Cheryl Schatz

Lin,
On the past post http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2010/03/07/why-was-eve-punished/comment-page-4 that we are now answering here on the issue of sin here, you said:

Syllogism of your premise

P1a – Adam’s sin nature is to be prone to rule over women
P2a – All who have a human father have Adam’s sin nature
Ca – All who have a human father are prone to rule over women

P1b – All who have a human father are prone to rule over women (Ca)
P2b – All women have a human father
Cb – All women are prone to rule over women

Interesting that I see Paula’s thinking in your comment. Did this come from Paula? Is so, she is welcome to come here and challenge me herself if she thinks I am wrong.

Now let’s look at the problems with what has been written.

P1a – Adam’s sin nature is to be prone to rule over women

This is not what is claimed. God said that Adam will rule over his wife. His nature is not to rule – his nature is to sin. One of the ways that he would sin would be to take an unauthorized rule over the woman. There has been no claim that he will take that rule over every woman.

P2a – All who have a human father have Adam’s sin nature

Adam’s sin nature does not mean that the person will commit every act of sin. It is a propensity to sin, not a propensity to do one particular sin just like Adam did.

Ca – All who have a human father are prone to rule over women

This is not the claim. This is the correct claim – All who have a human father are prone to sin.

P2b – All women have a human father
Cb – All women are prone to rule over women

This is just plain wrong and nothing like what I have claimed. Let’s not let Paula misrepresent my view. All women and men who have Adam as their ancestral father are prone to sin because they all inherit his sin nature. They don’t all inherit his way of ruling.

These are the inescapable conclusions of your arguments. They are valid syllogisms whose conclusions flow properly from the premises. The only way to change it, is to change the premise.

I recognize this as Paula’s writing. And usually Paula is wonderful in her logic as she is a very smart woman. She is very wrong on this one and she has claimed an invalid argument on my part. Perhaps she would like to come here herself to argue her point. That would be the logical and respectful thing to do if her argument has validity.

you must present scriptural support for claiming that women do not inherit this, or that only their eggs are sinless. Neither is supportable by scripture, or biology.

I am not claiming that women are sinless. I am claiming that all (including all women) are to be “shut up under sin” as the Scripture teaches. And I submit that Scripture states that the Messiah had to come only through the woman’s seed. If you disagree with this (and since biology cannot identify the sin nature gene) I would like to ask you why the Messiah had to come from the woman’s seed alone?

Here is my claim http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2006/11/20/adam-as-head-of-the-family/

You have redefined “sin nature” to mean a uniquely MALE quality, which females obviously cannot inherit, and that makes women devoid of a sin nature. That is the obvious conclusion of your premise.

Apparently Paula has not paid much attention to the post I keep linking to or she would not have made this statement. Females all inherit sin except for the first woman Eve who did not inherit Adam’s sin. It is only through her seed that the Messiah can come.

We must take a deep look at ‘inherited sin’. The Fall was horrible. It changed everything. Even for Eve.

Again I am assuming that this came from Paula. Scripture never says that the fall came through Eve or that sin came into the world through Eve. While she had great heartache because of the fall, she is never blamed. If we blame her, then we are doing so inappropriately for it was to be through the seed of the first woman that we could have salvation.

Lin,
I would really encourage you to leave Paula’s writing for her to present here if she would like. I am not sure why she would not come here herself to defend her own view. If she believes that she was created perfect and that she can stop from sinning because she has no sin nature, then she can come here and present her view.

Lin, thanks for always being willing to argue in a passionate way with grace and respect. It is very much appreciated on this blog.

Lin,
On another post you said:

Come to think of it..what makes you think God saying to Eve: “He will rule over you” is bad? Does God SAY it is bad? No. We just know such a thing is BAD and part of the warning to Eve.

The Hebrew term means to exercise dominion over as ruler tyrant, fearful dominion. This type of rule is lording it over another human being and this was usurping the rule from God that He had over Eve. It is a sinful action by the definition of the word that God uses.

