The Controlled Fall

[netchaplain]

Hi Kevin and thanks for your input. I want to share my opinion with you about some of your comments and as you may already know, I never share out of competing or contending but so that all of us may continue to get more understanding of Scripture, as I believe is also your intentions.

Jesus was also born through the Spirit and was fully man yet He had no sin in Him.

You're probably aware that the significance of Jesus' birth an "Immaculate Conception", which can only refer to His incarnation, regardless of religious claims otherwise, concerning any other human's incarnation (see dictionary definition for Immaculate Conception to determine my meaning). This exemplifies Christ being "the only begotten of the Father" for "that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost". We were conceived by mankind, hence His description "the only begotten of the Father".

It should be a reasonable observation (as you've also shown) that He, not being conceived of the carnal nature but of the Spirit (John 3:6), was void of the carnal nature which accompanies man's human nature and thus, His human nature could only be divine (2 Pet 1:4); this due not only because of His conception but more so because of Him being deity.

Sin is not a tangible attribute which we can see, it is as a result of disobedience to God.

This is close to my reasoning but mine is the invert of it. As we know, all occurrences have a cause and an effect and it's my belief that sinning is an effect of a sin nature, which I believe concurs with James 1:14.

Sinfulness does not come from God, it comes from disobeying God.

This sounds good and would incur less accountability but I think disobedience is the sinfulness, which proceeds, not precedes sin nature. I also think that if they had disobeyed out of ignorance (which wasn't the case because of His commandments prior to the act), there could not have been an accountability, similarly to what Christ disclosed in John 15:24.

My primary point with this thread isn't necessarily to attempt to determine the chronology of the sin nature's presence but with the fact that their act of disobedience wasn't a mistake, as if they we not suppose to do it and as unorthodox as this concept appears, I find it confirms the sovereignty of God's actions.

 

[netchaplain]

Duplicate Post.

 

[Kevin]

It should be a reasonable observation (as you've also shown) that He, not being conceived of the carnal nature but of the Spirit (John 3:6), was void of the carnal nature which accompanies man's human nature and thus, His human nature could only be divine (2 Pet 1:4); this due not only because of His conception but more so because of Him being deity.

Adam was also created by the Spirit and could not have been concived by a carnal nature. Adam was created directly from the Spirit of God, who is pure, holy and righteous and has no sin in HIM.

Gen 2:7
And Jehovah God formed man of thedust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

My primary point with this thread isn't necessarily to attempt to determine the chronology of the sin nature's presence but with the fact that their act of disobedience wasn't a mistake, as if they we not suppose to do it and as unorthodox as this concept appears, I find it confirms the sovereignty of God's actions.

But we have to look at the Chronology of sin. To separate it from chronology puts strain on proper hermenuetics. Before Adam sinned there was no sin for mankind, after he sinned, because Adam is seen as the federal head of mankind, all of mankind inherited the sinful nature after the fact. Scripture needs to be interpreted in this light. Nowhere in the Bible does scripture even allude to the point that Adam was sinful before he actually sinned, but scripture does teach about the sinful nature in all of us post the events in Genesis.

The sin of Adam was a HUGE mistake, one which cast a curse upon all of creation and created the necessary sacrifice of Jesus Christ to reverse.

If we stand back and say "well God created me with a sinful nature" would imply two heretical doctrines. Firstly God would be an imperfect God, as He would be associated with sin. If I made an object with an inbuilt flaw and then destroyed it because of this flaw - who would be at fault? Myself or the object. Of course I would be at fault for creating something which is flawed. Therefore to imply God created mankind with a sinful nature would imply God is at fault. Secondly to imply that God designed us to sin would remove all accountablity on our behalf. How could God hold us accountable for something he put in us? That would make God a hypocrite!

The scriptures I posted in my previous post state clearly that sin came through man.

