original sin

[rockclimber]

Has their been any discussions on original sin?

[Redkora]

I'm sure there has. Do a forum search on it and if it has popped up, it will come up on the search.

:thumbsup:

[shibboleth]

Original sin is the theory that when Adam and Eve sinned in the garden, they were the spokesman for all humanity...if they hadn't sinned then we would all be living in a sinless world.....no pain, no suffering, no death, no rape, murder, poverty etc. This is the basic teaching or OS. I have some information about it and will post it later when I have time.

[shibboleth]

These are the 3 theories held by organized religion regarding original sin.

1. The Augustinian Theory. This is also called the Theory of Adam's Natural Headship and the Realistic Theory. This theory was formulatyed by Augustine in the 5th century A.D. The Augustian Theory affirms that, by virtue of organic unity, the whole human race existed in Adam at the time of hs transgression. It says that Adam's will was the will of the species, so that in Adam's free act, the will of the race revolted against God, and the nature of the race corrupted itself. All men existed as one moral person in Adam, so that in Adam's sin we sinned, we corrupted ourselves, and we brought guilt and merited condemnation upon ourselves

2. Federal Theory. This theory is also called the theory of Condemnation by Covenant  and the Immediate Imputaion Theory. It had its origin with Cocceius in the 17th century A.D. According to this theory, God made a covenant with Adam, agreeing to bestow upon all his descendants eternal life for his obedience, but making the penalty for his disobedience to be the condemnaiton of all his descendants. Since our legal representative or federal head did sin, God imputes his sin, guilt, and condemnation to all his descendants. It was thought that this theory was necessary because of the problem in the Sugustinian Theory of accounting for the non-imputaion of the subsequent sins of Adam and less remote ancestors---for if real existence in Adam, explained our responsibility for his first sin, why should not real existence in Adam and in subsquent ancestors make us guilty for these sins, too?


3. The Theory of Mediate Imputation. This theory is also called the Theory of Condemntion for Depravity. This is the theory formulated by Placeus in the 17th century A.D. Placeus originally enied that Adam's in was in any way imputed to his posterity. But when his first view was condemned by the Synod of the French Reformed Church in 1644, he published this later view. According to this view, all men are born with a depraved nature and are guilty and condemnable for that nature. They are not viewed as being guilty because of the sin of Adam, as in the Federal Theory. Instead it is the corrupted natue which they inherit from Adam that is sufficient cause and legal ground for God to condemn them.

None of these so called biblical definitions can be found in scripture. There is much more that can be said about these theories, but I'll just leave the main ideas here for now.

[Craig]

Thanks Shibboleth for your post! It is awesome!

These are the 3 theories held by organized religion regarding original sin.

1. The Augustinian Theory. This is also called the Theory of Adam's Natural Headship and the Realistic Theory. This theory was formulatyed by Augustine in the 5th century A.D. The Augustian Theory affirms that, by virtue of organic unity, the whole human race existed in Adam at the time of hs transgression. It says that Adam's will was the will of the species, so that in Adam's free act, the will of the race revolted against God, and the nature of the race corrupted itself. All men existed as one moral person in Adam, so that in Adam's sin we sinned, we corrupted ourselves, and we brought guilt and merited condemnation upon ourselves.

Augustine was a very hard and unforgiving person who let his own hurts mar his view of the truth. In rejection to the Augustine Theory, God has made it clear, the sins of the Father belong to the father and not the son.

Ezekiel 18:20
"The person who sins will die The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.

2. Federal Theory. This theory is also called the theory of Condemnation by Covenant  and the Immediate Imputaion Theory. It had its origin with Cocceius in the 17th century A.D. According to this theory, God made a covenant with Adam, agreeing to bestow upon all his descendants eternal life for his obedience, but making the penalty for his disobedience to be the condemnaiton of all his descendants. Since our legal representative or federal head did sin, God imputes his sin, guilt, and condemnation to all his descendants. It was thought that this theory was necessary because of the problem in the Sugustinian Theory of accounting for the non-imputaion of the subsequent sins of Adam and less remote ancestors---for if real existence in Adam, explained our responsibility for his first sin, why should not real existence in Adam and in subsquent ancestors make us guilty for these sins, too?