But some cannot see that her ‘turning’ to Adam is a bad choice? Some old translations interpreted it as ‘alliance’ after the interpretation of turning… as in Eve and Adam form an alliance after the fall.

The term “for” as in longing for Adam is the term where the turning comes from. This places the longing toward the husband:

The sources that I checked all say that the word means longing, desire or craving.

Nothing says that this is a bad choice that she should remained glued to her husband in marriage and have his children.

gengwall,

On another post you said:

A predictable event is not an assured event. As the definition so clearly states, the event is only “theoretically possible”. You can not claim that the cherubims and flaming sword prevented an actual sin, but only a theoretically possible one. I continue to contend that the Tree of Life can not be used as a witness to Adam’s future actual sin.

It isn’t an actual sin until it is committed, but by then it is too late. God will not allow one who has a sin nature to rebel again and then live forever in this state. Rebellion cannot exist forever since God has planned a day when it will end. God removing only one party from the tree of life is a witness to the potential of the nature that is in that person. In the original creation Adam and Eve were not removed from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. They were just commanded not to eat or reach out for that fruit. They had the ability to obey. But now it is necessary not just to command Adam to not eat but to actually remove him. His removal shows that he could partake, if he were not physically kept from eating. Since God only did this to one person, there is a division between the nature of Eve and the nature of Adam. Only one was a threat that caused God to bring in protection.

Moreover, as you state above, the reason to prevent Adam from accessing the Tree of Life was simply to ensure Adam’s death. It was not a sin for Adam to live forever, nor would it have been a sin for Adam to partake of the Tree of Life in an effort to live forever.

Yes, this would have been a sin. The tree of life was no longer allowed to them as they must die. If they went against God’s command, it would have been sin.

The term “lest” is a prohibition. The Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures (pg 678) says:

removing, taking away always in constr. (followed by Makkeph) it becomes a conj. of removing, prohibiting, hindering, lest. It is used—(1) where an action precedes, by which something is prohibited which we fear and wish removed. ..
(2) it stands at the beginning of a sentence, where—(a), it implies prohibition and dissuasion…(take heed) lest Hezekiah deceive you.”—(b) it implies fear, dread. Gen. 3:22, and now (for fear) lest he put forth his hand.”

The tree of life is now a prohibited fruit tree.

pinklight said on another post

Three witnesses of Adam’s sin nature:

Sin of rebellion
Rule
Reaching forth his hand also for the other tree

This is a very good summary of Adam’s sin. He sinned in rebellion, but he covered over his sin, God prophesied that Adam would take dominion over Eve (rule over her) and Adam was kicked out of the garden to prevent him from reaching forth his hand and eating the fruit of the tree of life. It also was a sign that he had the ability and the propensity to continue his pattern of sin.

Good job!

Lin,

This comment is not an issue of sin nature so I will answer it here.

Cheryl, I think this is reading into the text. God never says her turning to Adam is a good thing.

God does not comment regarding the longing that turns her to Adam whether it is a good thing or a bad thing. The only way that we can determine if it is a sin issue is to verify from the context and other testimonies about Eve that we have in the Scripture. This is why I constantly ask for a second witness to establish guilt. No second witness would be needed for good. It is only a charge of sin that needs a second witness.

gengwall,

Cheryl – we clearly aren’t understanding each other. You keep taking examples from human history but, it seems to me, are trying to read them back into our universal sin nature to say that sin itself is apportioned unequally between men and women.

Well, I do know for sure that are not understanding me. I didn’t say that “sin is apportioned unequally between men and women. I said that

we are all capable of any sin

. It is one “nature” after all and so we have a capability of acting out if we choose to do so. It just so happens that what is in mankind cannot be seen from our heart since no one sees it. Looking at mankind throughout history gives us a fuller picture to comment on what appears in common from one nation to another and one time to another. We both see that.

But I refuse to believe that the general effect of sin on human nature, specifically as it applies to marriage, is biased toward men.

I never said that. The general effect of sin on the human nature is that we all sin and no one gender is freer than the other of that sin.

But maybe we are saying the same thing in different ways. My objection is to any interpretation that elevates women over men morally, just as you would strenuously object to the comp interpretation of the verse which elevates men over women.

