Original Sin? Need Explanation

[Bandit]

How, we can justify the free will of Adam with his NO capability to sin before eating the fruit?

you cannot sin until after the law is given. just like running a red light. if there is no law for running red lights, then there is no offense.

It appears that If Adam would not have acquired the capability to sin by eating the fruit, his childern would never have sinned. But the point is that If humans would not have the capacity to sin on the first hand, their characteristic of free will would have been in doubt.

I think this is a correct statement also.
Adam could have chose to not eat from the tree. He could have even tried to stop Eve. But- God knew it was going to happen & allowed that to be. He also saw down the road that Jesus would make a way of escape for us By 'US', i mean all of Adams children. (whosoever will)

God has purpose within the purpose for what He has purposed.

[I am free]

Originally Posted by Bandit

what happened was, the curse of death upon all because of Adam & only one man could remove that curse...and that man was Jesus.

see, God does not leave us without a way of escape, through our own choice. just like he did with Noah, Abraham & Moses

Hi Bandit,

could you please explain what is meant by "curse of death"? Because people do die even when they believe in Jesus right? So I suppose the "curse of death" is something more...Forgive my ignorance, but I would like to know.

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by I am free

Hi Bandit,

could you please explain what is meant by "curse of death"? Because people do die even when they believe in Jesus right? So I suppose the "curse of death" is something more...Forgive my ignorance, but I would like to know.

Hi I am free

oh yes. every man will die an earthly death & go back to dust. there is no doubt about that & the sin nature is still with us. but what Adam did was bring about a spiritual death that took us from the presence of God.

So what Jesus did was, give us the ability to become alive unto God in spirit, even while still in the flesh. This is why God fills us with the Holy Ghost today because it makes us alive in spirit.
This is why we need the Holy Ghost so that we will be raise up to incoruptible in spirit. Flesh & blood does not inherit the Kingdom of God. It is our spirit that becomes alive & will live forever with Jesus because Jesus broke that curse that Adam brought by getting victory over death & victory over sin.


The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23).

Gal 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

~ Christ Is Our Advocate
1Jo 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

i recommend, again, the whole chapter of 1 Cor. 15 to get a better idea on it.

<B>

1 Cor15:54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
15:55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
15:56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.


15:57 But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

"For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin ... For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing ... O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" (Romans 7:14,18,24 KJV)

"it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment" (Hebrews 9:27 KJV)</B>

[mee]

Jehovah Gods purpose was for man to live on the earth forever and not to die ,we can get everlasting life back , christs ransom sacrifice opens the way
To grasp the meaning of the ransom is to understand a key feature of God’s unfathomable "riches and wisdom and knowledge."—Romans 5:8; 11:33.

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by Jibran

How we can justify the free will of Adam with his NO capability to sin before eating the fruit?

The idea is that when God created human beings, they were perfect, holy pure and void of evil thoughts.

The question then is, did we have free will then?

My answer is: yes. Here's my view.

Every human being has instincts. Instincts are part of our human nature. Instincts are things we can do naturally. They are things we are capable of doing once we choose to do them. Instincts include things like love, kindness, generosity, humility, hatred, arrogance, greed, selfishness, lust, etc.

Every human being also has behavioural tendencies. These tendencies constitute our character. The difference between human nature and character/personality is that human nature makes character/personality possible. Human nature is like the soil on which the plant, character/personality grows and develops.

The plant may produce either good fruit, bad fruit or both. The fruit represents our character tendencies. The idea is that when God made Adam, he didn't have the ability to produce bad fruit, only good fruit. God didn't make Adam to produce bad fruit. The plant can only produce bad fruit if the soil itself is poisoned. God planted Adam on healthy soil, but Adam chose to grow on poisoned soil.

The next question is, does this mean Adam didn't have free will?

The answer is no. If a person follows his instincts, he is exercising his free will. Therefore, Adam had free will before he ate the fruit.

Adam had free will without evil instincts before eating the fruit. Adam had free will with the possibility of choosing and following his evil instincts after eating the fruit. God made us perfectly capable of doing only good by following our instincts but Adam chose to be capable of evil.

Originally Posted by Jibran

So it means that every human being is born with the capabilty to do sin as well as free will but not that humans are born with a burden of sin due to the wrongdoing of their first father. May I further simplify that humans are NOT born in sin but they are born sinless BUT only with the capacity or capability to do sin.

Sin doesn't just refer to a record of wrongdoing, but also a capability to sin. In other words, being born capable of sin means we are not sinless. The reason is that sin is living inside us.

