How was Adam’s choice to sin any different from ours?

[SkovandOfMitzae]

Yeah that's one of the passages (Isaiah 65) that also makes my head spin thinking about it. Now.. I'm not sure that the language conveys that there will still be death, Jesus was clear that it is eternal life, Isaiah 65:20 could just be referring to there not being death anymore just a weird way of wording it, I'm not sure.
But Isaiah 65 does mention offspring.

So no marriage... but... offspring, and an entire book of the bible about love between men and women, with sexual imagery in places.

It's like, when all is fulfilled, the monogamy might be taken out of relationships between men and women, but procreation and intimacy are still allowed.

Of course.. then again.. right now that's called fornication.
But at the same time, some people's ideas of intimacy on the new earth is we get personally married to Jesus, well, I'm a man, Jesus is a man, no thanks, that's called an abomination.
Some others say oh we'll all be gender non binary (okay they don't call it that but that's really what they're saying).. but the bible teaches that crossdressing and being effeminate is also abomination.

So any of those 3 views works against the fact that all 3 would be sin.

The view where people all just become celibate with no sex drive and no desire for other people doesn't involve sin... but it also doesn't make sense of why Song of Solomon is Inspired scripture, or Isaiah 65 mentioning offspring on the New Earth.

But what do you think about Adam's sin actually being not just that he chose to disobey God in eating the fruit, but more that he consciously chose his wife over God?

For me that's the only way marriage not being in Eternity makes sense, is that God won't allow that temptation anymore.

For me this was a good way to think about it. When I see those places in Isaiah, Revelation, and when Jesus is quoting them I look at it as parables. He’s not speaking literally.

for example consider how in revelation it says there will be no sea. Is that literal? Is it symbolic? If it’s literal, then what about everything else like sea monsters, dragons and so on. Many people try to make some of it literal, and some of it not literal. It’s far better in my opinion to understand all of the afterlife talk as highly symbolic. Even when it’s being quoted, when we double check the hyperlink, we see it’s original genre is symbolism, not reality. It’s truth though a myth, not truth through a future event.

So back to the water.

genesis 1 opens up with the world as formless and void, covered in water and darkness. It’s chaos. It says “ big sea creatures “ in the water and if you go to Bible hub and check it out that word means serpent like sea monster. It’s what psalms 74 is hyperlinking to with the added creation event of Yahweh battling the multi headed leviathan. Same fictitious monster mentioned in Job.

we then see the waters divided so land can come through and darkness divided so light can come through. We see land , dry land, rising up out of the waters.

we see Eden as dry land growing up out of the rivers making it a island.

we see waters wiping out mansions while saving Noah on a ark and then dry land appears as they release birds.

so birds was hovering over a watery world and lands. That’s hyperlinking back to the spirit hovering over the watery land.

then we read of Moses. Pharaoh had babies tossed into the Nile. The Nike was like a flood killing life. Moses was saved by a ark, the same word there is the same word as Noah’s ark.

then we see decades later Moses and the Hebrew’s coming to water. But a staff, representing the tree of life, same as the branch brought back to Noah was a form of the tree of life and the same way the wood in the ark and basket was a tree of life.

so this staff separates the water revealing dry ( juke like I’m genesis one when water is separated and dry land appears ).

we then see poisonous water. Toxic water that will kill if they drink from it. But a branch ( tree of life ) is used to make the water clean.

jump ahead to Jesus being baptized. He comes up out of the water like dry land rising up. Then a bird, hovers over him. Just like the spirit hovered over the earth in the beginning and the birds hovered over the water being a branch back to Noah.