Well if we could find those who think that women are elevated over men morally, then we both can “have at them”. I do not believe that women are morally better than men.

If your view holds a bias against men or for women, it would be that bias that I find unreasonable.

I don’t hold a bias against men. Do you hold a bias against women? Just because sin came through the man doesn’t mean that all men are worse than women. After all we are all children of Adam and it isn’t until we become children of the Lord Jesus that we take on a new nature.

By the way, are you one of the ones who disagrees that sin came through Adam and that we have a sin nature because of that or do you think that all of us were born in perfection without a sin nature?

It would not only be unprecedented in scripture when God speaks and teaches about marriage, but it would not accurately reflect the equal impact of a sin nature on Adam’s sons as well as his daughters.

I don’t believe that the silence of Adam at the fall is a teaching about marriage and neither is God’s curse on the earth a general teaching about marriage. I do find a general teaching on marriage in Genesis 2:24. I do not find Jesus or any of the other apostles using Genesis 3:16 as a general teaching on marriage so it must not be foundational to how to function in our God-ordained marriages.

I still see such a bias in your thought process. But I may be reading you wrong.

You are reading me wrong.

A statement that woudl put my mind at ease would be something like “Gen 3:16 teaches that men and women have an equal propensity to engage in sinful actions that are directly harmful to their spouse”.

How could I say this if what Eve did wasn’t sinful? However I do believe that men and women have an equal propensity to engage in sinful actions that are directly harmful to their spouse, although Genesis 3:16 doesn’t teach that. If one wants to make Eve as sinful and having harmful actions toward her spouse, then one would have to back it up by the Scriptures.

“So the question is still in the end, did Eve become a rebellious sinner after she left the garden of Eden?” – I don’t know, and at this point I don’t much care. As I said, I am open to a virtuous Eve as long as she doesn’t predict women as a more virtuous gender.

As I said Eve is unique. All of us are Adam’s children. Her seed alone is Jesus.

“If she did, what proof does the Scriptures give for this rebellion?” – If she did, my response would be “no more than it gives for Adam’s future rebellion.” We disagree sharply on addtional witnesses. Again, I don’t know if we are at the point in the discussion to resume that particular conversation.

You haven’t answered my points but it appears to me that you may be taking this all personally and it isn’t Adam that you are defending but all men.

“And if she did not become rebellious because she had the ability to remain without sin (unlike us), then for what reason would it be important that she remained without sin?” – I’m not following.

I am asking if there is any reason why her sinless nature would be necessary. Would her seed be touched by her sin if she had rebellion? If not, why not? Remember that there was only one seed of the woman, not seeds. Jesus is the only full offspring of the woman. If He could come through a sinful and rebellious Eve, then for what reason would it be necessary that He have no human father?

Here is one more thing to throw at my readers. If there is no “old man” nature that comes through the line of Adam, then why was it absolutely necessary for Jesus to be virgin born? Thoughts?

Thanks again gengwall agreeing to move the discussion from this older post http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2010/03/07/why-was-eve-punished/ to my post on the sin nature. It is easier for me to keep tract of and with over 400 hundred comments it is difficult for new readers to process through all of them.

The other thing that has not been answered by those who claim that there is no sin nature is the fact that even young babies can sin without ever being taught to sin. They do it naturally. Why is this? If there is no sin nature, then why do babies sin? These should be the completely innocent ones if there is no such thing as a sin nature.

I have yet to hear an explanation for babies telling lies that has made any sense. If this is how God made us, then how is this “good”? No, the fact is that God did make us perfect and without sin “in the beginning”. But sin came into the world. That changed everything.

The reason that the sin nature had to be passed on to all (except for the seed of the woman) is because we were all to be shut up under sin so that salvation would come through faith and not by works.

Galatians 3:22 (NASB)
22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

Romans 11:32 (NASB9)
32 For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.

The term “shut up” means:

to catch by enclosing, close up together, hem in, enclose…confine imprison
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed.)

