The Power of Sin

[bizzt]

I am not sure, but the reason that the sin is passed on may have something to do with the blood, where the blood of Adam was passed on to his offspring. And there are verses talking about there is life in the blood. etc..... Just an idea in process....???? Any thoughts?

That is a very interesting thought? Might very well be true as the New Adam (Jesus) made everything new INCLUDING the process of the Blood...

[FFC]

I am not sure, but the reason that the sin is passed on may have something to do with the blood, where the blood of Adam was passed on to his offspring. And there are verses talking about there is life in the blood. etc..... Just an idea in process....???? Any thoughts?

That is a very interesting thought? Might very well be true as the New Adam (Jesus) made everything new INCLUDING the process of the Blood...

I don't mean to sound stupid, but do you think God may have put whatever caused the sin to be hereditary in the fruit itself?

[Jac3510]

I personally don't think that sin has anything to do with the blood, nor that there was anything inherently evil in the fruit that Adam was forbidden to eat. Concerning the fruit, God could have just as well drew a circle on the ground and say "Don't go into that circle!" If that had been the case, we would be arguing about the possibility that there was some portal of sin into the world, blah, blah, blah.

Man was created to rule under God (Gen 1:26-28). But that means that, by definition, Man had to have the choice to rule under himself, which would require a direct rule from God to break. God provided that in the TKGE. Now, I actually follow Geerhardus Vos at this point. Let me provide an extended quote from his Biblical Theology (Eerdman's, 1948), pp.31-32.

Thus we are led to the view most commonly held in the past: the tree is called the tree of "knowledge of good and evil," because it is the God-appointed instrument to lead men through probation to that state of religious and moral maturity wherewith his highest blessedness is connected. The physical meaning of the phrase has been transferred to the spiritual sphere. On this view the name does no prejudge the result. To attain to a knowledge of good and evil is not necessarily an undesirable and culpable thing. It could happen in a good way, in case man stood in probation, no less than in an evil way, in case man fell. The name is neutral as to its import. That this is so frequently overlooked is due to the prohibitive form which the probation-test assumed. Because man was forbidden to eat of the tree associated with the knowledge of good and evil, it has been rashly assumed that the knowledge of good and evil was forbidden him. Obviously there is in this a confusion of thought. The prohibitive form of the test has quite a different cause, as will be presently shown.

If now we enquire how the maturity designated as "knowledge of good and evil" was to be attained, either in a desirable or in an undesirable sense, regard must be had first of all to the exact form of the phrase in Hebrew. The phrase is not "knowledge of good and evil". It reads, literally translated: "knowledge of good-and-evil", i.e., of good and evil correlated, mutually conditioned conceptions. Man was to attain something he had not attained before. He was to learn the good in its clear opposition to the evil, and the evil in its clear opposition to the good. Thus it will become plain how he could attain to this by taking either fork of the probation-choice. Had he stood, then the contrast between good and evil would have been vividly present in his mind: the good and evil he would have known from the new illumination his mind would have received through the crisis of temptation in which the two collided. On the other hand, had he fallen, then the contrast of evil with good would have even more vividly impressed itself upon him, because the remembered experience of choosing the evil and the continuous experience of doing evil, in contrast with his memory of the good, would have shown most sharply how different the two are. The perception of difference in which the maturity consisted related to the one pivotal point, whether man would make his choice for the sake of God and of God alone.

Now, I find that to be an excellent understanding of the TKGE. It also goes a long way in explaining the sin nature that Adam fell into. He knew evil because he chose to experience it. How is this passed on to us? Gen 5:3 tells us that Seth was born in Adam's own image. As that image was now fallen, Seth inherited this fallen image. Thus, everyone "in Adam" reflects that fallen, sinful state.

Regarding this, Ryrie has an excellent discussion in his Basic Theology (Moody Press, 1999; pp.221-222) under the subject of traducianism. Again, I'll provide an extended quote, beginning with the context on page 220.

III. The Transmission of Man's Being

When Adam begat Seth, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image (Gen. 5:3). Though Adam was made directly in the image of God, his children were generated in Adam's image, which, of course, still bore God's image even after the Fall (cf. 1 Cor 11:7). Thus the transmission of man's being was and is through natural generation.

No one questions this as far as the material aspect of man's being is concerned. Our bodies come from our parents, and theirs for theirs, etc. But how is the immaterial aspect of man passed from generation to generation. To this question several answers have traditionally been proposed
.
.
.
C. Traducianism

This view holds that the soul is transmitted along with the body through the process of natural generation. William G. T. Shedd cited three kinds of support for this view. (1) Scriptural: Hebrews 7:10 indicates a rational and moral act on the part of unborn Levi; Genesis 2:1-3 states that God rested on the seventh day of Creation because His work of Creation was finished. No fresh acts, like creating new souls, are indicated; and verse 7 does not allow for the breath of life to be breathed into anyone else other than Adam. (2) Theological: creationism places God in the position of creating a perfect soul (He could not create a sinful one), then having it fall in the case of each newborn infant. The case of the sinless Christ is in every respect an exception and not the pattern for deciding the question. (3) Physiological: : man is always seen as a union of soul and body; therefore, it is more natural to consider both the psychical and the physical as developing together.