Just like Augustine's theory, it makes the same mistake. God has son will not bear the punishment of the father.

3. The Theory of Mediate Imputation. This theory is also called the Theory of Condemntion for Depravity. This is the theory formulated by Placeus in the 17th century A.D. Placeus originally enied that Adam's in was in any way imputed to his posterity. But when his first view was condemned by the Synod of the French Reformed Church in 1644, he published this later view. According to this view, all men are born with a depraved nature and are guilty and condemnable for that nature. They are not viewed as being guilty because of the sin of Adam, as in the Federal Theory. Instead it is the corrupted natue which they inherit from Adam that is sufficient cause and legal ground for God to condemn them.

Getting closer, as consequence of Adam's sin, his descendents did not have access to the tree of life, and bore the consequences of the curse. This is like a murderer killing his victim, the victim was innocent but still died as consequence of the murderers actions, even though the penalty of murder (according to the Law) is death. So, wrongly, most people see that both the murderer and the victim died and make a hasty generalization that the victim must have done something to deserve the death they died and group both the murderer and the victim together as guilty since they are both dead.

None of these so called biblical definitions can be found in scripture. There is much more that can be said about these theories, but I'll just leave the main ideas here for now.

Exactly. None of the above ideas are found in Scripture because the idea that God is condemning us because of Adam's sin, continues to prevade the understanding.

[shibboleth]

You're welcome, Craig....actually I have a book called  "The Myth of Original Sin" and just copied it from there. I was in a Calvanistic church when I bought the book and noone wanted to look at it. Although the author still believes in hellfire, he did a good job of explaining why this idea about OS is so abhorent.

I have to hand type anything from the book since it isn't available on the net. I find it to be very helpful at times when I read about OS from many church sources. Let me know if you want any more information or specific information I could look up.

[Kept]

Is this by chance the book:

http://www.gospeltruth.net/menbornsinners/mbsindex.htm

kept

[shibboleth]

Yep, that's the book Kept. I ordered it over 5 years ago and forgot it was online....after seeing it from your post I remembered it was an online book. Thanks for reminding me so if I need to quote I can cut and paste. :icon_flower:

[shibboleth]

God has created just two men.
Adam and The Second Adam.

Yes, but before we are in the last Adam, we are in the first Adam. So, I judge no man after the flesh since I don't have to walk in his shoes. (Well, I do judge, but I am constantly reminded of how far short of perfection I am if I choose to judge others for their sins and shortcomings.)

[SLN]

I was PM'ing with Lovertruth about original sin, or rather the results of it, and she suggested I share the findings with you all. The question we were trying to answer was whether we are born as sinners or not. I'd be interested to hear opinions. I'll just copy and paste the conclusion here:


...but that doesn't mean we were born having no choice but to sin. My proof for this? Jesus Christ! Although fully divine, he was also fully human. He is the living proof we were not born as sinners. Because if we were, then how could he, a human being, be without sin?

[CHB]

...but that doesn't mean we were born having no choice but to sin. My proof for this? Jesus Christ! Although fully divine, he was also fully human. He is the living proof we were not born as sinners. Because if we were, then how could he, a human being, be without sin?

Jesus was without sin because he didn't have an earthly father or mother. 

Mary was just a surrogate mother. Jesus was implanted in Mary's womb by the Holy Spirit. (Matt. 1:20) For that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.

CHB

[SLN]

We do see Jesus get tempted though, which I think would indicate he was capable of sinning. Unless I'm missing something here.  :dontknow:

[pneuma]

He is the living proof we were not born as sinners

There is a difference between Jesus' birth and our SLN, he was born of the Holy Spirit from the time He came into this world, we were not, that is why we must be born again.

[pneuma]

Original Sin

Original sin, what is it?

Is it what the churches have been teaching us, that Adam disobeyed God and brought sin into the world?

OR

Was sin already in the world before Adam disobeyed God?

Disobedience is a manifestation of SIN that was/is already in the heart of man.