It is the sin nature that “catches” us and imprisons us and makes every single one of us needy so that none of us can claim to be sinless and having “earned” salvation.

If some were able to be sinless of their own ability, then salvation would not be needed by all. God has in His providential will allowed all to be “shut up” in disobedience through the sin nature that came through Adam. When we are caught in that sin trap, we are able to understand that we need a Savior. And none of us is in a better boat because all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. The fact that the sin nature comes upon all of us leaves us without hope in the world, but able to seek for and find the Savior by His own drawing us to Himself.

gengwall,

You misunderstand. I am not saying that a and b are the only possibilities, I am saying they are the only possibilities I will accept as reasonable.

Alright, then it appears that you have your own predefined limits of reasonable possibilities. What do you find unreasonable about my view or about other possibilities?

If you are saying that the good “desire” in Eve exists equally in men and women I am happy. Of course, it still means the bad “rule” in Adam exists equally in both as well.

This does not follow. Now I do not know the hearts of other people so I can’t tell you what is in a person’s heart, but I can evaluate the outward actions. In country after country both Islamic and otherwise, men rule their women by both physical and psychological force. They do not allow them to be free people to chose their own way. I have read through a portion of several tractates in the Talmud and the “role” that women have for the most part is in the like sections of ownership of animals. It is undeniable that men have unrighteously taken a lordship rulership primarily over women but they are also doing the same thing to minorities and other men who do not fight back. Men excel in this sin and it isn’t until Christianity takes hold that the sin is held back in a large way. There are still issues with “Christian” hierarchists who want to keep the best portion of the God’s gifts for themselves alone, but it is also undeniable that when people come to Christ one of the areas that men are becoming sanctified is in the area of lordship over other human beings.

As far as what women’s sins are common to the female gender perhaps that is better expressed by those who are outside of our own blind spots. But I can tell you that I have met few women whose sin is in taking lordship over others. I have met more than my share of men who lives show this tendency in a strong way.

It depends on your definition of abuse. Physically, this is certainly true. But physical abuse is only one kind.

Usually one who is physically abusive is also verbally abusive, but women too can be verbally abusive.

What I was talking about mostly is illegal “lordship” or “rule” over another human being. Men in every generation have struggled with this sin and because their physical size gives them the advantage, they are the clear “winners” in this area.

Absolutely untrue. Women are easily as controlling as men. Again, the difference is how each gender goes about accomplishing control. Just because men’s controlling actions are more visible due to the fact that they are outwardly physical does not mean they are more numerous.

In context I was talking about aggression and control. I realize that women have been known to manipulation rather than outright control.

Cheryl – “So while Genesis 3:16 is specifically about the first humans and their life outside the garden, in this verse there is a pattern that we can identify in a good portion of men and women.”

But you have managed to still see this “pattern” as biased in favor of wives. To you the pattern is that wives are generally virtuous and husbands are generally villianous. That is what I can not accept as valid.

Actually you are not able to refute what I say at all until you understand it. I have never said that women are “generally” virtuous or that husbands are “generally” villainous. I do not accept that bias rendering of my view as valid either.

So the question is still in the end, did Eve become a rebellious sinner after she left the garden of Eden? If she did, what proof does the Scriptures give for this rebellion? And if she did not become rebellious because she had the ability to remain without sin (unlike us), then for what reason would it be important that she remained without sin?

What say ye?

Lin,
You said:

So when my daughter is naughty, I can thank my husband for passing on the sin nature to her. I am innocent. :o)

(Sounds like a reversal of what the comps do with blaming Eve. I blame them both for rebellion, deception and subsequent bad choices)

While the sin nature comes through the line of Adam and through the male line, none of us can blame our bad behavior on our human parents. We are tainted through the sin line but we are responsible for our own sin.

There is only one who can free us from the vicious cycle of sin – both our own and the sin nature that we have through Adam. Jesus has given us a way out through the renewing of our minds. He alone is able to circumcise our hearts and remove that bent towards sin and as we live in Him we are growing more and more to become like Him. When we finally see Him, the process will be complete for we will be like Him for we will see Him as He is. Then the stain of sin will no longer have any hold on our lives.

gengwall,
I am very pleased that you are allowing yourself to be open about Eve not having sinned in rebellion after the fall.