To have the ability to choose between right and wrong and to state that man was created with a sinful nature are two vastly different things. Adam was created perfect and good, God even declared this. God walked with Adam and Eve prior to the fall. If they had a sinful nature from the beginning they would have been in contrast with God's nature who is righteous and pure and God would have separated Himself from them in the very beginning. Man was created in God's image - to imply that we were created with a sinful nature implies God has a sinful nature. After the fall mankind inherited a sinful nature and was separated from God and only through Jesus Christ can we be reconciled.

 

[Major]

Hi Kevin and thanks for your input. I want to share my opinion with you about some of your comments and as you may already know, I never share out of competing or contending but so that all of us may continue to get more understanding of Scripture, as I believe is also your intentions.



You're probably aware that the significance of Jesus' birth an "Immaculate Conception", which can only refer to His incarnation, regardless of religious claims otherwise, concerning any other human's incarnation (see dictionary definition for Immaculate Conception to determine my meaning). This exemplifies Christ being "the only begotten of the Father" for "that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost". We were conceived by mankind, hence His description "the only begotten of the Father".

It should be a reasonable observation (as you've also shown) that He, not being conceived of the carnal nature but of the Spirit (John 3:6), was void of the carnal nature which accompanies man's human nature and thus, His human nature could only be divine (2 Pet 1:4); this due not only because of His conception but more so because of Him being deity.





This is close to my reasoning but mine is the invert of it. As we know, all occurrences have a cause and an effect and it's my belief that sinning is an effect of a sin nature, which I believe concurs with James 1:14.



This sounds good and would incur less accountability but I think disobedience is the sinfulness, which proceeds, not precedes sin nature. I also think that if they had disobeyed out of ignorance (which wasn't the case because of His commandments prior to the act), there could not have been an accountability, similarly to what Christ disclosed in John 15:24.

My primary point with this thread isn't necessarily to attempt to determine the chronology of the sin nature's presence but with the fact that their act of disobedience wasn't a mistake, as if they we not suppose to do it and as unorthodox as this concept appears, I find it confirms the sovereignty of God's actions.

Question Net.....
If humanity is not born in sin, wouldn't we expect there to be some people who have "beaten the odds" and never sinned?
If we are born innocent and good, why aren't there at least some people who have continued in this state and remained sinless? The fact that everybody sins needs some explanation doesn't it? It seems to me that is your mission.

Would it be true that the best explanation is that we are sinners by nature. Someone might argue that the reason all people sin is because society is sinful, and thus society renders it impossible for anybody to keep themselves entirely pure. But that only pushes the question back one step. How did society get sinful in the first place? If people are born morally good, then how did it come about that they congregated into socities that influence all people to sin?

I have said that men were innocent....not righteouse. Righteouse is the ability to remain innocent when tested.

Comments???

 

[KingJ]

Question Net.....
If humanity is not born in sin, wouldn't we expect there to be some people who have "beaten the odds" and never sinned?
If we are born innocent and good, why aren't there at least some people who have continued in this state and remained sinless? The fact that everybody sins needs some explanation doesn't it? It seems to me that is your mission.

Would it be true that the best explanation is that we are sinners by nature. Someone might argue that the reason all people sin is because society is sinful, and thus society renders it impossible for anybody to keep themselves entirely pure. But that only pushes the question back one step. How did society get sinful in the first place? If people are born morally good, then how did it come about that they congregated into socities that influence all people to sin?

I have said that men were innocent....not righteouse. Righteouse is the ability to remain innocent when tested.

Comments???

I think you were on the right track with your thinking on 'innocent / righteous', just perhaps righteous wrong word as Calvin pointed out. Maybe 'tried'?

As to the question. I think it has something to do with parents and our surrounding. Kids learn from parents. Adam and Eve were the first two and surely their knowledge of sin rubbed off on their kids and so on. It is wrong to say we are born with sin nature but correct to say we are born in the knowledge of sin? Because of the weakness of our flesh....weakness like for example our inability to remove the memories / knowing of the sin we saw / experienced....rather helplessly exposed to sin all around us....our minds will inevitably entertain evil the moment we reach the age of understanding. God set a mousetrap for mankind! It can either catch us for sin or catch us for Jesus. Perhaps God just didn't want to get to know all of us on such a deep personal basis spanning millions of years just to have us turn on Him like the angels?