Then throughout the gospels and epistles we see baptism. We see acts 2:38 saying baptism washes away out sins ( the toxic poison ) and gives us the Holy Spirit. You can imagine the Holy Spirit hovering over the waters of baptism waiting to land on the dry land ( person ) who rises up out of the water.

so we see repeatedly water is used to kill something, and wipe away something. Repeatedly we see land and people rising up out of the waters. Repeatedly we see the spirit and birds landing on those coming up out of the water.
The sea represents chaos and death. That’s why in revelation, it symbolically states there will be no sea in the restored heaven and earth. Many try to take it literally, but it’s just symbolism of suffering and death ending.

then we can work through differing and death to see how literally that’s used. Such as what conditional immortality showcases.

 

[Jamdoc]

For me this was a good way to think about it. When I see those places in Isaiah, Revelation, and when Jesus is quoting them I look at it as parables. He’s not speaking literally.

for example consider how in revelation it says there will be no sea. Is that literal? Is it symbolic? If it’s literal, then what about everything else like sea monsters, dragons and so on. Many people try to make some of it literal, and some of it not literal. It’s far better in my opinion to understand all of the afterlife talk as highly symbolic. Even when it’s being quoted, when we double check the hyperlink, we see it’s original genre is symbolism, not reality. It’s truth though a myth, not truth through a future event.

So back to the water.

genesis 1 opens up with the world as formless and void, covered in water and darkness. It’s chaos. It says “ big sea creatures “ in the water and if you go to Bible hub and check it out that word means serpent like sea monster. It’s what psalms 74 is hyperlinking to with the added creation event of Yahweh battling the multi headed leviathan. Same fictitious monster mentioned in Job.

we then see the waters divided so land can come through and darkness divided so light can come through. We see land , dry land, rising up out of the waters.

we see Eden as dry land growing up out of the rivers making it a island.

we see waters wiping out mansions while saving Noah on a ark and then dry land appears as they release birds.

so birds was hovering over a watery world and lands. That’s hyperlinking back to the spirit hovering over the watery land.

then we read of Moses. Pharaoh had babies tossed into the Nile. The Nike was like a flood killing life. Moses was saved by a ark, the same word there is the same word as Noah’s ark.

then we see decades later Moses and the Hebrew’s coming to water. But a staff, representing the tree of life, same as the branch brought back to Noah was a form of the tree of life and the same way the wood in the ark and basket was a tree of life.

so this staff separates the water revealing dry ( juke like I’m genesis one when water is separated and dry land appears ).

we then see poisonous water. Toxic water that will kill if they drink from it. But a branch ( tree of life ) is used to make the water clean.

jump ahead to Jesus being baptized. He comes up out of the water like dry land rising up. Then a bird, hovers over him. Just like the spirit hovered over the earth in the beginning and the birds hovered over the water being a branch back to Noah.

Then throughout the gospels and epistles we see baptism. We see acts 2:38 saying baptism washes away out sins ( the toxic poison ) and gives us the Holy Spirit. You can imagine the Holy Spirit hovering over the waters of baptism waiting to land on the dry land ( person ) who rises up out of the water.

so we see repeatedly water is used to kill something, and wipe away something. Repeatedly we see land and people rising up out of the waters. Repeatedly we see the spirit and birds landing on those coming up out of the water.
The sea represents chaos and death. That’s why in revelation, it symbolically states there will be no sea in the restored heaven and earth. Many try to take it literally, but it’s just symbolism of suffering and death ending.

then we can work through differing and death to see how literally that’s used. Such as what conditional immortality showcases.

I tend to go literal unless the bible itself explains it as a symbol, and admittedly, the idea of there being no oceans on the new earth makes me feel anguish and guilt that our sin results in the death of all marine life (2nd vial of Revelation 16) and it won't get restored (Revelation 21:1).

But I just feel like I have no real foundation to stand on to make it NOT literal, if you understand.

 

[Jamdoc]

because we all knew women would be blamed for everything in the end, lol

Jokes aside, I think there is a distinct difference between when Eve sinned and when Adam sinned. While she was cursed she was also given a promise, for vengeance against the Serpent that deceived her. Messiah would come from her, not Adam.... and when Adam sinned, he was just cursed. The Serpent was also just outright cursed. It's Eve that receives a promise that is not bad, even though she is also cursed, there's curse with the hope of the Gospel attached to it.

