Adam and Eve Sin
Sermon • Submitted • Presented
0 ratings
· 28 viewsNotes
Transcript
Let us today do a study on Sin and its origons and its Effects
Perhaps the most well known description of sin is the doctrine known as Original Sin.
Now Original Sin is not actually found in the bible as a stated consequence.
But much like the Doctrine of the Trinity, this not not necessarily mean that its not biblical.
There is however one difference between the doctrine of the trinity and the doctrine of Original sin.
The Doctrine of the trinity, that is that there is 1 God eternally existing as 3 distinct persons is represented and taught by the church from its very beginning. Second generation disciples were teaching it.
But the doctrine of Original sin is not attested to.
Original sin history
Original sin history
Prior to Paul, so purely within the jewish context there is no such thing as original sin.
Paul himself in his writings did not present a case for original sin.
What Paul said is Found in Romans 5. Which we will look at shortly.
Early greek fathers
Early greek fathers
Justin Martyr
Justin Martyr
Justin Martyr, a 2nd-century Christian apologist and philosopher, was the first Christian author to discuss the story of Adam's fall after Paul.
In Justin's writings, there is no conception of original sin and the fault of sin lies at the hands of the individual who committed it.
In his Dialogue with Trypho, Justin wrote
"The Christ has suffered to be crucified for the race of men who, since Adam, were fallen to the power of death and were in the error of the serpent, each man committing evil by his own fault"
(chapter 86) and
"Men [...] were created like God, free from pain and death, provided they obeyed His precepts and were deemed worthy by Him to be called His sons, and yet, like Adam and Eve, brought death upon themselves" (chapter 124).[26]
__________
Irenaeus
Irenaeus
Irenaeus was an early father appealed to by Augustine on the doctrine of original sin, although he did not believe that Adam's sin was as severe as later tradition would hold and he was not wholly clear about its consequences.
One recurring theme in Irenaeus is his view that Adam, in his transgression, is essentially a child who merely partook of the tree ahead of his time.
Clement of Alexandria
Clement of Alexandria
Clement of Alexandria in the late 2nd century did propose that sin was inherited from Adam, but did not say how.
Origen
Origen
Origen of Alexandria had a notion similar to, but not the same as original sin.
To Origen, Genesis was largely a story of allegory. On the other hand, he also believed in the pre-existence of the soul, and theorized that individuals are inherently predisposed to committing sin on account of the transgressions committed in their pre-worldly existence.
Greek Fathers would come to emphasize the cosmic dimension of the Fall, namely that since Adam, human beings are born into a fallen world, but held fast to belief that man, though fallen, is free.
They thus did not teach that human beings are deprived of free will and involved in total depravity, which is one understanding of original sin among the leaders of the Reformation.
During this period the doctrines of human depravity and the inherently sinful nature of human flesh were taught by Gnostics, and orthodox Christian writers took great pains to counter them.
Christian apologists insisted that God's future judgment of humanity implied humanity must have the ability to live righteously.
Latin Fathers
Latin Fathers
Tertullian
Tertullian
Tertullian, perhaps the first to believe in hereditary transmission of sin, did so on the basis of the traducian theory.
He posited to help explain the origins of the soul, which stated that each individual's soul was derived from the soul of their two parents, and therefore, because everyone is ultimately a descendant of Adam through sexual reproduction, the souls of humanity are partly derived from Adam's own soul – the only one directly created by God, and as a sinful soul, the derived souls of humanity, too, are sinful.
Cyril of Jerusalem
Cyril of Jerusalem
In addition was Cyril of Jerusalem, who thought humans were born free of sin, but he also believed that, as adults, humanity was naturally biased towards sinning.
Ambrose
Ambrose
Ambrose accepted the idea of hereditary sin, also linking it, like Cyprian, to infant baptism, but as a shift from earlier proponents of a transmitted sin, he argued that Adam's sin was solely his own fault, in his attempt to attain equality with God, rather than the fault of the devil.
Ambrosiaster
Ambrosiaster
One contemporary of Ambrose was Ambrosiaster, the first to introduce a translation of Romans 5:12 that substituted the language of all being in death "because all sinned" to "in him all sinned".