 

[Major]

I think you were on the right track with your thinking on 'innocent / righteous', just perhaps righteous wrong word as Calvin pointed out. Maybe 'tried'?

As to the question. I think it has something to do with parents and our surrounding. Kids learn from parents. Adam and Eve were the first two and surely their knowledge of sin rubbed off on their kids and so on. It is wrong to say we are born with sin nature but correct to say we are born in the knowledge of sin? Because of the weakness of our flesh....weakness like for example our inability to remove the memories / knowing of the sin we saw / experienced....rather helplessly exposed to sin all around us....our minds will inevitably entertain evil the moment we reach the age of understanding. God set a mousetrap for mankind! It can either catch us for sin or catch us for Jesus. Perhaps God just didn't want to get to know all of us on such a deep personal basis spanning millions of years just to have us turn on Him like the angels?

Now that is an interesting thought.

 

[netchaplain]

If humanity is not born in sin, wouldn't we expect there to be some people who have "beaten the odds" and never sinned?

Interesting, "But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin" (Gal 3:22). "For God hath concluded them all in unbelief" (Rom 11:32). Scripture is clear that everyone after "the pair on the ground", all are born with the inherent sin-nature, what contemporary scholars now call "The adamic-nature".

The hesitancy to understand this is due to insufficient comprehension of Christ's efficacy, which causes us to continue to point ourselves out even though God no longer points to the guilt, only the presence of sin, which we and He knows what will be done with it.

 

[netchaplain]

The sin of Adam was a HUGE mistake, one which cast a curse upon all of creation and created the necessary sacrifice of Jesus Christ to reverse.

My point is that regardless whether if it was a mistake or not, God foreknew about it, even when He was instruction them. Unless God chooses not to know about it beforehand, which is not sensible considering His omniscience.

Thanks for your interest Kevin.

 

[netchaplain]

I think it has something to do with parents and our surrounding. Kids learn from parents. Adam and Eve were the first two and surely their knowledge of sin rubbed off on their kids and so on.

This is pretty good analyzing, but I believe when the two, or anyone sins, it always originates from within; "he is drawn away of his own lust"; and it must be proceeded with the conception of it, otherwise it will not occur; "when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin" (Jam 1:14).

A good example could be the idea that Satan was created perfect (Ezek 28:15) and sin came from within him.

I think this is also noteworthy: "The tree of knowledge of good and evil"; so called, either with respect to God, who by it tried man, when He had made him, whether he would be good or evil; but this He foreknew: rather therefore with respect to man, not that the eating the fruit of it could really give him such knowledge, nor did he need it; for by the law of nature inscribed on his heart, he knew the difference between good and evil, and that what God commanded was good, and what he forbid was evil". - J Gill

 

[Stan]

I do not believe Satan transferred sin to Eve that wasn't already resident within her and Adam. Their disobedience was evidence of possessing a sin nature prior to the act. I believe the Enemy did not inject something but rather revealed something preexisting.

Eve's disobedience was due to deception, for "Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression" (1 Tim 2:14); "the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty" (2 Cor 11:3). The evidence of her sin nature was that she saw, "a tree to be desired to make one wise" (Gen 3:6); and we must realize this was before the temptation.

These three causes of Eve in Genesis 3:6 have been paralleled with 1 John 2:16; "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh (good for food), and the lust of the eyes (pleasant to the eyes), and the pride of life (desired to make one wise), is not of the Father, but is of the world." She was familiar with the fact that "out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food" (Gen 2:9), but this scenario did not apply to a tree to be desired to make one wise.

Adam's disobedience was due to putting God's word second to his wife, for he "hearkened unto the voice of thy wife" (Gen 3:17). Scripture is not clear concerning Adam's reason for the disobedience, other than "The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat" (Gen 3:12). This sounds like blame but I think Adam was just stating a truth, not blaming Eve because my conjecture is that out of compassion for Eve, he was willing to die with her.