Let's point out something
Genesis 3

17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

Adam's sin is therefore, punctuated that he chose to listen to his wife, over listening to God.

 

[SkovandOfMitzae]

I tend to go literal unless the bible itself explains it as a symbol, and admittedly, the idea of there being no oceans on the new earth makes me feel anguish and guilt that our sin results in the death of all marine life (2nd vial of Revelation 16) and it won't get restored (Revelation 21:1).

But I just feel like I have no real foundation to stand on to make it NOT literal, if you understand.

so what makes revelation literal?
There are really sea monsters coming out of the ocean, four horsemen and angels with bowls?

I mean the foundation to what makes it literal or not is reality and genre. All contextual analysis, and the overwhelming majority of biblical scholars, recognize that revelation is not literal.

 

[Jamdoc]

S of S is for married people. It is also Gods deep love for His church. Like we will have for Him, up there. Not sex, not flesh. A new perfect body and whatever that is stopping intimacy here will be gone. Just no sex or procreation. Sounds free to me.

Jesus was resurrected in a body of flesh.
and Song of Solomon contains sexual imagery, and endures forever. To have it only have meaning on Earth? Seems vain.

 

[Jamdoc]

so what makes revelation literal?
There are really sea monsters coming out of the ocean, four horsemen and angels with bowls?

I mean the foundation to what makes it literal or not is reality and genre. All contextual analysis, and the overwhelming majority of biblical scholars, recognize that revelation is not literal.

Revelation explains its symbols, or they are a reference to something in the old testament, where they were explained

IE the horsemen are explained here

Zechariah 6

1 And I turned, and lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and, behold, there came four chariots out from between two mountains; and the mountains were mountains of brass.
2 In the first chariot were red horses; and in the second chariot black horses;
3 And in the third chariot white horses; and in the fourth chariot grisled and bay horses.
4 Then I answered and said unto the angel that talked with me, What are these, my lord?
5 And the angel answered and said unto me, These are the four spirits of the heavens, which go forth from standing before the Lord of all the earth.

and the beasts are explained in Daniel, and in Revelation

Daniel 7

15 I Daniel was grieved in my spirit in the midst of my body, and the visions of my head troubled me.
16 I came near unto one of them that stood by, and asked him the truth of all this. So he told me, and made me know the interpretation of the things.
17 These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth.

So see, no it's not literal beasts, but we're not left with ambiguity and left to determine on their own that they are not literal, but rather we're told what they actually mean within the text. Daniel was confused by the visions so he asked, and they were explained.

Revelation 17

7 And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.
8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.
9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.
10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.
11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.
12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.
13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.

So see how this works is.. empires are usually throughout the bible defined by their leader at their height, IE Babylon is identified with Nebuchadnezzar II. (Daniel 2 has Daniel explain to Nebuchadnezzar that HE is the head of Gold).
So the 7 heads, are 7 empires/kings, 5 fallen Egypt Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece.. 1 current in John's time, Rome.. a 7th that comes afterward (which I believe to be the Ottoman). The 8th empire, which is one of the seven revived, or a combination of the 7 revived "of the seven".
Then the 10 horns, are 10 kings/leaders that give power to the ruler of the 8th kingdom, the beast.

Now, that prophecy out of the way I don't mean to derail. But the point is, that the symbols are explained within the text or refer to something in the bible that is explained in the text it was drawn from.
Revelation 21:1's mention of there being no more seas.. is not explained to be a symbol.
So unless it IS explained as a symbol I find the simplest way to take it.. is literally. Because Jesus did fulfill many prophecies literally, so not everything should be taken to be allegory.

 

[BPPLEE]

What verses did you see saying Noah was perfect or Job? Are you referring to “blameless”.

