Imputed Sin vs Inherited Sin

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● Gen 2:25 . . And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

● Gen 3:6-7 . . When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings.

We can easily tell from those two passages how it was that Adam's sense of decency underwent its change; Eve's too. But the million-dollar question is: what was the source of that change? Was it God? Was it the chemistry of the fruit? Or was it the elephant in the middle of the room?

Why is it we never suspect the Serpent when he is so obviously the villain in this entire incident? The Serpent-- a.k.a. the Devil and Satan (Rev 12:9, Rev 20:2) -- has the power of death (Heb 2:14) and is able to tamper with the human mind and body in ways not easily detected. (e.g. Luke 13:16, Mark 5:1-5, & Eph 2:2-3)

What is actually being discussed is the glory brought to God in the perfection of his plan of
redemption being plaid out, beginning with one man and one woman. The federal headship of
Adam that paves the way for the federal headship of Christ.

Well; it appears to me that the actual subject of this topic is stated in its title and implied in the text of its very first post, to wit: "Imputed Sin vs Inherited Sin"
_

 

[Arial]

.
● Gen 2:25 . . And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

● Gen 3:6-7 . . When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings.

We can easily tell from those two passages how it was that Adam's sense of decency underwent its change; Eve's too. But the million-dollar question is: what was the source of that change? Was it God? Was it the chemistry of the fruit? Or was it the elephant in the middle of the room?

Why is it we never suspect the Serpent when he is so obviously the villain in this entire incident? The Serpent-- a.k.a. the Devil and Satan (Rev 12:9, Rev 20:2) -- has the power of death (Heb 2:14) and is able to tamper with the human mind and body in ways not easily detected. (e.g. Luke 13:16, Mark 5:1-5, & Eph 2:2-3)



Well; it appears to me that the actual subject of this topic is stated in its title and implied in the text of its very first post, to wit: "Imputed Sin vs Inherited Sin"
_

The title is like the headline of a newspaper. Or the title of a book. The direction the title intended to take is stated in the body of the OP. Find the subject. It definitely does not pertain to the speculation of where Eve got her fallen nature. And what is stated in the OP is the difference between imputed sin and inherited sin of Adam, and that both concepts exist in the Bible. And that the imputation is according to the principle of federal headship. And then a question was asked. And it seems that someone would have remembered, and compared it to the imputation of both the sin of Adam in defiling the entire human race, and our own personal sins as sinners, to Christ, and what the Bible tells us happened with Jesus on the cross. For it is there we see the curse Adam and the creation and all mankind incurred in Gen 3, reversed. Through federal headship.

 

[Josheb]

Scripture doesn't say that nothing happened when Eve went first, and it doesn't say she went right on in the buff just as shameless as before. It would seem reasonable to assume so, but it is not for sure.

I do not think it is reasonable to assume nothing happened. She gave the forbidden fruit to Adam. The implication being she asked Adam to be disobedient. Either...

1. She felt no change but had, nonetheless changed
2. She felt changed and in that (discomforting) sensation invited Adam to join her.
3. She felt changed and knowingly asked Adam to join her.

Is there another option? Al three of the above options indicate something happened. We know she went from being a good and sinless creature to being a sinner (1 Tim. 2:14 - her being deceived did not disqualify her from becoming a sinner).

Now, if @Odë:hgöd's comment is meant to say nothing else happened I'm not sure that is correct, either because Eve offering Adam the forbidden kiwi is an indication their relationship had been changed (adversely). Eve was made to fix the problem of Adam's aloneness. The minute Eve was deceived, disobeyed God, and became a sinner...... Adam was once again alone. The only way to solve that problem in her mind may have been to have Adam become like her . "Join me in my sin," is a much greater temptation to a man who holds you to be bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh, joined to him as his wife, than a piece of fruit that was good for food, a delight to the eyes, and desirable to make one wise. She's soft, warm, round and going to be around much longer than it takes to eat a pretty piece of fruit. By extension, not only has Eve changed and not only has her relationship with her husband changed, but it is doubtful we can therefore assume her relationship with the rest of creation has remained unchanged.

I have often asked Christians why Eve's eyes were not opened until Adam ate the fruit. Scripture is silent regarding that explanation. Answers range from Adam being head over Eve, to Eve being deceived, to Adam completing the human disobedience. Although there is some merit for all three, it is the last that has the most explanatory power given whole scripture. It also explains imputation the best.

Don't build doctrine on it.

Right. It's rarely wise to build any doctrine on a single verse. Even less likely on an assumption based on one verse.

You can build doctrine on Adam's federal headship, because Scripture does speak to that.

Yep. Although the inferential nature of that doctrine should be acknowledged. We want to make sure parallels are not made between a well-founded inference and a baseless assumption.

