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

[childeye]

when Adam willfully sinned, it also qualifies him as had having a sinful nature.

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 ·

 

[chessman]

Death came through Adam because he willingly disobeyed God and was not decieved.

Genesis 1:29 And God said, “Look—I am giving to you every plant that bears seed which is on the face of the whole earth, and every kind of tree that bears fruit. They shall be yours as food.”
​

Paul also talks of willful disobedience (Adam) and disobedience caused by deception.

What was Adam's disobedience? Wasn't Adam innocently eating a kind of tree fruit which God gave him for food?

 

[Chopper]

When Adam was formed by the LORD God, he was innocent, not perfect....Genesis 2:7 "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

StoveBolts, you know that I've always respected your position as a very good friend regarding the Scriptures. I can't recall anytime time I've disagreed with any statement made by you. I do have questions about this statement of yours...."when Adam willfully sinned, it also qualifies him as had having a sinful nature."

If you know of Scripture that enforces your belief that in Adam, before he was formed, had the potential of a sin nature. I do not know of such a Scripture. At the point of God forming Adam, the only sin against our holy God was Satan's fall. The potential to sin, I believe, is isolated in Satan and his host of fallen angels.

Looking again at Genesis 2:7, it says that God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life"

Lets look at the title for God in this verse....LORD God. In the Hebrew language it is YHWH our Elohim. Elohim is the Trinity of God. Therefore, Christ Jesus is present there. Because of.... John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
1:4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men.

In light of this Scripture in John, Jesus breathed into the nostrils of Adam "the breath of life" which would be Jesus' life. I don't believe that you can see a sin nature here. The next question I have, was it willful, as you say.

Now, no one knows exactly what went on in the Garden when Eve, probably the cook, presented Adam with his meal or snack. I believe Eve knew she was disobedient to God's Command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of G&E.

Adam may have been busy working in the Garden when Eve approached him with his snack. Instead of questioning her, he ate. Who knows? He was innocent, but he was the head over Eve and therefore responsible for eating forbidden fruit. Eve and Adam both sinned and the sin nature entered into Jesus' formation of Adam & Eve changing His breath of life to the curse of death. Separation from God, and physical death and in need of redemption.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

 

[stovebolts]

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 ·

And childeye Chopper Free chessman

And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

If we look at the text in Genesis, it is very clear that Eve was decieved, but there isn't much on Adam.

And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat

How does Paul come to the account that Adam was not deceived? It is through oral tradition and the Jews have much to say on this and Paul affirms through the Holy Spirit a correct view on the matter. In Short, Paul makes it clear that Adam was not deceived while Eve was decieved.

We can talk much about what it is to be deceived, and we can if we need to. But if Paul is correct, and I believe he is, then there is only one option left. Adam willfully ate at Eve' s prompting knowing God had commanded against it.

Elsewhere, Paul writes that Death came through Adam for his disobedience. It does not come through Eve who was received. This is why life comes through Jesus who was obedient even to the cross.

In Jewish thought, ones Jewishness or lack of comes through the mother. As an example, if a Jewish man marries a Gentile woman, the child is not considered Jewish and must convert.
If the woman is Jewish and the man is Gentile, the child is considered Jewish.

In short, they believe that the identity of a soul comes from the Father, but the essence comes from the mother.

Since Paul is Jewish, and scripture says that Eve is the mother of all, then all cary the essence of Eve. And what we know of Eve is that she was decieved.

Perhaps this is what Paul is referring to when he speaks of the sin nature. Perhaps this is what David is eluding to in his psalm.

Paul writes in one of his epistles about how he killed Christians, but now he was an advocate for Christ. What we know about Paul, was he was very zealous for God. He was deceived into thinking He was doing Gods will by killing Christians.
Shortly after Paul tells of his old self, he tells of those who willfully disobey God.

If any of you have spent time in Torah, you will find that it teaches discernment above absolutes and it starts with Adam and Eve.
Eve who was deceived and Adam who willfully disobeyed God by doing the will Eve.

 

[stovebolts]

Chopper

My words, .."when Adam willfully sinned, it also qualifies him as had having a sinful nature."

Comes off the attempts of others to describe the essence of the sinful nature. According to the definitions I've heard from others, Adam falls within their definition with the caveat that Adam doesn't qualify because the sinful nature occurs after the fall.