The crux of this concept is to portray that God in His omniscience "worketh all things after the counsel of His own will" (Eph 1:11); "according to His own purpose and grace" (2 Tim 1:9). Simply put, what transpired was the way He desired it to go, or He would have done it another way.

I believe that most people don't realize that God planned EVERYTHING with all contingencies and foreknowledge before He ever did one thing towards it. Adam and Eve were not created with sin, but as Paul says in Rom 5:13; For sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged when there is no law. God's command to Adam to NOT eat of the TOKOGAE, created the potential to sin. Eve sinned, then they received the knowledge of not only what they did, but their own sinful desires. I don't advocate that we are born with a sinful nature, but we are born nature that is NOT submissive to God at a certain point. Up to that point, which a lot of people call the age of accountability, sin is NOT charged. As soon as we KNOW the difference between Good and Evil, and choose evil, we sin.

 

[Stan]

I do not believe Satan transferred sin to Eve that wasn't already resident within her and Adam. Their disobedience was evidence of possessing a sin nature prior to the act. I believe the Enemy did not inject something but rather revealed something preexisting.

Eve's disobedience was due to deception, for "Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression" (1 Tim 2:14); "the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty" (2 Cor 11:3). The evidence of her sin nature was that she saw, "a tree to be desired to make one wise" (Gen 3:6); and we must realize this was before the temptation.

These three causes of Eve in Genesis 3:6 have been paralleled with 1 John 2:16; "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh (good for food), and the lust of the eyes (pleasant to the eyes), and the pride of life (desired to make one wise), is not of the Father, but is of the world." She was familiar with the fact that "out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food" (Gen 2:9), but this scenario did not apply to a tree to be desired to make one wise.

Adam's disobedience was due to putting God's word second to his wife, for he "hearkened unto the voice of thy wife" (Gen 3:17). Scripture is not clear concerning Adam's reason for the disobedience, other than "The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat" (Gen 3:12). This sounds like blame but I think Adam was just stating a truth, not blaming Eve because my conjecture is that out of compassion for Eve, he was willing to die with her.

The crux of this concept is to portray that God in His omniscience "worketh all things after the counsel of His own will" (Eph 1:11); "according to His own purpose and grace" (2 Tim 1:9). Simply put, what transpired was the way He desired it to go, or He would have done it another way.

Rom 5:12-14
12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all have sinned—. 13 For sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the coming one.

The law was given when God said "DO NOT EAT..."
God put a full blown plan into effect when He created the heavens and the earth. He was NOT reactionary. His foreknowledge has determined from before time started, what His plan was. His plan of Salvation was included BEFORE He ever created one iota of our universe. From Gen 1:1 to Rev 22:21, God's plan is unfolding as He has foreseen and planned.

 

[Major]

Interesting, "But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin" (Gal 3:22). "For God hath concluded them all in unbelief" (Rom 11:32). Scripture is clear that everyone after "the pair on the ground", all are born with the inherent sin-nature, what contemporary scholars now call "The adamic-nature".

The hesitancy to understand this is due to insufficient comprehension of Christ's efficacy, which causes us to continue to point ourselves out even though God no longer points to the guilt, only the presence of sin, which we and He knows what will be done with it.

I agree..........BUT, since the tree in the Garden was a test of obedience, doesnt that mean they could have passed the test instead of failing it?

 

[KingJ]

This is pretty good analyzing,

With the exception of me saying God set a mousetrap for mankind . He has just done things in such a way that our decision to accept or reject Him is sped up.

A good example could be the idea that Satan was created perfect (Ezek 28:15) and sin came from within him.

God creating us and the angels with the ability to rebel does not mean we were not created perfect. Created perfect with free will is not the same as created with a sin nature. Not sure if you still accept we are created with a sin nature .

