn back the clock and reverse the brokenness. So he does what is in his nature. He reaches out to be with his wife, not knowing what the future holds, but knowing he is commited to his bride, and refusing to leave her side.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing as it gives us insight and wisdom to identify and navigate the pitfalls we encounter. But without hindsight, we cling to that which we know, and dearly love.

We see early on that without Eve, Adam was lonely and God said it was not good that man be alone. When Eve arrived, she is known as bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh. He loved her, even enough to die with her, for without her, he was already dead as was the harmony they once shared as he tells God, this woman whom you gave me.... yet his love for her remained.

The sin was committed, there was no turning back. Adam was broken, and the whole world fell.

 

[stovebolts]

That was a very interesting passage you used with your reply John Christian .

Please excuse me for asking, but can you explain your thoughts for using it and what you meant it to represent in Adams life?

Or was the passage aimed at me? If so, in what way?

Thanks for clearing this up for me. As it sits, I don't understand where you are at right now.

 

[dirtfarmer]

Yeah, he'd rather disobey God and be with Eve.

But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
Luke 11:42 KJV

hello John Christian, dirtfarmer here

Adam was alone and found no companionship in the animals so when Eve was made from Adam's side, then he found companionship. Did Adam really understand "in the day that ye eat thereof thou shalt surely die?

In Genesis 5:3 we find that the off-spring of Adam through Eve was after his(Adam's) likeness and image. At that time Adam had a nature to sin, it was passed on to his children in Adam's likeness and image as a sinner, not as he was created,

 

[stovebolts]

It certainly was not aimed at you, it wasn't aimed at anyone.

Judgment is necessary, when Eve ate the fruit, she was condemned at that moment, Adam judging righteously may have pulled her out of that condemnation, by not judging he left her condemned, and joined with her in condemnation.

When God gave him dominion over all the earth, God being a just God, would not have left him unequipped for that position. God gave him understanding in having dominion over the earth, including good judgment.

Being married, they were one body, Jesus who Paul refers to as the last Adam, also was given dominion over the earth and lived in complete obedience, also telling us how to live in obedience. Adam and Eve being one body, as Christ and his people are one body, a body that should be kept clean and free of sin. What does Jesus tell us to do if our eye offends us? Join it in its offense? Or pluck it out and cast it away from us? Adam did not use judgment, he joined in the offense.

He actually robbed her of the chance to repent, by not judging her and casting her out for her disobedience.

For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
1 Corinthians 5:3‭-‬5 KJV

I understand, and I don't disagree with the jist of your reasoning.
But of more importance to me is understanding the story from a humanistic perspective that I personally can relate to. Let me see if I can explain.

Anyone can throw rocks and cast judgment. But when they do, they are generally covering up their own sins and casting fault on others is simply a means of self righteousness.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing... woulda, shoulda.... And one thing I love about the bible is that it exposes the hearts of men and women bare. And for our benefit.

Have you ever loved a woman deeply? Have you ever been separated and experienced the loss of that oneness? The harmony they once held gets broken and they don't know how to repair it. They try, but often they only make things worse.

Adam and Eve s story is the story of humanity and it's universal across continents and cultures....

As far as what you judge in regarding to Adam, I wasn't there and if I were, I don't know that I would have done much better than he.

But I do think it's fair to say that we can learn from Adams choices and when we find ourselves in his situation, we can try to make the best choices that we know.

 

[stovebolts]

Yeah that's kind of a problem isn't it?
Looking at it from a human perspective, instead of a spiritual perspective.

As Paul says, all of the things that happened are for our admonition, we can and should learn from it, from a spiritual perspective, not a humanistic perspective.

The things that are written down happen over and over, there is nothing new understand sun, what has been shall be, and what is has been before.

It is a spiritual story, written with a spiritual perspective.

I find it intriguing that within the tabernacle, amongst the copies of heavenly things that God commands the priests to serve with bare feet.

I don't believe one can separate the physical from the spiritual anymore than one can separate the spiritual from the physical.

When we speak of things we See, are we able to rightly see that which is unseen?

But if we cannot correctly see that which is seen, how then will we See correctly that which is unseen?

 

[stovebolts]

Anyone can throw rocks and cast judgment. ------->But when they do, they are generally covering up their own sins and casting fault on others is simply a means of self righteousness.<-----------isnt this your judgment?

It is merely an observation at this point.
Yet Jesus tells us that if our friend has sinned against us, that we should go to him and tell him of his sin so that reconciliation can occur between brothers.

 

[stovebolts]

Can't separate the physical from the spiritual, of course we can't. Only God can and does. The physical is carnal, Temporal things, they are not spiritual at all.

So the physical is bad?

 

[stovebolts]

But your observation, is judgment. We cannot go through life without making judgments. Everything in life requires a judgment. It's good judgment, righteous judgment that men reject today. Spiritual judgment

A truth not applied is none other than knowledge. Knowledge can be based on observation.
So it is clear, I have cast not this judgment upon you.

To my point in response to your response in regard to your judgment upon Adam.

Judge not lest ye be judged. For the measure you judge others will be the measure you will be judged.

This is why I said I do not disagree with your reasoning. But I do caution you on your judgment.

Now then, let us put this trivial matter to rest.

Do you believe the physical / material is bad?
And if so, does that put spirituality on a higher plane than the material?

 

[stovebolts]

What's the rest of this verse?

Judge not lest ye be judged. For the measure you judge others will be the measure you will be judged.

And why do people take half of a thought, and pull out what they want it to say?

I think people post half a verse to make the verse say what they want it to say...instead of what it means.

Kinda like not reading the full post of another.