What I have been looking for is a reasonable explanation as to why... a real reason and not one that says just because we believe it because the rest of our doctrine would fall apart if it just wasn't true because it needs to be true in order that the rest of our doctrines are true.

I hope you see my frustration in the matter.

 

[childeye]

And childeye Chopper Free chessman

And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

If we look at the text in Genesis, it is very clear that Eve was decieved, but there isn't much on Adam.

And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat

How does Paul come to the account that Adam was not deceived? It is through oral tradition and the Jews have much to say on this and Paul affirms through the Holy Spirit a correct view on the matter. In Short, Paul makes it clear that Adam was not deceived while Eve was decieved.

We can talk much about what it is to be deceived, and we can if we need to. But if Paul is correct, and I believe he is, then there is only one option left. Adam willfully ate at Eve' s prompting knowing God had commanded against it.

Elsewhere, Paul writes that Death came through Adam for his disobedience. It does not come through Eve who was received. This is why life comes through Jesus who was obedient even to the cross.

In Jewish thought, ones Jewishness or lack of comes through the mother. As an example, if a Jewish man marries a Gentile woman, the child is not considered Jewish and must convert.
If the woman is Jewish and the man is Gentile, the child is considered Jewish.

In short, they believe that the identity of a soul comes from the Father, but the essence comes from the mother.

Since Paul is Jewish, and scripture says that Eve is the mother of all, then all cary the essence of Eve. And what we know of Eve is that she was decieved.

Perhaps this is what Paul is referring to when he speaks of the sin nature. Perhaps this is what David is eluding to in his psalm.

Paul writes in one of his epistles about how he killed Christians, but now he was an advocate for Christ. What we know about Paul, was he was very zealous for God. He was deceived into thinking He was doing Gods will by killing Christians.
Shortly after Paul tells of his old self, he tells of those who willfully disobey God.

If any of you have spent time in Torah, you will find that it teaches discernment above absolutes and it starts with Adam and Eve.
Eve who was deceived and Adam who willfully disobeyed God by doing the will Eve.

I must acknowledge that Paul said that Adam was not deceived but that the woman was. However, I must also acknowledge that Paul says this in the context, that the woman should submit to the man. Paul therefore should not be taken to mean that the man is not gullible, but perhaps not as gullible as the woman was. For example Paul also says this, 2 Corinthians 11:3.

Also, we have this testimony from scripture where God declares for us what Adam did that was wrong, Genesis 3:17, Adam "should have not listened to the woman". I have said in an earlier post that this implies, that Adam probably knew better but deferred to the woman's judgment instead of trusting to his own judgment. This would still be consistent with Paul saying that the woman should submit to the man, without alluding to any allegation that Adam sinned willfully.

Why is this so important? Because, to those that believe in a "free will", the issue of sin is about blame and culpability, while to those who believe in simply a "will" or "desire", the issue is about being able to see and discern the difference between Truth and deception, and subsequently whether one's will/desire is being ruled by either sin or by God.

I strongly feel that the belief in free will is a foundation for vanity. To believe that righteousness is left to each one's own discretion, leads us to compare our righteousness with that of others in our reasoning. Through this rationalization people become either puffed up or put down. The Pharisees that despised Jesus for showing mercy to sinners, rather than joining in their contempt of sinners, displayed this form of reasoning. So if I am right, then those who believe in a moral/immoral free will, are going to tend to be Old Testament oriented and favor authoritarian principles of establishing righteousness.

Therefore to your point of one's countenance being Godly or not, we can see from the story of Caine that sin is a separate entity and power, seeking to control a person's desire/will and subsequent actions in enmity to God. Genesis 4:7.

 

[stovebolts]

I must acknowledge that Paul said that Adam was not deceived but that the woman was. However, I must also acknowledge that Paul says this in the context, that the woman should submit to the man. Paul therefore should not be taken to mean that the man is not gullible, but perhaps not as gullible as the woman was. For example Paul also says this, 2 Corinthians 11:3.

Also, we have this testimony from scripture where God declares for us what Adam did that was wrong, Genesis 3:17, Adam "should have not listened to the woman". I have said in an earlier post that this implies, that Adam probably knew better but deferred to the woman's judgment instead of trusting to his own judgment. This would still be consistent with Paul saying that the woman should submit to the man, without alluding to any allegation that Adam sinned willfully.

Why is this so important? Because, to those that believe in a "free will", the issue of sin is about blame and culpability, while to those who believe in simply a "will" or "desire", the issue is about being able to see and discern the difference between Truth and deception, and subsequently whether one's will/desire is being ruled by either sin or by God.