SIN was already in man before he ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

The knowledge of good and evil is the law, so let's look at that first so we can understand what happened in the garden of Eden.

The law is the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Two trees in the garden both a figure of the true.

Tree of life a figure of Jesus Christ our tree of life.

Tree of knowledge of good and evil a figure of the law.

There is no actual tree that gives life nor is there an actual tree that gives us knowledge.

The law or tree of knowledge was the commandment THOU SHALT NOT.

What is this tree that can bring death to man?

Now we know that death comes because of sin RO.5:12

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin.
Therefore we can see that it is sin that brings death to man , but what brings us the knowledge of what sin is?

The law. RO.3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Therefore the tree of knowledge of good and evil is the law for by eating of the tree death entered into the world.
Now is the knowledge of good and evil ( the law ) sin RO.7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

So we can see that the tree of knowledge of good and evil is the law, for it is only by way of the law that we have the knowledge of sin.



Let's look back at what the tree of knowledge of good and evil is (the law) and what the law does.

The law reveals SIN to man, without the law man would not know that he was a sinner.

Adam was created in SIN but did not know that he was.

To understand this we need to look at what Paul says about Adam in 1 Cor.15

1 Corinthians 15:35-36
35 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? 36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:

In order for man to be quickened he must die first. This is the order of arrangement of God Himself. Even or Lord and saviour had to die before He took on His glorified body.
What is true of Him is also true of every man and this includes Adam. Until Adam died he could not be quickened unto life. That is to say until our old man dies , we cannot put on our heavenly glorified body.

1 Corinthians 15:37-38
37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain: 38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.

Now here we see a change made in the grain that is sown. The grain is not the body which shall come forth , but is bare grain. Once the grain is planted in the earth ( dies) it springs up into life. Now some may grow up to be wheat or some other grain, for the bare grain is not the plant that shall be.
Adam ,like everyone else is bare grain at first. He had to die to be quickened unto life. For only in resurrection can one put on the incorruptible body.
This bare grain is the natural body ( old man ) that must die.

The scriptures then go on to show us that there is a difference in the bodies. For God gives it the body that pleases Him.

1 Corinthians 15:39-41
39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. 40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

1 Corinthians 15:42-44
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

Now this natural body which Adam had and we also have is sown in corruption. For without resurrection our bodies are corrupt. In the resurrection our bodies are raised in incorruption. The natural body that Adam had and we also have is sown in dishonour , but raised in glory. Sown in weakness ,raised in power. Sown a natural body , raised a spiritual body. All these scriptures tell us that the natural body must come first ,then die to be raised a spiritual body. Only in resurrection is there a glorified body, therefore Adam had to die in order to put on a glorified body.

1 Corinthians 15:45-46
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

Now the first man Adam was MADE a living soul, the following scripture says that the living soul is natural, or a natural body as the preceding scripture states. And this is how Adam was fashioned. This is all in contrast to Jesus Christ which was made a life giving spirit.
Living soul is also translated living creature. Soul and creature both come from the same Hebrew word nephesh.

1 Corinthians 15:47-49
47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. 48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. 49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

The scriptures go on to say the first man (Adam) is of the earth, earthy and as we have borne the image of the earthy ,which image Adam had, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now is the image that Adam bore that of a natural earthy body the image of God? No , this natural earthy body must die first in order to be resurrected, for only in resurrection are we given a heavenly body.

Now in conclusion Paul says

1 Corinthians 15:50-51
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

That is to say the life of the flesh ( that Adam and we have) cannot inherit the kingdom of God.
This life of the flesh must die first for corruption cannot inherit incorruption.
We must all be changed.
The bare grain (Adam) that was first planted, is not the body that shall be.
That which thou sowest is not quickened EXCEPT IT DIE.

Adam could not have had this incorruptible body , or he would not have been able to die.
That which is born of God CANNOT sin.

God bless.

[Loveroftruth]

Doesnt Sin mean to "miss the mark"

So wouldn't that mean we where born with the ability to "miss the mark"  :dontknow:

[pneuma]

Doesnt Sin mean to "miss the mark"

So wouldn't that mean we where born with the ability to "miss the mark"  :dontknow:

If one is born with the ability to sin then sin is within one, for we are all lead astry by our own lusts.