In summary, as I see it, when Adam sinned he experientially knew evil. Therefore, by definition, he no longer was the perfect reflection of God, looking to please his own self rather than to please God. Seth, and everyone after him, was born with that same fallen image. This is because this image--indeed, this condition--is passed on from parent to child through natural generation.

My view, anyway . . .

[zoegirl]

Perelandra, CS Lewis's second space trilogy, offers a good example of what you say, Jac. In Perelandra, the man and woman are told to stay away from a certain island (if I recall correctly). Man, those are good books. The fruit in itself was nothing special, it was the disobedience and rebellion that established Adam and Eve's fallen nature.

Interesting thing to think on how sin is transmitted. COuld that rebellion have altered our genome? Is there something physical in the transmittance? COuld be...certainly intersting to ponder

[FFC]

Interesting thing to think on how sin is transmitted. COuld that rebellion have altered our genome? Is there something physical in the transmittance? COuld be...certainly intersting to ponder

Yes, this is why I wondered if the fruit could have been a physical vehicle used by God to alter it, even though the disobedience was the origional sin. What Jac offered sounds right to me though.

[Beth]

Hi, I'm Beth (feels like she is an AA meeting) I am a believer. I wanted to post a small point. God gave us free will, yes? But that free will had consequences. We missed treated that free will (we as in Eve and Adam). We are like children having been mistreating a gift therefore God took away another gift as punishment. We are still being punished because we are in essence still Adam and Eve. Would we not make the same mistake had it been Jenny and Tom? God told us not to do this, we do it anyway. I think that we will get both sides of the story when we get to heaven. We can analize till our brain bursts and still not have the answer until our FATHER gives us the right to know. Hope I'm making sense to you all. I find thinking simply frees the mind of clutter.

[Harry12345]

I'm not sure any of you got my question. The question was,

Why did ONE sin have such an effect on our nature? Becuase we sinned once, we now sin like a cat meows. Why is this?

[FFC]

I'm not sure any of you got my question. The question was,

Why did ONE sin have such an effect on our nature? Becuase we sinned once, we now sin like a cat meows. Why is this?

Because when we gave into Satan we recieved a corrupt gift that corrupted us through and through...in other words I don't know.

[bizzt]

[Enigma7457]

Maybe we always sinned like a cat meows, but the apple was the just the first of many?


Just a thought

[zoegirl]

I'm not sure any of you got my question. The question was,

Why did ONE sin have such an effect on our nature? Becuase we sinned once, we now sin like a cat meows. Why is this?

That one first sin wasn't just a lie, or a deception....it was the ultimate rebellion towards God. And this points to a serious misconception of sin. We think of it as a quantity (how much sin are you committing or how many sins are in your past?). But sin is also a quality. When we sinned we placed ourselves in direct opposition to God. Every relationship, every emotion, every decision is tainted/corrupted.

Sin corrupts every part of us, our emotions, our decisions, our relationship....nothing we do can be apart from a sinful/corrupted motivation

I'm with FFC here in terms of not completely understanding how or why that first sin corrupted everything (ie the mechanism), but certainly it established us as enemies of God....and as such we changed our nature. We placed ourselves in the position of God.

[Enigma7457]

I always wondered what would happen if Adam and Eve had simply repented right away. When God questioned her, Eve blamed it on the snake. When God questioned Adam, he said "The woman YOU put here with me..."

What if they had just acknowledged their sin and repented instead of blaming others?

[zoegirl]

I always wondered what would happen if Adam and Eve had simply repented right away. When God questioned her, Eve blamed it on the snake. When God questioned Adam, he said "The woman YOU put here with me..."

What if they had just acknowledged their sin and repented instead of blaming others?

Would that repentance have satisfied God's wrath? The consequence of that sin was death (indeed, God was merciful in booting them out of the garden). Immediately the payment for sin was death adn we see that in the Old Testament laws for atonement. We immediately needed an atoning sacrifice or pay that death with our lives...

I mean...our repentance in and of itself is meaningless without Christ's death on the cross. (could they/would they have repented by their own faculties? can we even repent by ourselves? OF course this brings us back to total depravity and irrestible grace and I'm not sure we really want to go there again!)

Personally, I don't think would have happened. Nor would the repentance be enough.

[Silvertusk]

Hi Guys.

To be honest the way i think about it is that when God created us with freewill, us sinning was inevitable. Pure freewill means we must have the option to sin, otherwise it is not freewill. I believe God knew this, which is why he had a plan for our salvation before we even existed. I think this concept of freewill is one of the most powerful forces in the universe. It is why i think the universe was created the way it was - slowly over a long time with vast amount of space. C.S. Lewis wrote that the universe must be this way, nature must be this way otherwise there will be no true freewill and sinning is a part of that makeup. God wants us to be a reflection of him and because of Jesus we are and that was his plan all along. We have freewill and we are perfect in Gods eyes. I think that is genius!!!!!

Any thoughts on this.?

God Bless

Silvertusk

[FFC]

I always wondered what would happen if Adam and Eve had simply repented right away. When God questioned her, Eve blamed it on the snake. When God questioned Adam, he said "The woman YOU put here with me..."

What if they had just acknowledged their sin and repented instead of blaming others?

...and what would have happened if they ate from the tree of life before being confronted by God...and before it became off limits to them?