I strongly feel that the belief in free will is a foundation for vanity. To believe that righteousness is left to each one's own discretion, leads us to compare our righteousness with that of others in our reasoning. Through this rationalization people become either puffed up or put down. The Pharisees that despised Jesus for showing mercy to sinners, rather than joining in their contempt of sinners, displayed this form of reasoning. So if I am right, then those who believe in a moral/immoral free will, are going to tend to be Old Testament oriented and favor authoritarian principles of establishing righteousness.

Therefore to your point of one's countenance being Godly or not, we can see from the story of Caine that sin is a separate entity and power, seeking to control a person's desire/will and subsequent actions in enmity to God. Genesis 4:7.

Hi,
I've never parsed freewill vs will as you have, nor have I heard it discussed. But what you say seems reasonable.

As to Adam, we are in agreement and I did not bring your thoughts in for the simple reason that I was trying to focus the discussion. But to that point, Adam did willfully disobey God because knowing better, he did Eve s will.

The way I understand the word willfully within the context means that Adam had a choice. He clearly knew that what he was about to do was against Gods will and he did it anyway. Eve on the other hand bought the lie. This is the starting point for discernment between willful sinning (Adam) and sin by other means such as being deceived or ignorant (Eve) / Saul - Paul.

I have read most of your posts in this thread and I have enjoyed them. In my previous post I have finally come out directly with my thoughts on the sin nature and as you know, I have rejected all other attempts by others to describe it.

What are your thoughts on the meaning of the sin nature and what are your thoughts on mine within the context of essence.

 

[childeye]

What are your thoughts on the meaning of the sin nature and what are your thoughts on mine within the context of essence.

Your description about Eve and what you refer to as the essence of the soul as being distinguishable from the identity, is something very thought provoking. I note that it's a woman that has twelve stars over her head standing on the moon who gives birth to the Christ, according to the book of revelation. Also the Church is depicted as a female bride and yet the body of the male Spiritual Christ, wherein the Identity of the Church is derived. It actually makes sense to me, and the sense is that wisdom is there. However, I would need for the Holy Spirit to be moved to guide me into the deeper ramifications before I could offer anything as definitive.

The sin nature to me, is that which is complacent or not mindful or thoughtful of God. The mind therefore is focused on the superficial flesh rather than the spiritual identity which may or may not factor into the essence and identity configuration. The sin nature appears to be a blindness through vanity, or to vanity, or both. Sin seems to catch people unawares at it's outset, which is why it is deceptive in it's presentation, promising those things that would seem to improve one's stature or identity, only to introduce the corruption of what was before an unrealized and unappreciated virtue.

I therefore don't believe that Adam sinned willfully, but rather that he sinned reluctantly or through complacence. For it seems to me that to sin willingly, one would have had to first acknowledged the Truth and the consequences and then did otherwise. While Adam was told he would die if he ate, Adam did not actually know for certain that he would die. I imagine that up until the day he ate, every other time that he had passed by that tree, he did not even consider choosing to eat, even because he was fully trusting that what God had said was True. In this instance knowing God's will would have made no difference since God's intentions had been put into question by the serpent.

Perhaps Adam wondered why Eve didn't fall dead the moment she ate, and therefore he experienced doubt for the first time. Perhaps he ate because he wanted to know if Eve was actually telling the truth about gaining wisdom, and he therefore gave little or no consideration that God could not be mistaken. Finally, if Adam actually fully realized what he was doing was wrong and deadly, I'd think that God would have said, "Don't blame the woman, you knew exactly what you were doing." Instead God implies, "you should not have listened to the woman in eating that which I forbade you to eat". It does indicate that Adam knew better than Eve, but I still refrain from using the word willfully to describe the event. Scripture indicates a lack of confidence in Adam and his identity as being made in God's image.