So what if a person never sins even though there is evil in him? Good for him. Evil being part of human nature still makes it possible for people to sin. A person who has been perfectly good all his life but then starts to sin is worse then someone who is reckless at first and then turns a new leaf.

What was the point of being good in the first place? A person who never sins despite having evil in him is just as bad as everyone else. He is still capable of evil. What everybody needs, despite how good they are, is to be cleansed of evil from within. People who have been good all their lives can easily turn the other way and start sinning uncontrollaby. It happens all the time. We grieve at what they have become. The people they used to be are no longer. They are now just as sick as us.

God never asked us to be heroes. That is why we must all choose the path of the Second Adam.

God's creation was perfect. The sin we have now was not part of God's creation. We cannot remove this evil by trying to be righteous. It doesn't matter how righteous you are, you are still capable of evil. If you try to be righteous while still having evil in you, that is an insult to God because God created you to be perfect in conduct.

Is it wrong for God to make you perfect in conduct?

Remember that you still have free will. You are simply following your instincts. You are not trying to be a hero or a god. You do only good because it is natural to you.

Sorry for painting a rosy picture, but that's what I think Christianity really teaches.

I hope you understand Christianity a bit better.

[dayaa]

hi bandit i'm back, just briefly...interesting thread.
hi jibran and welcome. any relation to jibran khalil jibran? i love his books.
some interesting ideas in this thread about human nature, the nature and purpose of sin etc. saltmeister's comments gave some food for thought. it's quite interesting actually that sinning does tend to make one more compassionate, less self-righteous. jibran khalil jibran has an interesting story about the priest and the satan which explains good as only relevant in relation to evil....a question of balance. maybe there is purpose in sin . i shall be popping back to see how this thread progresses see you soon.

[Jibran]

Hi Saltmeister

Yes, your reply helped me in my understanding of under discussed Christian view yet your asnwer raises some important questions in the mind.

Originally Posted by Saltmiester

Every human being has instincts. Instincts are part of our human nature. Instincts are things we can do naturally. They are things we are capable of doing once we choose to do them. Instincts include things like love, kindness, generosity, humility, hatred, arrogance, greed, selfishness, lust, etc.

Adam had free will without evil instincts before eating the fruit. Adam had free will with the possibility of choosing and following his evil instincts after eating the fruit. God made us perfectly capable of doing only good by following our instincts but Adam chose to be capable of evil.

Firstly, we have to define human nature, instincts and free will. You wrote that instincts include love, kindness, generosity, humility, hatred, arrogance, greed, selfishness, lust, etc. (in short, good and bad) and we are capable of doing if we choose to do them. This set of instincts constitutes human nature we are familiar with.

Now, it appears that the "human nature" of Adam, his "instincts" and "behavioural tendencies" were different from that of us before eating the fruit. It means that God had created Adam with the instincts and nature different from that what human beings carry. It further looks that God had given limited free will to Adam perfectly capable of doing only good and it was because of eating the fruit that he acquired the capability to sin due to which his childern inherited the "capabilty to sin", otherwise we humans would have done "good" only.

Thus, primarily, God had created the first pair of humans with a "limited free will" with the capability to choose between good things only and, it was very different from what we humans have now. God did not want humans to have a free will of either choosing good or bad. If this is so, how can we differentiate between angels and humans? What made angels not to acquire the capability to do sin?

Sin doesn't just refer to a record of wrongdoing, but also a capability to sin. In other words, being born capable of sin means we are not sinless. The reason is that sin is living inside us.

So what if a person never sins even though there is evil in him? Good for him. Evil being part of human nature still makes it possible for people to sin. A person who has been perfectly good all his life but then starts to sin is worse then someone who is reckless at first and then turns a new leaf.

When I say "sinless", it means to me a state in which a human being is born. A new born has not done any bad (he is not a sinner). Similarly he has not done any good either (he is not a pious). It means he is born "pure" or in other words "in a neutral state". Since new born has a human nature, he can choose to do good or bad in his future life. His capability to sin is the manifestation of his "full free will" .It doesn't mean he is "born with sin".

What was the point of being good in the first place? A person who never sins despite having evil in him is just as bad as everyone else. He is still capable of evil. What everybody needs, despite how good they are, is to be cleansed of evil from within. People who have been good all their lives can easily turn the other way and start sinning uncontrollaby. It happens all the time. We grieve at what they have become. The people they used to be are no longer. They are now just as sick as us.