Either Gen 3:16 is exclusively about Adam and Eve and is inapplicable to any other marriages;
or Eve’s “desire” is exclusive to Eve and Adam’s “rule” is a condition of both his sons and daughters.

This is a false dilemma which is a logical fallacy. It doesn’t have to be a or b. Eve’s desire is not exclusive to Eve as men are to have this same desire and they are encouraged to “leave and cleave”.

Genesis 2:24 (NASB)
24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

The term “be joined” means:

(1) TO CLEAVE, TO ADHERE, specially firmly, as if with glue, TO BE GLUED,
Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures (185).

Jesus represents the perfect example of a husband who left heaven to pay the price for his wife and He “cleaves” to her and promises that He will never leave her. His longing and desire is for her.

But for us – all of us humans get the “full meal deal” of the sin nature with the possibility of committing every sin. While it is relatively uncommon for women to be the abusers of men it is not unheard of. They too can have this nature if they follow the inclination of evil in that direction. But as our world shows, it is far more common for men to have this sin that manifests a stronghold in their lives because men are more apt to be aggressive and to want to control every situation. But it is not a “given” that all men will seek to rule and all women will love even when they are not loved back. There is an identifiable pattern for both but it is not a hard and fast rule.

So while Genesis 3:16 is specifically about the first humans and their life outside the garden, in this verse there is a pattern that we can identify in a good portion of men and women. We can learn something from this pattern that may reveal our own heart and help us to understand our weaknesses and struggles but it would also be wrong to force an application onto every male and every female. It is not true that one cannot be male unless he has a propensity to rule the female. Nor is it true that one cannot be female unless she only desires the good welfare of her husband. All of us are a mixture in some way of our two original parents and all of us are capable of both good and bad.

So the bottom line is that anyone who seeks to lord it over others is following the example of Adam. Jesus said that this is not to be the attitude among us. It is not to be the attitude of males nor is it to be the attitude of females.

And the fact that Adam brought sin into the world is not an indictment on every male. It is not because he was male that he sinned in this way. It is because he, like satan, chose individually and willfully to sin in rebellion. And we have been stuck with his nature, except that through the last Adam we now have freedom to live as though we are dead to this sin nature so that we can live in union with Christ and exemplify his righteousness by our changed lives.

Here is the link to the post where I use graphics to explain why it was necessary for the Messiah to be virgin born and why Mary was not sinless herself. It is a good background article for this post.

http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2006/11/20/adam-as-head-of-the-family/

You are a good man gengwall. I respect your willingness to be flexible.

gengwall,
I won’t comment on your second comment until you move it over, k?

gengwall,
You said:

So, we are left here then with the portrayal of the virtuous Eve/wives and the villianous Adam/husbands undenied. How unfortunate. I wonder, Cheryl, if you realize how much you play into radical feminist hands with this conclusion. The idea that males are inherently, morally flawed and that women are inherently, morally superior is one prominent feminist manifesto, especially amongst Christians. It is borderline misandrous.

You would have a point if this is what I believed. Alas all of us are of our father Adam and there are no completely virtuous women except for Eve and no completely villainous men. Somehow I don’t think you get what I am saying. I am not saying that males are inherently morally flawed. I am saying that all of us are inherently morally flawed. But we cannot trace this back to Eve but to Adam not because Adam was a sole ruler in the world like comps make him out to be, but because he chose to sin in rebellion.

I think the problem with understanding is that you believe so strongly that the actions of Adam and Eve inherently summarize the relationships of all of adam’s children that you cannot separate Eve from your wife or me or all women. But gengwall, I can testify to you that I am not of the same “stuff” as Eve. I am not sinless and my best does not compare to her sinless nature. Also if it weren’t for Eve no woman would qualify to produce the Messiah because no woman is sinless. Only through Eve can the Messiah come and if we cannot see a difference between Eve and all of Adam’s offspring, how can we understand that?