Noah was perfect in his generations according to Genesis 6

 

[SkovandOfMitzae]

Revelation explains its symbols, or they are a reference to something in the old testament, where they were explained

IE the horsemen are explained here

Zechariah 6


and the beasts are explained in Daniel, and in Revelation

Daniel 7


So see, no it's not literal beasts, but we're not left with ambiguity and left to determine on their own that they are not literal, but rather we're told what they actually mean within the text. Daniel was confused by the visions so he asked, and they were explained.

Revelation 17


So see how this works is.. empires are usually throughout the bible defined by their leader at their height, IE Babylon is identified with Nebuchadnezzar II. (Daniel 2 has Daniel explain to Nebuchadnezzar that HE is the head of Gold).
So the 7 heads, are 7 empires/kings, 5 fallen Egypt Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece.. 1 current in John's time, Rome.. a 7th that comes afterward (which I believe to be the Ottoman). The 8th empire, which is one of the seven revived, or a combination of the 7 revived "of the seven".
Then the 10 horns, are 10 kings/leaders that give power to the ruler of the 8th kingdom, the beast.

Now, that prophecy out of the way I don't mean to derail. But the point is, that the symbols are explained within the text or refer to something in the bible that is explained in the text it was drawn from.
Revelation 21:1's mention of there being no more seas.. is not explained to be a symbol.
So unless it IS explained as a symbol I find the simplest way to take it.. is literally. Because Jesus did fulfill many prophecies literally, so not everything should be taken to be allegory.

so what makes you think water is not explained as symbolism? I literally showed you on a previous post how it’s symbolism. Perhaps the reason why a few verses out of that book escapes you is that you’re simply not aware of the symbolism at play.

maybes that is why you struggle with harmonizing the afterworld and new heaven and earth according to Isaiah with what Jesus said. Maybe to understand what Jesus was saying, you have to understand what Isaiah was saying and to understand what he was saying you need to understand the Jewish culture and Mesopotamian cultures at large.

 

[Jamdoc]

so what makes you think water is not explained as symbolism? I literally showed you on a previous post how it’s symbolism. Perhaps the reason why a few verses out of that book escapes you is that you’re simply not aware of the symbolism at play.

maybes that is why you struggle with harmonizing the afterworld and new heaven and earth according to Isaiah with what Jesus said. Maybe to understand what Jesus was saying, you have to understand what Isaiah was saying and to understand what he was saying you need to understand the Jewish culture and Mesopotamian cultures at large.

That is good food for thought, thank you.
but is there something in Isaiah's picture of the New Earth or Revelation's picture of the new Earth or any other picture of the New Earth that indicates oceans are there?

 

[SkovandOfMitzae]

That is good food for thought, thank you.
but is there something in Isaiah's picture of the New Earth or Revelation's picture of the new Earth or any other picture of the New Earth that indicates oceans are there?

No. It’s not part of it. But that does not change its genre, and that does not change the genre of revelation, and that does not change the genre of hyperlinks.

i suggest picking up a book such as “ the lost world” series by the Old Testament scholar John Walton and listening to the podcast episodes on heaven and earth, the waters, and revelation by the old testament biblical scholar Tim Mackie on “ The Bible project “.

 

[Unqualified]

Jesus was resurrected in a body of flesh.
and Song of Solomon contains sexual imagery, and endures forever. To have it only have meaning on Earth? Seems vain.

Jesus loves the church. It will be fully realized in heaven. You can kind of tell he loves us now. He is so forgiving, changes us , makes us be better Christians, teaches us, matures us, prepares us for the future, makes us more patient, etc.

 

[disciple Clint]

I have a theory that Adam's sin was deeper than we normally think.

note that God originally created marriage and considered it good. but in the New Testament Jesus said in eternity there will be no marriage.
Some people think of marriage as just a means of procreation and since there's no need to procreate there's no need for marriage anymore (which I consider extremely depressing that they look at this gift of God as just a means to an end to reproduce, when an entire book of the bible is about romantic love between a man and his wife (Song of Solomon)). God did design romantic love to be a good thing, He designed it BEFORE the fall, it is not a result of the fall.