I really dont think that a person who never sins despite having the capability to sin is as bad as the one who frequently sins. It seems that we humans were put in such a terrible position by Adam who "acquired the capabilty to sin". It is not our fault at all. It also seems that if in God's eye, an "evil-doer" is equal to that of a "pious with the capability to sin", the Justice of God becomes doubtful.

God's creation was perfect. The sin we have now was not part of God's creation. We cannot remove this evil by trying to be righteous. It doesn't matter how righteous you are, you are still capable of evil. If you try to be righteous while still having evil in you, that is an insult to God because God created you to be perfect in conduct.

Is it wrong for God to make you perfect in conduct?

No it is certainly not wrong for God to make us perfect in conduct. But if we assume that being "perfect in conduct" means that we only have the capability to do good but not the opposite, then such a creation should be classified anywhere between Angels and Human beings because, i think, that it is the very notion of free will resulting in the capability to do either good or bad that makes us human beings.

I think that we can insult God by not following his commands and by going on the way of Satan.

Anyways I thank you for explaining the Christian point of view with utmost clarity.

Note: I tried to speak my mind in the best possible language I know. Since english is not my first language , So sorry for any errors in the post.

Jibran

[Jibran]

Originally Posted by dayaa

hi bandit i'm back, just briefly...interesting thread.
hi jibran and welcome. any relation to jibran khalil jibran? i love his books.
some interesting ideas in this thread about human nature, the nature and purpose of sin etc. saltmeister's comments gave some food for thought. it's quite interesting actually that sinning does tend to make one more compassionate, less self-righteous. jibran khalil jibran has an interesting story about the priest and the satan which explains good as only relevant in relation to evil....a question of balance. maybe there is purpose in sin . i shall be popping back to see how this thread progresses see you soon.

Hello dayaa,

Thanks for welcoming me The relation between me and Jibran Khalil Jibran is only of name. My dad chose this name because he was inspired by Jibran Khalil Jibran. It really nice to know that you love his books. I'm also one of Khalil's fan. Just love his writings.

I vaguely remember the story by J.K.J which you have mentioned. I had read it about 3-4 years back in a book. I agree that good can only be relevent in relation to evil. Without "evil", the essence and positiveness of "good" is meaningless. For example: we can only admire a truth, if we know the meaning of a lie. We can only cultivate honesty, if we know what dishonety means. Psychologically speaking, we can only understand the blessing of food, when we experience starvation. And religiously speaking, we can only understand good, if we experience the bad. It is the very nature of the human beings that makes us human beings. Otherwise, there would have been a totally different creation of God in this world.

Thanks for your comments.

Jibran

[mee]

Originally Posted by Jibran

Yes it does seem so!

Romans 5:19 "By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners." (The New Jerusalem Bible) The original sin was an act of disobedience

While a sin of disobedience may seem simple on the surface, consider its profound implications. A footnote in The New Jerusalem Bible puts it this way: "It [the knowledge of good and bad] is the power of deciding for himself what is good and what is evil and of acting accordingly, a claim to complete moral independence

That is why the Bible’s theme, God’s Kingdom, brings so much hope. By means of that Kingdom, Jehovah promises to end oppressive man-rule soon and replace it with His rule—a government that will restore an earthly paradise—something Adam and Eve forfeited.—Psalm 37:29; Daniel 2:44.

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by Jibran

Thus, primarily, God had created the first pair of humans with a "limited free will" with the capability to choose between good things only and, it was very different from what we humans have now. God did not want humans to have a free will of either choosing good or bad. If this is so, how can we differentiate between angels and humans? What made angels not to acquire the capability to do sin?

Actually, in Christianity, angels can be good or bad. Demons are really angels that have "turned to the dark side." Angels and demons are really the same beings. Sometimes when we talk about angels, what we really mean are "angels of light." Demons are angels of darkness. Angels are invisible spirits. We, on the other hand, are mortals with physical limitations. We don't have the power to perform miracles on our own. To perform miracles we must summon the power of other beings -- namely God and the angels He created.

Free will. I actually don't see it as a lack of free will to not be able to do evil. The question we have to ask ourselves is, what can we do and what will we do with our free will? Free will made it possible for Adam to eat the fruit. However, before that, he still had free will. It wasn't a limited free will, from my point of view. Is evil in human nature necessary for free will to exist?

My view is that it is not necessary. Satan was an angel whom God made to be perfect in conduct and pure and holy in nature as in all living things God created. Angels, unlike humans, are more powerful and more intelligent. It follows that Satan's power and intelligence made it possible for him to become evil.