Also there is a difference between sin and trespasses, sin is the root and trespasses are the fruit that comes from the root.
Once our old man nature is consummed the root is dead.
Kill the root and all it's fruit die also.

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: Amen Pneuma........good post. God told the Israelites He had taken them out into the wilderness to show them what was in their hearts, which is where He gave them the tablets of the law. Eve was Adam's "stony" heart, and she was taken out of him to show him what was in his heart, when the law, "Thou shalt not" came. PTL He did not leave us with this stony heart/soul/Eve but gives us a heart of (celestial) flesh.

We were lowered into the bondage of corruption, not willingly, but subjected in hope, ie. Christ in us, the hope of glory (another body). Every time we look into the face/nature of the risen Word, ie. perceiving His nature thru the mind of Christ, we accept the "judgment" (which is that that soulish part of us that is NOT like what was just revealed, must die) that is unto victory (more resurrected Word has been raised up IN US). Blessings to all.....

[SLN]

Thanks, Pneuma. That seems to make sense!  :grin:

Now help me out again here... this is my understanding now, tell me if you see any flaws in it?

Paul says that flesh and blood can not inherit the kingdom. So then we who are born of the flesh are sinners. Until we repent and believe in Christ, which would make us spiritual again and able to inherit the kingdom. I think Adam's first state of being (in the garden) was comparable to being a believer (except he was born of God in the more literal sense), but when he turned his back on God's command what he became was comparable to what an unbeliever is now?

So Jesus was born of the spirit and he was from his birth, the same as we are now once we seek refuge in Christ... when looking at it that way it would make sense he could be tempted into sinning, because Adam sinned too... 

This verse comes to mind:

1 Corinthians 7:13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. (14) For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

It says the children are holy. Isn't that then the very opposite of being born sinful? Wouldn't it basically be as saying they were born of the spirit, instead of the flesh? So that thanks to Jesus' death on the cross, we can be born sinless again, the way God intended (if the circumstances allow)?

[SeekerSA]

There is no original sin.  Or is there?

Exo 34:7  Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear [the guilty]; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth [generation].

Gen 1:26  And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Jer 31:34  And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Some pretty conflicting stuff eh?

Hypothetically, if two children, boy and girl say age 5, were placed on a deserted island and grew up w/o any external influence, having all their needs met (miraculously) They would likely grow up w/o the so called sinful nature.  They would not know of wars of literature or anything.  By the age of puberty, they would likely through instinct discover sex and procreate. (I actually saw a movie based on this theme)

At the age of 25, they would still have the "mentality" of a 5 year old but would have learned experientially a few things.

IMO they would be model citizens of their island.

Our own children are pretty innocent until about 5 when they start to explore and learn from their surroundings.  By teenage years, they will be rebellious.  Why?

Their surroundings influence them and they learn from others in the dog-eat-dog world.  We have the Adamic nature with the ability to become sinners but like Paul said, through knowledge of the Law, death came.

Whatever your theology, one needs to understand why some sin more than others, external influences must play a huge part.  One need only look at the statistics of molested children that become molesters themselves and similar traits.

We all come from a bloodline of corruption in that our forefathers were essentially expelled out of Europe and shipped off to the colonies.  In due course what has happened, look at history to see the victimisation of the supposed "weak".

So in Adam all die yes but due to human nature governed by external influences.

There is a tribe in South America somewhere where they live totally naked.  The men tie a bow to the genitalia to control erection and they have a balanced society, caring for one another unlike out Western society that has become very selfish.  The Kalahari bushmen are very similar here in Southern Africa, those that still live by the old ways.

Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

If true, then we were created with this "defect" or are we really defective?

Blessings

[SLN]

Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

If true, then we were created with this "defect" or are we really defective?

Blessings

I think the only possibility is that we were created with the option of turning our backs on God. If not, Eve could never have picked the apple, right? The tree wouldn't have been planted there either, I'd think.