 

[1an]

I cannot see there being any progress if we aren't tempted, whether it is the desire to become rich, famous, powerful or simply to enjoy the pleasures of the flesh. Temptation is just around the corner, and just think if we were not tempted by the lust of the flesh we would be in danger of breaking the commandment to go forth and multiply and that might be the end of humankind. (Did that commandment come first? I cannot remember)

Just think if we weren't tempted by the thought of the grass being greener in the next field we wouldn't move out of our cave, but we might still be in the Garden though?

So, perhaps temptation is a necessary evil?
.

 

[Major]

I cannot see there being any progress if we aren't tempted, whether it is the desire to become rich, famous, powerful or simply to enjoy the pleasures of the flesh. Temptation is just around the corner, and just think if we were not tempted by the lust of the flesh we would be in danger of breaking the commandment to go forth and multiply and that might be the end of humankind. (Did that commandment come first? I cannot remember)

Just think if we weren't tempted by the thought of the grass being greener in the next field we wouldn't move out of our cave, but we might still be in the Garden though?

So, perhaps temptation is a necessary evil?
.

Good thought 1an.

I usually do not agree a lot with Rick Warren, but in this case he stated in his book, "The Purpose Driven Life" something that we are discussing and it seems appropreiate.
Temptation is an opportunity to do good. It is an opportunity for you to grow and mature in Christ by developing the fruits of the spirit (Gal 5:22-23). Character building always involves a choice and temptations provide that opportunity.

You cannot claim that you have done good if you were not tempted to be bad. You can't know how much you can love somebody unless you are in the midst of unlovely people. God gives us His real joy in the midst of sorrow. Every time you defeat a temptation you become more like Jesus!!

 

[calvin]

I agree..........BUT, since the tree in the Garden was a test of obedience, doesnt that mean they could have passed the test instead of failing it?

Yes, I believe so. And, why wasn't the tree of life an attractive enough reward for them should they have continued to pass the test? Was it because it was in their nature to fail the test? No! It was because that 'used car salesman' offered them a flashy looking Chevy with a shot motor in it....and they bought it! Suppose they had continued to pass the test, then finally one day was heard the 'pitta patta of tiny feet' in the garden. Would the test remain or would it have been removed?
Speculation has its place, but the reality is that mankind fell into sin. The good news is that the Lord chose to redeem as many of us sad and sorry lot as would just accept His gracious gift of salvation. We need to be telling those who are still in exile from the paradise of God about what Jesus is offering them and we need to be encouraging each other with this truth.
1Th 5:9. For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ,
1Th 5:10. who died for us so that whether we are awake or asleep we might live with him.
1Th 5:11. Therefore encourage one another and build one another up, just as you are doing.

 

[netchaplain]

I don't advocate that we are born with a sinful nature,

Hi Brother Stan - I agree with your post #51 but I just wanted to share on this from #50. I understand the point you're wanting to make here but I believe we cannot be born without the sinful nature.

"That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (John 3:6). Only Christ was born of the Spirit. Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one (Job 14:4).

 

[netchaplain]

I agree..........BUT, since the tree in the Garden was a test of obedience, doesnt that mean they could have passed the test instead of failing it?

Hi Major - I do not see that they were being tested for pass or fail because God knew the result. I see it as a demonstration of how He chose to relate His knowledge to us.

 

[netchaplain]

Not sure if you still accept we are created with a sin nature .

Hi KJ - I've decided the issue of the chronology when the sin nature was present is not as thought-worthy as to the fact that He foreknew it all and chose that way and I believe it is in understanding this that the rest can be understood.

 

[netchaplain]

I cannot see there being any progress if we aren't tempted, whether it is the desire to become rich, famous, powerful or simply to enjoy the pleasures of the flesh. Temptation is just around the corner, and just think if we were not tempted by the lust of the flesh we would be in danger of breaking the commandment to go forth and multiply and that might be the end of humankind. (Did that commandment come first? I cannot remember)

Just think if we weren't tempted by the thought of the grass being greener in the next field we wouldn't move out of our cave, but we might still be in the Garden though?

So, perhaps temptation is a necessary evil?
.

Hi Ian - I like your reasoning! Also, God's commands (Gen 2:16, 17) were after the blessing to be fruitful (1:22).