The difference between humans and angels is that angels are created with immense power, knowledge and wisdom. Human beings were made to learn. God didn't give Adam the same power, knowledge and wisdom. This meant that Adam was naive. This doesn't mean that Adam had less free will than Satan because God made him less intelligent.

My view is that Satan's power made it possible for him to make such a dramatic transformation whereas a mere mortal like Adam couldn't become evil by his own power. Satan had free will and exploited it. Adam, however, was naive. Both had free will but only one of them was able to change his nature by his own power.

Satan's angelic nature was originally like Adam's human nature. Like Adam, Satan was a being that produced only good fruit. But he went beyond the capabilities God gave him and as an angel started producing new fruit, fruit that had never been produced before.

Satan became a whole new plant producing a whole new kind of fruit.

There are some that say that the Garden of Eden, the Trees of Life and Knowledge of Good/Evil were not physical, but spiritual. If the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was spiritual rather than physical, it could mean that Satan was this Tree of KGE and God was the Tree of Life.

Just a thought.

Originally Posted by Jibran

His capability to sin is the manifestation of his "full free will" .It doesn't mean he is "born with sin".

In Christianity sin doesn't just mean "wrongdoing." It also means the "seed of wrongdoing." It refers to something that not only lives in us, but is also a part of us. Sin is a general concept that refers not just to an act of evil, but also the living and active entity that serves as a driving force for wrongdoing. Our sinful and evil desires come from the sin that lives in us.

You should perhaps read Romans 4-8.

So I am no longer the one who does this thing, rather it is the sin that lives in me. Romans 7:17

Originally Posted by Jibran

I really dont think that a person who never sins despite having the capability to sin is as bad as the one who frequently sins.

My point was that "good" people can change.

People are generally only "good" for a reason. They want to be "good" because it is their pride. Sometimes after twenty years "good people" decide that they are sick of being good all the time. Always being good is boring. You always care more about other people than yourself. This means that everybody has a reason for being good. When that motivation disappears, they decide that they will not be good people anymore. It's no fun being good any more.

The real reason is that they were not really "good people" at all. In other words, they were not purely good. They are phonies. On the outside they're good people, but inside they've got dark dark thoughts. It's because there is evil in them. Sin lives in them. It was inside them all the time and now it has grown big enough for us to see the evil that was living in them.

This is why "good people" (also descendants of Adam) are just the same as us. They've just managed to keep their dark thoughts to themselves.

They were only good people for selfish reasons.

We can all try to be good people, but we can't deny that sin lives in us. Because of the sin inside us, good people (with evil in their human nature) are really just phonies.

Originally Posted by Jibran

I think that we can insult God by not following his commands and by going on the way of Satan.

Actually, I said it was insulting to God because of the above reason. It's because good people are really phonies. That's why it's insulting to God. We try to be good people, but we have all these other, dark thoughts. It disappoints others when we make a good impression with our good behaviour but when life gets difficult, we start making bad choices and behaving badly.

The only good people were those God created. We are no longer purely God's creation because God's creation was corrupted. That's why it's insulting to God.

[QUOTE=Jibran]Note: I tried to speak my mind in the best possible language I know. Since english is not my first language , So sorry for any errors in the post.

Actually, your English is quite good.

[mee]

The Bible tells us that God created man in his ‘image and likeness,’ and one of the faculties God himself has is freedom of choice. When he created humans, he gave them that same wonderful faculty—the gift of free will.

We were not made like mindless robots having no will of their own. Nor were we created to act out of instinct as were the animals. Instead, our marvelous brain was designed to work in harmony with our freedom of choice.

[dayaa]

hi all
talking of animals, i was just wondering actually if maybe that is the point. it's the tree of KNOWLEDGE of good and evil. maybe original man was intended to live like animals on his instinct, natural, simple. maybe it's not so much a question of sin as awareness of sin. we just had to be a bit too clever. and jesus taught simplicity....to be like children. i think i'd better stop here....that just came off the top of my head.....i surprised myself now...need to go and think this through

[Jibran]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

Free will. I actually don't see it as a lack of free will to not be able to do evil. The question we have to ask ourselves is, what can we do and what will we do with our free will? Free will made it possible for Adam to eat the fruit. However, before that, he still had free will. It wasn't a limited free will, from my point of view. Is evil in human nature necessary for free will to exist?

I think that we have to analyse collectively the very notions of "human nature" and "free will" alongwith other related terms. Our instincts and behavioural tendencies constitute the "nature of a man'.Same is the case with free will. If we accept the meanings of both these words as we understand them now here in this world, then we have to classify the "human nature" and "free will" of Adam and Eve into different category. They can't be same because I think that there is a vital difference between the two.