22And Jehovah God saith, `Lo, the man was as one of Us, as to the knowledge of good and evil; and now, lest he send forth his hand, and have taken also of the tree of life, and eaten, and lived to the age,' --

Although we were created in God's likeness, this tells us we didn't really become like him, in the sense of knowing both good and evil, until Adam ate the apple.

3and of the fruit of the tree which [is] in the midst of the garden God hath said, Ye do not eat of it, nor touch it, lest ye die.'

Since they didn't physically die, this has to indicate spiritual death I think. So before that they were spiritually alive, which would be in God's likeness, in his image. And after that, they were spiritually dead (which apparently is knowing both good and evil). 

When we are born again spiritually through Christ, we also still have the option of denying him later. Wouldn't this be comparable to eating the apple, even though they were one with God? They were created in God's likeness (spiritually alive. Loving, caring, obedient), and then when they spiritually died they became as God in the sense that they also know the other side of the spectrum.

I think being created in his likeness means being created how God is. Becoming as God then means having knowledge of  (having inside us) that which opposes God (evil).

What do you all think?

[pneuma]

Thanks, Pneuma. That seems to make sense!

Now help me out again here... this is my understanding now, tell me if you see any flaws in it?

Paul says that flesh and blood can not inherit the kingdom. So then we who are born of the flesh are sinners. Until we repent and believe in Christ, which would make us spiritual again and able to inherit the kingdom. I think Adam's first state of being (in the garden) was comparable to being a believer (except he was born of God in the more literal sense), but when he turned his back on God's command what he became was comparable to what an unbeliever is now?

Hi SLN, Adam's first state of being was NOT of the garden, Adam was created of the dust outside of the garden and it was only after God breathed into him the BREATH OF LIFE (birth of Christ in ones life) that he was placed into the garden.

Adam like us was FIRST born of the earth earthy until Christ.

So Jesus was born of the spirit and he was from his birth, the same as we are now once we seek refuge in Christ... when looking at it that way it would make sense he could be tempted into sinning, because Adam sinned too...

This verse comes to mind:

1 Corinthians 7:13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. (14) For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

It says the children are holy. Isn't that then the very opposite of being born sinful? Wouldn't it basically be as saying they were born of the spirit, instead of the flesh? So that thanks to Jesus' death on the cross, we can be born sinless again, the way God intended (if the circumstances allow)?

Don't forget Paul is speaking of TWO who are made ONE, and every child that is born of Christ is HOLY, for without HIM (Christ) we are dead and have not yet been born.

[pneuma]

I think the only possibility is that we were created with the option of turning our backs on God. If not, Eve could never have picked the apple, right? The tree wouldn't have been planted there either, I'd think.

This is correct imo, we are given the choice of either obeying the voice of God or obeying are carnal nature. If we obey His voice we live, if we obey the voice of our carnal nature we die, just as God proclaimed if you eat of the tree you will die.

22And Jehovah God saith, `Lo, the man was as one of Us, as to the knowledge of good and evil; and now, lest he send forth his hand, and have taken also of the tree of life, and eaten, and lived to the age,' --

Although we were created in God's likeness, this tells us we didn't really become like him, in the sense of knowing both good and evil, until Adam ate the apple.

Man was NOT created in Gods image and likeness, man was created of the earth earthy.

Gen.1:26-27 is a prophesy of Christ and us in Christ, it does not concern Adam/man except for when we find him in Christ.

3and of the fruit of the tree which [is] in the midst of the garden God hath said, Ye do not eat of it, nor touch it, lest ye die.'

Since they didn't physically die, this has to indicate spiritual death I think. So before that they were spiritually alive, which would be in God's likeness, in his image. And after that, they were spiritually dead (which apparently is knowing both good and evil).

It speaks of both deaths here SLN, Adam only lived until he was 930 years old so he in fact died a physical death in the DAY that he ate from the tree, for one DAY is as a thousand years to the Lord.