But I wasn't there when it happened, so I am left to speculate about what it was like to be Adam, and also what it would be like to be innocent and ignorant of what a lie is. And if there is some lesson to be learned, I am going to have to make some judgment concerning the matter. I am therefore more willing to project a bias that Adam was weak, ignorant, and malleable in some capacity, rather than project a bias that he was knowingly and voluntarily deliberate. Otherwise there could be no sincere regrets nor repentance. I've looked at the implications to my reasoning and to my Spirit by exploring both, and I find mercy and understanding the more preferable to what otherwise only ends in self condemnation. I have found no sin that I have acquiesced to, that I did not later greatly regret, therefore I did not sin willfully. Likewise I am reluctant to blame Adam without any mitigation, for he was made corruptible. Romans 8:20

This is the translation of the word "willfully" as used in Hebrews 10:26, from the Blue Letter Bible Lexicon:

voluntarily, willingly, of one's own accord

1. 
   to sin wilfully as opposed to sins committed inconsiderately, and from ignorance or from weakness

 

[Chopper]

Your description about Eve and what you refer to as the essence of the soul as being distinguishable from the identity, is something very thought provoking. I note that it's a woman that has twelve stars over her head standing on the moon who gives birth to the Christ, according to the book of revelation. Also the Church is depicted as a female bride and yet the body of the male Spiritual Christ, wherein the Identity of the Church is derived. It actually makes sense to me, and the sense is that wisdom is there. However, I would need for the Holy Spirit to be moved to guide me into the deeper ramifications before I could offer anything as definitive.

The sin nature to me, is that which is complacent or not mindful or thoughtful of God. The mind therefore is focused on the superficial flesh rather than the spiritual identity which may or may not factor into the essence and identity configuration. The sin nature appears to be a blindness through vanity, or to vanity, or both. Sin seems to catch people unawares at it's outset, which is why it is deceptive in it's presentation, promising those things that would seem to improve one's stature or identity, only to introduce the corruption of what was before an unrealized and unappreciated virtue.

I therefore don't believe that Adam sinned willfully, but rather that he sinned reluctantly or through complacence. For it seems to me that to sin willingly, one would have had to first acknowledged the Truth and the consequences and then did otherwise. While Adam was told he would die if he ate, Adam did not actually know for certain that he would die. I imagine that up until the day he ate, every other time that he had passed by that tree, he did not even consider choosing to eat, even because he was fully trusting that what God had said was True. In this instance knowing God's will would have made no difference since God's intentions had been put into question by the serpent.

Perhaps Adam wondered why Eve didn't fall dead the moment she ate, and therefore he experienced doubt for the first time. Perhaps he ate because he wanted to know if Eve was actually telling the truth about gaining wisdom, and he therefore gave little or no consideration that God could not be mistaken. Finally, if Adam actually fully realized what he was doing was wrong and deadly, I'd think that God would have said, "Don't blame the woman, you knew exactly what you were doing." Instead God implies, "you should not have listened to the woman in eating that which I forbade you to eat". It does indicate that Adam knew better than Eve, but I still refrain from using the word willfully to describe the event. Scripture indicates a lack of confidence in Adam and his identity as being made in God's image.

But I wasn't there when it happened, so I am left to speculate about what it was like to be Adam, and also what it would be like to be innocent and ignorant of what a lie is. And if there is some lesson to be learned, I am going to have to make some judgment concerning the matter. I am therefore more willing to project a bias that Adam was weak, ignorant, and malleable in some capacity, rather than project a bias that he was knowingly and voluntarily deliberate. Otherwise there could be no sincere regrets nor repentance. I've looked at the implications to my reasoning and to my Spirit by exploring both, and I find mercy and understanding the more preferable to what otherwise only ends in self condemnation. I have found no sin that I have acquiesced to, that I did not later greatly regret, therefore I did not sin willfully. Likewise I am reluctant to blame Adam without any mitigation, for he was made corruptible. Romans 8:20

This is the translation of the word "willfully" as used in Hebrews 10:26, from the Blue Letter Bible Lexicon:

voluntarily, willingly, of one's own accord

1. 
   to sin wilfully as opposed to sins committed inconsiderately, and from ignorance or from weakness

Thank you childeye for your presentation that includes wisdom and grace, and might just be the way the events of Adam's thoughts might have been. As you say...."I wasn't there when it happened, so I am left to speculate about what it was like to be Adam."

 

[Mike]

However, at the point of creation, Adam had not sinned. Thus, he was created good. Note, he was not created perfect, for God even said that it was NOT good that man be alone, even while in the presence of God himself.

Jeff, I'm just curious about this statement. As you said and we know in Genesis, God created and called His creation good. You note that He didn't call it perfect, but good.

From Mark 10:17-18 we see the significance of the word "good" when Jesus says only God is good. With this being true, and man was created in His image, doesn't this suggest that good is more than the word as we use it? Does it suggest perfection. God created perfectly. He created Adam perfectly?