Same can be said regarding your question. Eliminating evil instincts from "human nature", according to me, would make it "something different from human nature". And, I think, the capability of doing either good or bad makes us better then the rest of the creation.

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

My view is that it is not necessary. Satan was an angel whom God made to be perfect in conduct and pure and holy in nature as in all living things God created. Angels, unlike humans, are more powerful and more intelligent. It follows that Satan's power and intelligence made it possible for him to become evil.

My view is that Satan's power made it possible for him to make such a dramatic transformation whereas a mere mortal like Adam couldn't become evil by his own power. Satan had free will and exploited it. Adam, however, was naive. Both had free will but only one of them was able to change his nature by his own power.

Satan's angelic nature was originally like Adam's human nature. Like Adam, Satan was a being that produced only good fruit. But he went beyond the capabilities God gave him and as an angel started producing new fruit, fruit that had never been produced before.

If Satan was made powerful, perfect in conduct and pure and holy in nature then how could he use his "strange powers" to "acquire the capability to sin"?If he used his "immense and special powers" to acquire the capability to sin then it appears that God, on the first hand, had given the ability in Satan's powers through which he could, if he wished, change his course from good to bad. I would define this "ability" as "the capability to do either good or bad which depicts his "free will". He used his powers, or in other words, his free will, to go against the commands of God and questioned His creation of man.

How could Satan "go beyond the capabilities God gave him and as an angel started producing new fruit, fruit that had never been produced before?" For Satan to produce a new fruit, the seed should be there in his nature. The seed of free will and capability to do either good or bad

I think, how far intelligent and powerful might satan be, If God had not wished to create in his nature a free will or a capability to choose either of the good or bad path, he would have never be able to sin. I think, by considering otherwise, we are limiting God's Omnipotence and His Absolutness which is beyond question.

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

My point was that "good" people can change.

People are generally only "good" for a reason. They want to be "good" because it is their pride. Sometimes after twenty years "good people" decide that they are sick of being good all the time. Always being good is boring. You always care more about other people than yourself. This means that everybody has a reason for being good. When that motivation disappears, they decide that they will not be good people anymore. It's no fun being good any more.

The real reason is that they were not really "good people" at all. In other words, they were not purely good. They are phonies. On the outside they're good people, but inside they've got dark dark thoughts. It's because there is evil in them. Sin lives in them. It was inside them all the time and now it has grown big enough for us to see the evil that was living in them.

Here we can discuss the motives of doing good in length but I would limit myself only to a wee statement. By accepting the very human nature, i.e; ablilty to choose good or bad, a person may be a righteous,NOT because it is his "pride", or he wants to show to the world that he is a pious, or any such materialistic reason. A person may be righteous because his Lord commanded him to be righteous. He may be pious if he thinks the Orders of God are to be executed knowing that ALL the Orders of God are beneficial for himself and as well as for other people and the society he lives in.

Finally, I think we, human beings, are the best Creation of Almighty God. We are created in the best shape and nature. We are created in a free will which differentiates us from the creation which do not have this blessing. We are demanded to act in a way that suits our greatness among the Creation. We are told to seek refuge from the Evil ideas implanted in our hearts by Satan. If we succeed, then surely we pass the test of this world.

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

Actually, your English is quite good

Thank you for your appreciating comments. Also, I enjoyed this discussion with you and got a better understanding of the Christian view and the philosophy behind this view.

Thanks Again

Jibran

[Jibran]

Originally Posted by mee

Romans 5:19 "By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners." (The New Jerusalem Bible) The original sin was an act of disobedience

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.

Romans 2:6. God "will give to each person according to what he has done.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by stevemb88

To understand Origional Sin you must first understand that God created humans with the right to choose.

The story:

After God created man and created the garden of Eden He made one rule and only one rule, He said that there was a specific fruit from the "tree of Knowledge" that human (at the time Adam and Eve) could not eat. So after being tempted by the snake (some believe to be Satan) Eve *chose* to eat of the tree. After she had eaten from the tree she told Adam to try it and he *chose* to also eat therefore rebeling against God's one and only rule. Therefore, resulting in the Origional Sin.

Steve, if I may be so bold? The sin was not eating the fruit (that was death), the sin was making excuses to God as to why the fruit was eaten, as well as covering themselves (literally) from the sight of God.

In short, they fell out of balance with God. Brian states that man turned away from God...he is correct. We covered our nakedness, and turned our backs towards God. Hard to talk to a back...

v/r

Q