But concerning a spiritual death again you are correct imo, but remember Adam was created of the dust of the earth from OUTSIDE of the garden and was not put into the garden until he received the BREATH of LIFE (birth of Christ) from God. It was only after Adam received the BREATH of LIFE that Adam was on the pathway of growth, being born again by the birth of Christ within him that he started to be made into the image and likeness of God.

[SeekerSA]

Hi SLN

I think the only possibility is that we were created with the option of turning our backs on God. If not, Eve could never have picked the apple, right? The tree wouldn't have been planted there either, I'd think.

First of all, where does it say that the forbidden fruit was an apple?  Just a minor thing, apples still exist bountifully and do not have mystical powers.

If we were created with an option to turn our backs, that means we are created defective.  Some call this free-will.

There were no literal trees or were there?

22And Jehovah God saith, `Lo, the man was as one of Us, as to the knowledge of good and evil; and now, lest he send forth his hand, and have taken also of the tree of life, and eaten, and lived to the age,' --

Although we were created in God's likeness, this tells us we didn't really become like him, in the sense of knowing both good and evil, until Adam ate the apple.

I agree as they were one flesh before the commandment was given not to eat of the fruit.  Eve came later.

The problem here is what do we take allegorical and what literal?  There are deep spiritual truths that one does not get by a cursory glance.

3and of the fruit of the tree which [is] in the midst of the garden God hath said, Ye do not eat of it, nor touch it, lest ye die.'

Since they didn't physically die, this has to indicate spiritual death I think. So before that they were spiritually alive, which would be in God's likeness, in his image. And after that, they were spiritually dead (which apparently is knowing both good and evil).

The problem with this is, then why the commandment in the first place not to eat?

When we are born again spiritually through Christ, we also still have the option of denying him later. Wouldn't this be comparable to eating the apple, even though they were one with God? They were created in God's likeness (spiritually alive. Loving, caring, obedient), and then when they spiritually died they became as God in the sense that they also know the other side of the spectrum.

Do you not think that was God's plan in the first place, otherwise we must assume He was caught off guard.

I think being created in his likeness means being created how God is. Becoming as God then means having knowledge of  (having inside us) that which opposes God (evil).

What do you all think?

This last part makes sense.

I think too much credence is given to Adam and we try all things from genetic hand-me-down curses to the DNA of Adam to try explain what it means death in Adam and made alive in Christ.  This goes to the extreme that there is no good thing in man and only Christians have the magic whatever.  We only need to look at the history of Christendom to see that we do not have a good record in spite of the faith.

Being made alive in Christ is Spiritual.  I believe we have Him from the day we are born.  Time passes, we learn evil and it takes the Father to open our eyes to the fact that He never leaves nor forsakes us.

Submission daily to Christ in us is the answer, stop doing that, you will yield to carnality.  At the end of the day, we shall continue to wrestle just as Paul did with the flesh until we die.

There have been many good people in History that were not Christians, unfortunately, we only get to document the evils of man and not the the goodness of man.

Christ came to give us abundant life, the church makes us feel wretched and unworthy.  How do you think our Father feels about us.

I could quote oodles of texts to support this POV but suffice to say.

You are what you think.

If God can see good in us in spite of our shortcomings, why can we not do the same?  Who is the accuser?

Blessings

[SLN]

First of all, where does it say that the forbidden fruit was an apple?  Just a minor thing, apples still exist bountifully and do not have mystical powers.

If we were created with an option to turn our backs, that means we are created defective.  Some call this free-will.

There were no literal trees or were there?

Oh, I just say apple because it's often drawn as an apple in paintings and such. So in my mind's eye it's an apple, I didn't really think of how it doesn't specifically say what this fruit is in scripture. Just assumed you all know what I mean.  :thumbsup:

(http://www.fictionwise.com/knight/titian.adam&eve.jpg)

I appreciate all of your input, I'd like to make sense of this issue once and for all. As the only christian at my work I often get questions about the biblical view on so-and-so, so it'd be nice knowing exactly how to explain this. Some of your input/corrections seem to make sense, although I still need to think on it a bit to really put the pieces of the puzzle together in my head.

[Loveroftruth]

Can we break down this:
What is the adamic nature?
What is the Christ nature?

How do they manifest?