However because of the fall, God plans not to restore marriage in the restoration of all things. Romantic love is apparently important enough to have inspired scripture about and be preserved in scripture forever.
However the normally allowed platform for romantic love, marriage... is not.

It is a question that spins my head to no end.

But the best I can figure out, relates to Adam's particular sin and WHY Adam chose to disobey God.
Why is it Adam's sin and not Eve's sin?

It is because Eve was deceived, tricked. But Adam made a conscious, informed choice.

Adam chose to die with his wife, rather than obey God and live forever without her. Adam must have known the consequences, and believed, that if he ate, he would die, but chose to anyway, because he valued his wife, more than the God that gave her to him.

That to me, is the only reason why God not restoring marriage in eternity can make sense.
To remove that temptation to value one single person above God.

However again, God does consider romantic love between men and women to be important enough to inspire an entire book about it.
and that makes my head spin.
Why have a book about something, and treat it as a good thing, when you don't intend that good thing to last forever?

Does God want men and women to love each other romantically, but without the monogamous attachment that marriage brings? so that no one single person is so important to us that we'd be tempted to choose them over God? But we know fornication and adultery are sin. So that can't be it either.

Or does God eliminate romantic love entirely as many people believe?
If Song of Solomon was not Inspired, it'd be simple to believe that was the answer, that romantic love just passes away.

We know from Jesus' 2 commandments that loving each other is important, not AS important as loving God, but Jesus does not want God to be our SOLE love, but our first love. I do not believe that Jesus intends us to love Him romantically.
I do believe that God created a desire to love the opposite gender romantically, and even considers it a need.
Genesis 2:18 is the very first thing that God says is not good, for a man to be alone without a companion, and God walked with Adam, so God did not intend to be man's sole companion.

God chose to fulfill that need by creating woman, not just being that companion Himself.
But then because it caused man to choose woman over obeying Him.... he takes away marriage in eternity.
If the supernatural interpretation of Genesis 6 is correct, and it is alluded to be in Jude, and 2 Peter 2, then Angels, who beheld God in all His glory in Heaven... chose to have human wives. This is more explicitly referred to in 1 Enoch however that's not considered Inspired scripture. But Jude and 2 Peter 2 referring to it, says there is a seed of truth to it.

If Song of Solomon was not Inspired, then the answer would be simple. God repented of making marriage, maybe even repented of making women entirely, and just eliminates desire for them, because it is a temptation that caused both men and angels to sin.

However Song of Solomon is Inspired.

it makes my head spin.

If we all love each other to the maximum extent which is the condition that will exist in the afterlife, there is no room for any other love so the romantic love is not existing in heaven. The fallen angles had relationships with human women not out of love but out of a desire to corrupt the world as part of their disobedience to God.

 

[Jamdoc]

If we all love each other to the maximum extent which is the condition that will exist in the afterlife, there is no room for any other love so the romantic love is not existing in heaven. The fallen angles had relationships with human women not out of love but out of a desire to corrupt the world as part of their disobedience to God.

then what have an everlasting book specifically about it, that never once mentions God. You can see His influence, and Inspiration... but the book never mentions God.
Yet God wanted it recorded FOREVER.

 

[disciple Clint]

then what have an everlasting book specifically about it, that never once mentions God. You can see His influence, and Inspiration... but the book never mentions God.
Yet God wanted it recorded FOREVER.

So God wants husbands to love their wives, seems a good thing.

 

[Jamdoc]

So God wants husbands to love their wives, seems a good thing.

there are other exhortations regarding that, without dedicating an entire book to it, especially to something that is miniscule in duration in light of Eternity. If it's just gone forever, then it would be a footnote, not an eternal book dedicated to it.
There is an eternal reason God considers romantic love worthy of being in His word forever.
I don't know why that is.. but I do know that it's scripture that will endure forever... and it isn't directly about Him.