I've loved seeing you engaged in this thread and providing your content. :yes

 

[stovebolts]

Your description about Eve and what you refer to as the essence of the soul as being distinguishable from the identity, is something very thought provoking. I note that it's a woman that has twelve stars over her head standing on the moon who gives birth to the Christ, according to the book of revelation. Also the Church is depicted as a female bride and yet the body of the male Spiritual Christ, wherein the Identity of the Church is derived. It actually makes sense to me, and the sense is that wisdom is there. However, I would need for the Holy Spirit to be moved to guide me on all of the deeper implications.

The sin nature to me, is that which is complacent or not mindful or thoughtful of God. The mind therefore is focused on the superficial flesh rather than the spiritual identity. It appears to be a blindness through vanity or to vanity, or both. Sin seems to catch people unawares at it's outset, which is why it is deceptive in it's presentation, promising those things that would seem to improve one's stature, only to introduce the corruption of what was before an unrealized and unappreciated virtue.

I therefore don't believe that Adam sinned willfully, but rather that he sinned reluctantly or through complacence. To sin willingly, one would have had to first acknowledged the Truth and then did otherwise. Adam did not actually know for certain that he would die. I imagine that up until the day he ate, every other time that he had passed by that tree, he did not even consider choosing to eat, even because he was fully trusting that what God had said was True.

Perhaps Adam wondered why Eve didn't fall dead the moment she ate, and therefore he experienced doubt for the first time. Perhaps he ate because he wanted to know if Eve was actually telling the truth about gaining wisdom, and he therefore gave little or no consideration that God might be mistaken. Finally, if Adam actually fully realized what he was doing was wrong and deadly, I'd think that God would have said, "Don't blame the woman, you knew exactly what you were doing." Instead God said "you should not have listened to the woman in eating that which I forbade you to eat". It does indicate that Adam knew better than Eve, but I still refrain from using the word willfully to describe the event.

I wasn't there when it happened, so I am left to speculate about what it was like to be Adam, and also what it would be like to be innocent and ignorant of what a lie is. But since I admit that there is some lesson to be learned, I am going to make some judgment concerning the matter. I am therefore more willing to project a bias that Adam was weak, ignorant, and malleable in some capacity, rather than that he was knowingly voluntarily deliberate. Otherwise there could be no regrets nor repentance. I've looked at the implications to my reasoning and to my Spirit by exploring both, and I find mercy and understanding the more preferable to what otherwise only ends in self condemnation. I have found no sin that I have acquiesced to, that I did not later greatly regret, therefore I did not sin willfully. Nor therefore do I blame Adam, for he was made corruptible. Romans 8:20

This is the word "willingly" as used in Hebrews 10:26, from the Blue Letter Bible Lexicon:

voluntarily, willingly, of one's own accord

1. 
   to sin wilfully as opposed to sins committed inconsiderately, and from ignorance or from weakness

A very good read, especially your take on identity and essence. It had me going places in my spirit yesterday and i shall continue to ponder them today. I have found much wisdom from Jewish literature regarding the scriptures.

I especially liked the way you outlined sin. Much i sight and very well articulated. You brought the issue right to tbe core.

As far as your ponderings on Adam and Eve, I'm sure we all have wandering tboughts and I am sure they reflect our own experiences or those close to us. I think it's normal to have those types of thoughts and I think, and I'll qualify by highlighting " in part " that scripture is living and active...

I understand what you mean by Adam perhaps being reluctant. As I recall, she was bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh. And the harmony they shared had radically changed. A good man would die for his wife and certainly with his wife if put in that citcumstance, so I do see Adams turmoil. Perhaps his yearning to be with her was so strong... men rarely make rational decisions when their hearts are torn.

It is said that Moses wrote Genesis as well as Job. And just as Adam and Eve were one flesh, so it was with Job and his wife which is why no harm was done to her. Job lost all he had, including his children with the exception of his wife.
And do you recall her words? It was on the lines of curse God so you will be put out of your misery. But Job would not listen to the words of his wife.

Is it possible that Moses gives us a glimpse of Eve through Jobs wife? I don't know, but it is something I have pondered from time to time.

Could Adam had disobeyed God reluctantly? I think that's reasonable. But it would have been a willful decision. We have all done things reluctantly, and it's not a good place to be. But a willful decision had to be made on the matter, and that's different than being deceived.

I know earlier that I used the word willing. That was a bad choice of words on my part.