When the Bible says, "Then were their eyes opened", we have the whole day to wonder about, as God says. "—on that day you will surely die." The "then" could just as easily mean 'subsequent to taking the fruit', as it could mean, 'as a result of taking the fruit', as it could mean, 'after Adam took of it'. We are inferring to go farther than what it does say.

Well, there are plenty of other verses in the Bible that explain the death they did in fact experience the day they ate the forbidden kiwi. Scripture uses the word or concept of death in about a half-dozen ways so, logically, we could place each usage in Gen. 2:17 and see which one best fits. We know it was not physical death because they didn't literally physically die that day. Of the other options, the best is their becoming dead in transgression (or sin).

Which means if Eve became dead in sin when she disobeyed God then the idea nothing happened is incorrect. Something did happen but it was eclipsed by Adam's disobedience which greatly compounded the already existing problem.

 

[Josheb]

Adam was created with immortality.

The thing is: Adam was created with immortality, but he was not created with
eternal life.

Scripture says otherwise.

1 Corinthians 15:50-54
Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, "Death is swallowed up in victory."

Logically, an immortal creature does not need a tree of life. The tree of life's fruit makes it so a person can live forever (Gen. 3:22). Care must be taken not to confuse eternal life as a quality of life with a quantity of life. There is only one Being who is quantitatively eternal. God. Humans who live forever are ever-living, or ever-lasting, not living eternally. Eternity is temporally omni-directional. Ever-lasting has a specific, fixed beginning but no end. BIG, HUGE, GINORMOUS difference between those two conditions. Qualitatively, a created creature can have a life that is eternal in its quality, but not its quantity.

Besides, the minute God says something can or will die the premise of immortality and eternity are both negated. Mortality and immortality are mutually exclusive conditions. So too are death and life and death and eternity.

 

[Josheb]

FAQ: Why weren't the woman's eyes opened, and her moral perception altered,
when she tasted the forbidden fruit?

Why are you basing a lack of change on unopened eyes?

REPLY: It was apparently....

Oh, so now we're basing our understanding of scripture on "apparently" and arguments from silence?

That would be like arguing, "Apparently, because the Bible never mentions HIV it does not exist. That cannot possible be a reason to prohibit sodomy."

God's decision that if sin and death were to come into the world, they would do so by means of the solo actions of one man working alone,

Or it could be God had decreed the entrance of sin was dependent upon or consequent to the whole of the species' corruption . We know Eve was deceived (which is sinful) and we know she disobeyed God (which is sinful) and we know she tried and succeeded to get another person to disobey God (which is also sinful).The explanation could also be that God predicated sin's entrance upon knowingly disobeying Him and not disobeying Him under the auspices of deception (which is what occurred with Eve).

just as life and righteousness would come into the world by means of the solo actions of one man working alone. (Rom 5:12-21, 1Cor 15:21-22)
_

Sin's entrance into the world is not equivalent to Adam and Eve's eyes being opened. Opened eyes is a micro effect. Sin entering the world is a macro effect.


FAQ: Why weren't the woman's eyes opened, and her moral perception altered, when she tasted the forbidden fruit?

REPLY: Because Eve was still in a state of deception. Adam was not. It had nothing to do with the individual's biological sex.










Btw, The Greek word, "anthropou" found in Romans 5:12 can refer to a male (arren) or a female, a man (anér) or a woman. What the verse transliterally states is that sin entered through one human, not one man, not one male. It is because the surrounding words are conjugated in the masculine form that we translate "anthropou" as "man" (henos = masculine; hene = feminine; henon = neuter). That's why 1 Tim. 2:16 cannot be used to render Romans 5. It was a male's disobedience that brought sin into the world, even though that male was not the first person to disobey God or experience the effects of that disobedience.
.

 

[makesends]

I do not think it is reasonable to assume nothing happened. She gave the forbidden fruit to Adam. The implication being she asked Adam to be disobedient. Either...

1. She felt no change but had, nonetheless changed
2. She felt changed and in that (discomforting) sensation invited Adam to join her.
3. She felt changed and knowingly asked Adam to join her.

Is there another option? Al three of the above options indicate something happened. We know she went from being a good and sinless creature to being a sinner (1 Tim. 2:14 - her being deceived did not disqualify her from becoming a sinner).

Well pointed out. I hadn't put that much thought into it.

Now, if @Odë:hgöd's comment is meant to say nothing else happened I'm not sure that is correct, either because Eve offering Adam the forbidden kiwi is an indication their relationship had been changed (adversely). Eve was made to fix the problem of Adam's aloneness. The minute Eve was deceived, disobeyed God, and became a sinner...... Adam was once again alone. The only way to solve that problem in her mind may have been to have Adam become like her . "Join me in my sin," is a much greater temptation to a man who holds you to be bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh, joined to him as his wife, than a piece of fruit that was good for food, a delight to the eyes, and desirable to make one wise. She's soft, warm, round and going to be around much longer than it takes to eat a pretty piece of fruit. By extension, not only has Eve changed and not only has her relationship with her husband changed, but it is doubtful we can therefore assume her relationship with the rest of creation has remained unchanged.