 

[fhansen]

We often hear that we are able to sin because of our “sin nature” which we inherited from Adam. How was Adam able to sin without already having a “sin nature” and how was his ability to choose sin any different from our own? It seems, biologically, socially, and psychologically Adam was just as human as us.

Historically the church never taught that fallen man has a "sin nature", as if something new was added with the Fall. Rather, something was lost at the Fall: communion with God; Adam had rejected Gods authority and thereby His very godhood. Adam became his own "god" in the process. This is the state or condition we find ourselves in now as we we're born into this world, lacking the "knowledge of God", not knowing Him. But man was made for communion with God; we're lost, sick, dead apart from Him. We cannot maintain perfect moral integrity if we're playing God ourselves, determining right and wrong for ourselves-that's not our job. Anyway, that first most basic sin, of denying God's authority to be our God, opened the door to any and all other sins that would follow.

The world we live in now is a place of testing and education. How do we like a world free from God's control, where mans will reigns exclusively and sin so often flourishes as a result? This world is a pigsty relatively speaking so that, like prodigals, we might be all the more ready to return home, when we find out about our true home, that is, which is what God's revelation is all about, of course. But meanwhile, whether we know it or not, we might not even really want to know God as we continue the family tradition of experimenting with the freedom from Him that potentially promises something "more", than if we were to choose to be subjugated to and united with Him instead. This separation is the essence of our pride, that which exalts us above God in our minds, this, again, being the condition we're born into.

So Jesus came to resolve this anomaly of nature, this sin. He came to reconcile man with God when the time was ripe, when humanity might just be ready to give up their "freedom" and acknowledge our need for Him. This begins with faith, something Adam effectively lacked. As we come to know the true God we begin to believe in, hope in, and, most importantly, to love Him. That's man's entire purpose, our telos. Love of God completes the circle; it places us in right order with the universe, with Him; justice is completed in us.

Adam wasn't ready yet in Eden; he lacked the wisdom necessary to make the right choice, and God wants us to decide for ourselves, even as we need grace to help us make it. Simply by virtue of not being God, Adam unavoidably lacked the perfect wisdom of God, and God, never abandoning man, would then give us time and experience combined with revelation and grace to gain that wisdom and make the right choice: God must become our God again. Then, to the extent that we love Him with our whole heart, soul, mind, and strength, sin is excluded.

That's His plan. It's been said that we're on a journey, a "journey to perfection", to be who He created us to be. And we're to be involved in that process, that work of His. This is to begin here, in this life, and fully completed or consummated only in the next life when we meet Him "face to face".

 

[JoeT]

We often hear that we are able to sin because of our “sin nature” which we inherited from Adam. How was Adam able to sin without already having a “sin nature” and how was his ability to choose sin any different from our own? It seems, biologically, socially, and psychologically Adam was just as human as us.

Eck says an original sin considering such depravity...

…is that men are born without the fear of God and without trust in God, is to be entirely rejected, since it is manifest to every Christian that to be without the fear of God and without trust in God is rather the actual guilt of an adult than the offense of a recently-born infant, which does not possess as yet the full use of reason, as the Lord says "Your children which had no knowledge between good and evil," Deut 1:39. (Johann Eck, The Confutatio Pontificia, 1530) ​

Let me try to explain. There is no innate character in man that makes him sin. We know this because of the character of sin. Most hold to Augustin’s definition, “sin is nothing more than a voluntary immoral act, in word, in thought or deed.” [the exact phase can be found in Contra Faustum, Book XXII. St. Thomas Aquinas quotes it in Summa Theologica II, 71,6]. With this definition we see sin must be voluntarily and knowingly. If it is not voluntary it's not a sin, if its done without the knowledge of the consequences, its not sin. There are some tricky caveats to this I wont get into here.