Anyway, I appreciated your thoughts and they have spured many thoughts in me. Iron sharpens iron and I have enjoyed our exchange.

 

[stovebolts]

Jeff, I'm just curious about this statement. As you said and we know in Genesis, God created and called His creation good. You note that He didn't call it perfect, but good.

From Mark 10:17-18 we see the significance of the word "good" when Jesus says only God is good. With this being true, and man was created in His image, doesn't this suggest that good is more than the word as we use it? Does it suggest perfection. God created perfectly. He created Adam perfectly?

I've loved seeing you engaged in this thread and providing your content. :yes

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

 

[markathome]

My dad tells not to touch the hot stove burner, first thing I do is to touch the hot stove burner.
Adam's Father tells him not to eat of this one tree, first chance he gets he eats of the tree.
The first Law we learn as kids is the word NO? Matthew 5:17-19

 

[chessman]

We can talk much about what it is to be deceived, and we can if we need to.

Yes, this thread needs to talk (with Scripture) much about how it is a pre-born or infant could be deceived about ANYTHING being good or evil.

Nobody seems willing to answer;
If God had not told Adam to not eat from that one tree in the Garden and Adam/Eve had then ate from it, would his/her eating from it have been evil/sin (whether any deception was presented to them or not)?

The answer seems obviously, no.
Thus no condemnation.

Without God's prohibition(s) of that one tree's fruit, that is "knowledge of good/evil", they were previously given all the tree fruit as food and where "good".

Thus no sin, until they .,. umm sinned (disobeyed).

Same for infants!

There has been zero Scripture presented showing that infants are condemned at birth for their 'sin' or for Adam's.
Subject to the 1st death and a properly implemented judgment for any deeds THEY may have commited, sure. But the 2nd death and judged for Adam's deeds, no!

 

[stovebolts]

Yes, this thread needs to talk (with Scripture) much about how it is a pre-born or infant could be deceived about ANYTHING being good or evil.

Nobody seems willing to answer;
If God had not told Adam to not eat from that one tree in the Garden and Adam/Eve had then ate from it, would his/her eating from it have been evil/sin (whether any deception was presented to them or not)?

The answer seems obviously, no.
Thus no condemnation.

Without God's prohibition(s) of that one tree's fruit, that is "knowledge of good/evil", they were previously given all the tree fruit as food and where "good".

Thus no sin, until they .,. umm sinned (disobeyed).

Same for infants!

There has been zero Scripture presented showing that infants are condemned at birth for their 'sin' or for Adam's.
Subject to the 1st death and a properly implemented judgment for any deeds THEY may have commited, sure. But the 2nd death and judged for Adam's deeds, no!

I concur.

New International Version
To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone's account where there is no law.

To be clear, the Law being spoken about was the Law given at Mount Sinai. Furthermore, it was a covenant law by which only the Hebrews entered into for the express purpose that they would be a light to the nation's.

Deut 4:6
6 aKeep them and do them, for bthat will be your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples, who, when they hear all these statutes, will say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’ cwhat great nation is there that has da god so near to it as the Lord our God is to us, whenever we call upon him? erighteous as all this law that I set before you today?

The Law was given that sin would be made known. And by that standard, nobody has shown which sin an infant is guilty of. But even so, the 613 laws were for the Jews under that covenant, so a Gentile cannot be charged with a Jewish law.

However, there are the laws of Noah that all will be judged by....

International Version
What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "You shall not covet."

 

[childeye]

Nobody seems willing to answer;
If God had not told Adam to not eat from that one tree in the Garden and Adam/Eve had then ate from it, would his/her eating from it have been evil/sin (whether any deception was presented to them or not)?

You use the two terms evil/sin to express something bad/destructive/contrary to God. Since the knowledge of good and evil brought about the corruption of innocence, why would it not produce evil/sin, even if God had given no instruction to disobey?

Respectfully, I don't believe that God's commands to us are ever initiated so as to establish a blind obedience, such as jumping through hoops for hope of reward or fear of penalty. His commands are meant to keep us from harm. I note that the results of the knowledge of good and evil for Adam and Eve, produced the effect of seeing that they were naked. This caused them to feel ashamed, whereas before they had never found any reason to be ashamed. I also note that they therefore hid from God, so that God would not see their nakedness, whereas before they would have never found reason to hide from God.