Agreed.

I have often asked Christians why Eve's eyes were not opened until Adam ate the fruit. Scripture is silent regarding that explanation. Answers range from Adam being head over Eve, to Eve being deceived, to Adam completing the human disobedience. Although there is some merit for all three, it is the last that has the most explanatory power given whole scripture. It also explains imputation the best.

I'm not even sure it means Eve's eyes were not opened until Adam ate the fruit. Linguistically, for all I know, the "then" may be speaking of cause, —i.e 'after eating of the fruit'—, rather than to be speaking of, 'after Adam ate of the fruit'.

Right. It's rarely wise to build any doctrine on a single verse. Even less likely on an assumption based on one verse.

Yep. Although the inferential nature of that doctrine should be acknowledged. We want to make sure parallels are not made between a well-founded inference and a baseless assumption.

It's a very well founded inference, if not actually implied. The terminology may be artificial, but the principle is not.

Well, there are plenty of other verses in the Bible that explain the death they did in fact experience the day they ate the forbidden kiwi. Scripture uses the word or concept of death in about a half-dozen ways so, logically, we could place each usage in Gen. 2:17 and see which one best fits. We know it was not physical death because they didn't literally physically die that day. Of the other options, the best is their becoming dead in transgression (or sin).

It could be said that, from God's point of view, their beginning to die physically, is to die physically. Not at all saying that God doesn't know the difference, but that the difference is in OUR point of view.

Which means if Eve became dead in sin when she disobeyed God then the idea nothing happened is incorrect. Something did happen but it was eclipsed by Adam's disobedience which greatly compounded the already existing problem.

Right. My imprecise language.

 

[makesends]

I heartily disagree!

The thing is; Eve was already fully constructed with material taken from Adam's
body prior to his tasting the forbidden fruit so it was impossible for him to pass the
consequences of his tasting to Eve by means of heredity.

FAQ: From who did Eve obtain the fallen nature if not from Adam?

REPLY: Well obviously from the Serpent, a.k.a. the Devil and Satan (Rev 12:9) He's the
source of the fallen nature (Heb 2:14) viz: Adam's conduct with the forbidden fruit
brought the fallen nature on us, but we haven't been the culprit passing it around.

* I really have to hand it to the Serpent; he's very good at shifting blame away from
himself. For quite a few years now it's been traditional to believe fathers propagate the
fallen nature when it's been the Serpent all along.

How he has managed to deceive so many people for so long a time I don't know, but
what's really ironic about it is that there are people behind pulpits, and chairing whole
Sunday school departments, helping him do it as unsuspecting accomplices; which
goes to show that if an idea is repeated often enough, widely enough, and loud enough
by people held in high enough esteem; pretty soon it's accepted by the masses as fact
without thought or question. (the Asch Conformity Phenomenon)

A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong;
Gives it a superficial appearance of being right.
(Thomas Paine)
_

Your appeal to logical fallacy is kind of a strawman. Preach about it all you want, you lack scriptural warrant for your claim.

 

[Odë:hgöd]

Your appeal to logical fallacy is kind of a strawman.

It's come to my attention that much of my commentary has been off-topic and
failed to address the principle of federal headship. For that I apologize.

Preach about it all you want, you lack scriptural warrant for your claim.

It's been fun but I think it's high time I took the hint, so to speak, and got off this
thread before I get banned.
_

 

[Josheb]

Well pointed out. I hadn't put that much thought into it.

Agreed.

I'm not even sure it means Eve's eyes were not opened until Adam ate the fruit. Linguistically, for all I know, the "then" may be speaking of cause, —i.e 'after eating of the fruit'—, rather than to be speaking of, 'after Adam ate of the fruit'.

Yes, but I read the verse to be reporting a simultaneously occurring event where both see at the same time.

It's a very well founded inference, if not actually implied. The terminology may be artificial, but the principle is not.

I agree.

It could be said that, from God's point of view, their beginning to die physically, is to die physically. Not at all saying that God doesn't know the difference, but that the difference is in OUR point of view.

It could, but whether dying slowly they'd 1) still be mortal, 2) wouldn't be dying that day, 3) if the death in question was merely physical death, then transgressional death is not being addressed in the Gen 3 account. We'd have to construe different meanings for both "die" and "day." and make the verse mean what it doesn't state twice.

Right. My imprecise language.

Well, that last part of Post 44 was referring to @Odë:hgöd's position nothing happened.