You should be asking, “how is it a child is culpable for the original sin”? especially, knowing nothing in them is voluntary, they are all poots and scoots; nothing in an infant comes voluntarily. Consequently, an infant cannot perform an actual immoral acts 'voluntarily'. But he can sin another way:

"An individual can be considered either as an individual or as part of a whole, a member of a society . . . Considered in the second way an act can be his although he has not done it himself, nor has it been done by his free will but by the rest of the society or by its head, the nation being considered as doing what the prince does. For a society is considered as a single man of whom the individuals are the different members (St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 12). Thus the multitude of men who receive their human nature from Adam is to be considered as a single community or rather as a single body . . . If the man, whose privation of original justice is due to Adam, is considered as a private person, this privation is not his 'fault', for a fault is essentially voluntary. If, however, we consider him as a member of the family of Adam, as if all men were only one man, then his privation partakes of the nature of sin on account of its voluntary origin, which is the actual sin of Adam" (De Malo, 4, 1).​

We can therefore conclude original sin is not 'transmitted', as it were, like a virus, faulty gene or bad DNA rather sin is 'transmitted' to their offspring, along with punishment and guilt, handed down from generation to generation, though the flesh as the progeny of Adam. Thus as one nation we receive our fate, death.

Christ breaks that cycle, instituting the Sacrament of Baptism. Man, and mankind is reborn anew, justified yet weak like infants until a mature justification is perfected in the Sacraments of the Church. Once justification is perfected, we merit the promise of adoption by God as brothers and sisters of Christs, sons and daughter of God.

Without justification found in Baptism all acts, whether good or evil, are avaricious and thus not charitable as any good is done in expectation of gain. Hence, without Baptismal justification one cannot be saved. Justice is a moral quality or habit, when perfected joins our will to an enlightened understanding to the will of God. When perfected we "walk with God" just as Adam once did before the fall. I contend we are today no different from Adam and Eve, before or after the fall.

So, we see that sin or evil is not in the flesh at all as we are creatures of God and God declared what He made was good. Rather the guilt and punishment of the original sin of Adam is passed on to us not by something added to man but something man was deprived of, justice. “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

JoeT

 

[JoeT]

oops - double post

 

[Dan Perez]

How do you know he was perfect? I’ve yet to ever read he was perfect? Was Jesus perfect and was Adam and Jesus both perfect in the same way?

And in Gen 1:31 it says that CHRIST , He HAD MADE // is verb called QAL and meaning to make known and is in the HEBREW , PERFECT TENSE , in the SINGULAR and all , animals and Adam and Eve were GOOD !!

dan p

 

[fhansen]

We often hear that we are able to sin because of our “sin nature” which we inherited from Adam. How was Adam able to sin without already having a “sin nature” and how was his ability to choose sin any different from our own? It seems, biologically, socially, and psychologically Adam was just as human as us.

Yes, as to human nature we're no different. Neither of us have a sin nature, BTW, but our common "flaw" is that we all inherently lack the absolute, infinite perfection of God, meaning that, with the ingredient of free will given to us rational, sentient, created beings, we can fail, can disobey, can sin.

Adam and Eve were not yet fallen in the beginning. They walked with God, they knew God whereas that direct, intimate knowledge is lost after the Fall. They possessed control of their appetites and passions; sin did not enter their minds until they first questioned God, until they disobeyed Him effectively rejecting God as their God, preferring themselves and their own opinions over Him and His.

They invented moral relativity by that act, and sin would flourish afterwards; they and all humanity were now open to any possibility regarding human behavior, as they were no longer subjugated to God.

The world they now found themselves in was not so much a punishment as a consequence.They got what they wanted; existence apart from Him. Apart from God, the Source of goodness and life, sin and death reign. This is sort of a halfway house between heaven and hell, where both good and evil are literally known, the upside being that, with the help of that experience together with grace, we have the option to choose between the two, good and evil, life and death, God or no God. We get to experience directly, viscerally, whether or not Adam and Eve were right in their choice to part company with Him. Presumably they've come to their senses but now.