It seems that sin and therefore death, were present in the knowledge of good and evil, which God had warned us not to eat of lest we die. I still remember experiencing the feeling of losing for the first time, when I played a game with my brother. I recall it being a very dark feeling the likes of which I had never felt before. I didn't will to have the feeling, but rather my will was moved. I didn't choose to have the feeling nor could I decide for it to go away. It simply materialized within me of it's own accord and the consequences were such, that I didn't ever will to play a game again, unless I could be the winner and someone else the loser.

 

[chessman]

why would it not produce evil/sin, even if God had given no instruction to disobey?

Produce evil/sin where??? In the world as we know it or in an infant who doesn't know good or evil?

If The Serpent knew good from evil prior to Eve's first bit (I think he did), yet Adam/Eve were naked and innocent then (and they were as you point out), then I don't see how having evil present with them in The Garden somehow transfered condemnation to them. Nor do I see how a mother's or father's sins transfers to a naked and innocent infant.
I can see how a limited lifetime (whether years or days) transfers to them. But condemnation for Adam's sin??? Not so much.

There was evil around even before Adam/Eve disobeyed, is my point. Namely The Serpent. So??? Where Adam/Eve found to be sinful (and thus condemned for it) due to The Serpent's evil or their own??? No! They were ashamed until they/themselves choose evil. If that's the point you were making, it's a good one.

I don't believe that God's commands to us are simply initiated so as to establish a blind obedience, as in jumping through hoops for hope of reward or fear of penalty.

Me either.
Do you believe God commands infants in the womb to do something or not do something? Their parents, sure.

His commands are meant to keep us from harm.

Yep, and grow us into His righteousness.
I'm at a loss as to any commands, however, He's given to infants, though. Yes, they're new creatures in a world where evil/sin exist. So where Adam/Eve prior to their fall. Yet they were naked/innocent. Same as infants.

I still remember experiencing the feeling of losing when I played a game with my brother for the first time, and it is a very dark feeling to know what it means to be the loser.

Do you remember being in the womb or your birth?

 

[childeye]

If The Serpent knew good from evil prior to Eve's first bit (I think he did), yet Adam/Eve were naked and innocent then (and they were as you point out), then I don't see how having evil present with them in The Garden somehow transfered condemnation to them. Nor do I see how a mother's or father's sins transfers to a naked and innocent infant.
I can see how a limited lifetime (whether years or days) transfers to them. But condemnation for Adam's sin??? Not so much.

Ahh, "Condemnation". My mistake. I should have read your post more closely. There's a distinction to be drawn between sin and condemnation of sin, which I feel is causing some misunderstanding. I don't believe any child can be condemned for sin even though I believe sin is passed on from Adam. Nor do I believe Adam should be condemned for sin. In fact I don't think anyone will be condemned for sin except by what measure they condemn others. Matthew 7:2.

 

[chessman]

Ahh, "Condemnation".

Yep, the OP is about condemnation (or lack thereof) for Adam's sin being transferred to infants (or even the pre-born).

There's a distinction to be drawn between sin and condemnation of sin, which I feel is causing some misunderstanding

Yep. As well as confusion over death being condemnation. Which I find odd for a Christian to misunderstand, but it happens.

I believe sin is passed on from Adam

Via what verse(s)? [Though again, the OP is technically about condemnation at birth.]

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)

Romans 5:12-14Lexham English Bible (LEB) 12 Because of this, just as sin entered into the world through one man, and death through sin, so also death spread to all people because all sinned. 13 For until the law, sin was in the world, but sin is not charged to one’s account when there is no law. 14 But death reigned from Adam until Moses even over those who did not sin in the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of the one who is to come. ​

 

[childeye]

Yep, the OP is about condemnation (or lack thereof) for Adam's sin being transferred to infants (or even the pre-born).
Yep. As well as confusion over death being condemnation. Which I find odd for a Christian to misunderstand, but it happens.


Via what verse(s)? [Though again, the OP is technically about condemnation at birth.]

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)

Romans 5:12-14Lexham English Bible (LEB) 12 Because of this, just as sin entered into the world through one man, and death through sin, so also death spread to all people because all sinned. 13 For until the law, sin was in the world, but sin is not charged to one’s account when there is no law. 14 But death reigned from Adam until Moses even over those who did not sin in the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of the one who is to come. ​

I need to go to work, but I will be back in two to three hours. It will give me a chance to pray, ponder, and rethink my terms, so as to address your points as they deserve to be.