Augustine's primary formulation of original sin was based on a mistranslation of Romans 5:12.
This mistranslation would act as the basis for Augustine's complete development of the doctrine of original sin, and Augustine would quote Ambrosiaster as the source.
Augustine himself was not able to read Hebrew or Greek and relied on the translations produced by others.
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all mankind, because all sinned—
Historical Assesment
Historical Assesment
Now all this tells us one thing: The Doctrine of Original Sin NOT either a universal nor an essential christian doctrine.
What is essential is that we understand that at the Fall something happened to Humanity.
Humanity was NOT the same.
And I really do believe that its the conceptual understanding of what actually happened in the Fall that will determine which branch we go down.
Scripture Analysis
Scripture Analysis
So lets begin by looking at the pure facts:
When God created mankind God declared that it was good.
31 And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
Adams and Eve were, prior to the fall, sinless beings.
Through temptation they sinned, that is - they disobeyed God.
gen 3 1-19.
Post Fall Adam and Eve are now no longer sinless but sinners.
And we see that this disobedience also now affects their children and their children…
8 Cain talked to his brother Abel; and it happened that when they were in the field Cain rose up against his brother Abel and killed him.
So Adam and Eve pre fall are different from Adam and Eve post fall.
The question is:
What exactly is different?
Here are the two options:
Original Sin
Original Sin
This view states that since Adam and Eve were created sinless, sin was ADDED to them.
Illustration.
Fallen Nature
Fallen Nature
This view states that Adam and Eve were indeed sinless but since sin did not actually exist a better description is that Adam and Eve possessed righteousness.
The Fall therefore did not add sin.
The Fall is rather the LOSS of righteousness.
Illustration.
There may not seem like big differences but the paths they lead down could not be further apart.
A big difference in these two views is regarding the GUILT of Adam’s sin and the the transmission of Adam’s sin.
As we have seen, Augustine believed that Original Sin was ADDED and that this Added sin was sexually transmitted.
Now this is actually quite a problem.
If The Guilt of Adam is passed down from Parent to Child, then not only is Sin an STD but also a Fatal one.
Ethical implications:
Ethical implications:
What do you think of an AIDS person having a child, knowing that the child will be born with this terminal and Fatal and Incurable disease?
Well Augustines View has the same problem.
If I have a child I am bringing that child into this world infected with a deadly disease that will not only kill the child BUT ALSO condemn this child to an eternity in Torment.
This btw the were the whole idea of BOTH infant Baptism comes from and the monastic practice of celibacy.
And its why many church’s do not let priests or leaders marry.
Fallen Righteous However leads to a very different road.
On this view no one is born with Adam Guilt, so no one is Punished for Adam sin.
This show consistency with what the bible says:
16 “Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin alone.
30 But everyone will die for his own wrongdoing; each person who eats the sour grapes, his own teeth will become blunt.
20 The person who sins will die. A son will not suffer the punishment for the father’s guilt, nor will a father suffer the punishment for the son’s guilt; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.
Now please understand: The Loss of Righteousness View does not say that Adam’s sin does not impact all of humanity, it absolutely does.
On this view, because of Adam’s sin:
10 as it is written: “There is no righteous person, not even one;
11 There is no one who understands, There is no one who seeks out God;
12 they have All turned aside, together they have become Corrupt; There is no one who does good, There is not even one.”
An interesting Area to experiment with these 2 views is in the case of infants.
Infants and Death
Infants and Death
What does the bible say regarding the spiritual condition of infants?
Unfortinatly not that much, but whatever it does say must be consistent with what the whole bible says.
By far one of the most powerful revelations regarding rthis is David’s statment about his child’s death: This was the child he concieved with Bathsheba by adultry:
23 But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I am going to him, but he will not return to me.”
Here David clearly says that he (David) when he dies will go to where his son currently is: Heaven.
So this young infant went to Heaven.
Why?
A very interesting factor is regarding the state of this infant within the Old Covenant.
Perhaps this child went to heaven because he was a member of the Old covenant.
Who knows what the sign of that covenant was?
Circumcision.
When were babies circumcised?
God said that baby males were to be circumcised at 8 days old. This started with Abraham and continued all the way to Jesus himself:
12 And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations, including a slave who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants.
21 And when eight days were completed so that it was time for His circumcision, He was also named Jesus, the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb.
So it could be that David’s son, being part of the Old Covenant through circumcision was in Heaven.
Just one problem:
David’s son was never circumcised. He died on day 7.
18 Then it happened on the seventh day that the child died. And David’s servants were afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for they said, “Behold, while the child was still alive, we spoke to him and he did not listen to us. How then can we tell him that the child is dead, since he might do himself harm?”
So this child, who is part of fallen humanity went to Heaven despite not even being part of God’s covenant with Israel.
It should be noted here that another bible verse is often used to show the opposite: That infants are not just unrighteous, but actually sinful.
This test is also from David, its his confession Psalm for this same act of Adultery: Psalm 51.
5 Behold, I was brought forth in guilt, And in sin my mother conceived me.
This is a challenging verse to understand for many reasons:
1: An examination of the Hebrew shows that it is not clear if David is referring to his personal spiritual condition as the new born child or whether he is simply saying that permeated every stage of his life from conception, to birth, to life to eventual death.
2: Another big problem is that this is a Psalm. Psalms are Hebrew poetry and are filled with imagery, with metaphors, with hyperbola.
This means that trying to make a Psalm have a literal meaning is often going to give you a wrong theology.
For example: If we are to consistently hold to a literal interpretation of Ps 51 then we have to hold to the literal truth of all the verses, including 7:
7 Purify me with hyssop, and I will be clean; Cleanse me, and I will be whiter than snow.
So Hyssop, the plant has the same power as the blood of Jesus to purify sins?
No
Hyssop was what was used to apply the blood of the lamb to the door posts of the houses in Egypt.
David’s reference to being purified with hyssop is an image of God’s grace in passing over his sins.
So we must be very careful about using figurative poetic portions of scripture as literal examples.
What else does the bible say about the spiritual condition of young infants?
Well pay attention to what says regarding the fallen state of Adam and Eve:
22 Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out with his hand, and take fruit also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”—
Notice that Adam is expelled from the garden because he now had a knowledge of Good and Evil.
Man’s expulsion from the garden was NOT a punishment for their disobedience - its not mentioned at all as God judges the serpent, the woman and the man.
The expulsion is not being they sinned, the expulsion is that “because they sinned and gain knowledge of good and evil” God does not want them to also take of the tree of life.
This is very interesting: Their loss of righteousness or even the addition of Original Sin - is not the cause of their expulsion - its the newly gain knowledge of good and evil that the cause of their expulsion from the garden.
So man is expelled from God’s presence because he has knowledge of good and evil.
Now look at this:
39 Moreover, your little ones who, you said, would become plunder, and your sons, who this day have no knowledge of good and evil, shall enter there, and I will give it to them and they shall take possession of it.
This matches with Is 7.
16 For before the boy knows enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be abandoned.
What is the bible saying?
Well these 2 verses tell us that infants, though part of fallen humanity, are not born with the consequence of the Fall (The knowledge of good and evil) fully developed.
In time as they grow and mature they will come to know Good and Evil and yes, they will choose the evil - their fallen nature guarantees this.
But before this threshold of maturity is crossed - God regards them as judicially innocent.
They literally do not YET have knowledge of good and evil. Since it is this knowledge that causes expulsion from the tree of life, it is 100% reasonable to assume that children who, as the bible itself says, do not have a knowledge of good and evil, to remain in the garden till each persons own personal expulsion.
Which happens the moment the fruit of knowledge ripens and matures.
But before this threshold of maturity is crossed - God regards them as judicially innocent.
Not sinless or righteous - judicially innocent - that is innocent on a legal basis.
This concept is not foreign at all: Its the very basis for our own salvation.
Justification is nothing more than judicial innocence.
A person who is justified is declared righteous based on the finished work of Jesus Christ.
My actions and record show that i am NOT innocent - but my position in Christ is that of righteous.
This righteousness that i have is judicial.
So to say that an infant who is fallen, yet who is regarded by God as judicially innocent is no different from anyone's salvation.
What could be problematic is “How is this judicial innocence given to an infant”?
Our judicial innocent is all of God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ.
eph 2 8
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
In fact since Jesus Christ is our advocate ONLY Jesus can give us this required righteousness.
So the question is:
Does God’s grace extend to infants?
I absolutely believe it does.
1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus and said, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”
2 And He called a child to Himself and set him among them,
3 and said, “Truly I say to you, unless you change and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
4 So whoever will humble himself like this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
5 And whoever receives one such child in My name, receives Me;
6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it is better for him that a heavy millstone be hung around his neck, and that he be drowned in the depths of the sea.
10 “See that you do not look down on one of these little ones; for I say to you that their angels in heaven continually see the face of My Father who is in heaven.
An infant is still saved by grace.
But through what faith?
The same faith Jesus praises as he presents the child to the disciples.
13 And they were bringing children to Him so that He would touch them; but the disciples rebuked them.
14 But when Jesus saw this, He was indignant and said to them, “Allow the children to come to Me; do not forbid them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.
15 Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all.”
16 And He took them in His arms and began blessing them, laying His hands on them.
Now one might say:
If an infant is saved by grace then that implies that they are sinners.
You dont need grace if you are innocent, right?
But i reject that proposition by scripture.
Jesus, we know as fact, is and was perfectly innocent.
If grace is only necessary because of sin or iniquity or some form of transgression then it stands to perfect reason that Jesus, even as an infant Himself, certainly did not need any of God’s grace.
Well then we have a problem:
40 And the Child grew and became strong in spirit, filled with wisdom; and the grace of God was upon Him.
If grace is only needed because of sin, then why did Jesus have grace?
Unless the grace of God that is upon Jesus Christ in His infancy, the same grace of God that is upon every child until the knowledge of Good and Evil ripens?
Joseph Arminius
Joseph Arminius
The great theologian Joseph Arminius, who we as Arminians get our name sake, wrote an incredible discord on sin.
One very interesting point he made based on this same evidence we have seen is that:
“ Sin can be committed by none except a rational creature.”
This was his conclusion and believed in light of the scriptures that infants do not qualify as sinners in that they lack any rational.
Now again, when they do gain rationality - they will sin.
But until then they are judicially innocent.
Let us know apply what we have learn to each scenario:
Let us know apply what we have learn to each scenario:
Original Sin and infants
Original Sin and infants
Under the doctrine of Original sin infants 1 day old, in fact at the moment of conception already have sin - the guilt of Adam’s sin.
This sin condemns the infant to Hell because the wages of sin is death.
Augustine’s solution to this was Pedobaptism. A washing away of this Adamic original sin.
There is of course a big problem here:
Water baptism is a symbolic sacrament that shows an inward spiritual truth.
Water cannot wash away sin, not even Adam’s sin. The only thing powerful enough to cleanse us from sin is the blood of Jesus Christ.
7 but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.
And an infant cannot recognise their sinfulness so as to repent and have faith.
This leaves no actual reason to believe that any infant therefore is saved.
John Calvin in his writings makes a case now for infants who die:
So within reformed theology the doctrine of Origional Sin is a key puillar.
So John Calvin did believe that every child from cenception are guilty sinners.
He then makes 2 aurguments for infants:
1: Elect Infants.
Reformed theology has very particular views regarding the biblical concept of election.
As Arminions we believe that election refers not to a person but to persons. That is any person who is saved by grace through faith is elect.
Calvanists view election as a decree.
So God, before he made the earth, degreed to elect some people to be saved and other people to be damned.
Now, if an infant that dies happened to be part of God’s predecreed elect, then obviously that infant is saved.
But what about an infant that is non-elect?
Here John, inorder to be faithful to the systemaic he believed does a bit of mental acrobatics - which i dont think are even neccesery.
He said:
a distinction must be drawn between “condemnation” and “damnation”.
Condemnation is the pronouncment of a sentence, damnation is the carrying out of the sentence.
So to John Calvin, a non-elect infant is indeed guilty of sin (Adam’s Sin) - that is: They are condemned as infants, but the carrying out of the sentence, the act of damnation, will be postponed till they actually commit personal sin, at which point a judgment of condemnation will be carried out.
What does all this mean?
It basically means that John Calvin did believe in the Armanian concept of “an age of innocence”.
And he also believed that since God will not “damn” an infant - all infants who die are by definition elect.
If they were not elect God would postpone the damnation till they were no longer in the “age of innocence”.
Does this view work?
Within the beliefs of Calvinism i think it does, but its IMO an unnecessary about of philosophical gymnastics going on.
And its all because of this Doctrine of Original Sin given by Augustine based on a faulty translation of Romans 5.
Loss of Righteousness and infants
Loss of Righteousness and infants
An infant on this view is sinless in the sense that they have not commit any sin, but the loss of righteousness means that as maturity and morality develop - sin is absolutely inevitable.
This decline into sin is not based on social fallen factors at all. This corruption is bound to the child heart and will bring them to sin.
15 Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; The rod of discipline will remove it far from him.
The big difference?
The individual becomes guilty of sin only when they sin.
They are fallen, they are corrupted in their nature, they have no righteousness - but they are not GUILTY sinners.
Valuation:
Valuation:
Lets look at the scriptural Data:
Genesis 2
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all mankind, because all sinned—
13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not counted against anyone when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the violation committed by Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
15 But the gracious gift is not like the offense. For if by the offense of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many.
16 The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one offense, resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the gracious gift arose from many offenses, resulting in justification.
17 For if by the offense of the one, death reigned through the one, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.
18 So then, as through one offense the result was condemnation to all mankind, so also through one act of righteousness the result was justification of life to all mankind.
19 For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.
20 The Law came in so that the offense would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,
21 so that, as sin reigned in death, so also grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Within this explanation we find a few issues of interpretation contention.
1: Death?
1: Death?
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all mankind, because all sinned—
13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not counted against anyone when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the violation committed by Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
The challenge in these verses is what exactly is ment by death?
The bible speaks of 2 types of death.
A physical death of the body.
And the Spiritual Death of the Spirit.
For example:
1 And you were dead in your offenses and sins,
Is this referring to physical death or Spiritual death? Well its obviously spiritual.
Is this referring to physical death or Spiritual death? Well its obnoxiously spiritual.
At other times:
20 But the fact is, Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep.
This is obviously a physical death.
So if we go back to Romans 5 we ask: What death is this?
Here is the challenge:
If the bible is true in saying that the wages of sin is death - then how do we explain the death of infants who have not sinned?
Well Augustines Original sin doctrine says that they have sinned “in Adam”.
But this is only necessary if physical death is what Paul is talking about.
Lets look again at God’s warning to Adam:
16 The Lord God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may freely eat;
17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for on the day that you eat from it you will certainly die.”
Let me ask you: Can God lie? Can God make a mistake?
God said that ON, not because of or later but ON the day to eat you will CERTANILY die.
Now my next question: Did Adam and Eve die when they ate the fruit?
They absolutely must have.
Next question: Did they die physically? No.
Therefore they must have died Spiritually.
If the death Paul speaks of is the Spiritual death of Adam and Eve, then an infant who dies, well its got nothing to do with sin because the death of the body does not mean the death of the Spirit.
Even more so, if this death is insisted on being physical then the death of as born again, justified and made righteous christian does not make sense either.
If death is a judgment on sin, then why would a justified believer die?
Well because:
25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; the one who believes in Me will live, even if he dies,
26 and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?”
Jesus says that the one who believes in Him will NEVER die.
So Peter never believed, John never Believed, john the baptist never believed.
Lets make this clear: Infant death is evidence of sins impact on creation, but it is not evidence of original sin in the infant.
Concluding Thoughts:
Concluding Thoughts:
What do we make of all this?
Well a few things are very clear:
1: Adam’s sin had massive impacts on all of creation.
2: Adam sin resulted in humanity falling out of favor and fellowship with God.
(Whether this is because of added original sin or a Loss of righteousness does not matter).
3: No one, no descendant of Adam, is not born in this fallen sate.
4: Every single human being can only be saved by God’s grace no matter how old.
here is something very intriguing:
BOTH Armenian and Calvinist views hold to the salvation of infants.
yet both insisted that the other was wrong.
A book i highly reccomend on this topic:
The Spiritual Condition of Infants: A Biblical-Historical Survey and Systematic Proposal
Book by Adam Harwood