I would really love to have this conversation transferred to the new post as I think that new people would be more likely to read the comments there than on an older post here. So if you are willing to transfer your comments over there, I will too 🙂

Lin,
You are exactly right. Mary was not without sin since she had a human father and the sin nature spreads through the father. This is why Jesus had to be virgin born. It wasn’t an option for the Son of Man, it was needed in order for him to be our Messiah that was the lamb without spot or blemish.

Okay, the new post is up at http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2010/03/26/sin-nature-through-man/ and you can fire away with questions, comments or challenges to me there. I think I caught pretty much all of the issues that I could remember. If I didn’t, I’m sure one or more of you will remind me, eh?

Now I am off to bed. It is almost 1 a.m. and I finally birthed my article.

gengwall,

I agree. But that leaves Eve with a nature still capable outside the garden of rebellious sin. Do you agree?

I already answered that question along with why it is highly important to know whether she did sin in this way or not. It is comment 424.

gengwall,
A longgggg time ago you said:

I disagree on all points that this is a second witness that Adam did in fact commit the specific sin of “rule” outside the garden. Now, don’t get me wrong. I do think Adam did it. But I find no scriptural “witness” that he did other than God’s audible prophecy in Gen 3:16. I find God’s verbal utterance sufficient witness all on its own.

The second witness is really appropriate regarding whether Adam had a continued action of sin. This proves the sin nature. The issue of Adam ruling his wife was just one of the sins that Adam would commit and one that would directly affect Eve and God pointed it out to Eve to prepare her for life outside the garden. There is no second witness needed for Adam choosing to “rule” Eve since God specifically prophesied it would happen just like Jesus prophesied that Peter would betray him.

The point that I was making was that Eve did not have a sin nature and so a claim that Eve’s actions are sinful would need a second witness to establish her sin nature. We already have three witnesses to Adam’s sin nature, but where are the witnesses to Eve’s sin nature? I think that we can agree that there is no second witness.

There is just so much to talk about with the sin nature, that I think I am going to set aside commenting on this post until I create the next one. Then I will go back and see if any questions still need answering here.

truthseeker,
I’ll just answer this one here.

Cheryl, in your first sentence you say Adam and Eve did NOT have a different nature pre-fall and in yur last sentence you say Adam’s nature changed. That is completely contradictory.

It isn’t contradictory if you understand me correctly. I am saying that Adam’s nature changed at the fall. Until he acted on what was only a possibility before, he was no different than Eve. But the moment that he acted in rebellion, that moment his nature changed. Since Eve did not act in rebellion her nature did not need to change with the rebellion because there was no rebellion. If that is contradictory, I fail to see where it is contradictory.

It is the same thing for satan. Before he fell his nature was good and righteous. When he choose to rebel as a result of becoming proud his nature changed. Once the nature changes it doesn’t go back to what one walked away from. Does this make sense?

Hey all,

Can we wait for just a bit to continue the discussion on sin nature until I get the new post up so that we can have a record of the conversation there? It can be confusing to have discussions in two places so anything about sin nature should go to the new post (hopefully I can get it up tonight or sometime tomorrow) and anything else can fall under this post. Just keep note of your questions and/or thoughts so you don’t lose your train of thought and put them on the new post. Thanks!

gengwall,
You asked:

If Adam’s sin nature is a result of the fall, and he didn’t have it before the fall, then we would have to say that both he and Eve were alike in “nature” as it relates to sin. Indeed, they are both equally endowed with God’s image, so whatever propensity or capability to sin existed in one must have existed identically in the other. So, doesn’t that make Eve just as likely to sin out of rebellion as Adam? Isn’t the rebellios “nature” in both of them?

No, there is no rebellious nature until one acts out in rebellion. They were both created perfect and without either sin or a sin nature. Could Eve have sinned out of rebellion after the fall in the garden? If she did then it would be important for us to know this. This is because rebellion is passed on to us from one human alone. If Eve had sinned out of rebellion before the fall or after the fall, then she too would have had a sin nature and she too would have passed that sin nature onto whatever children she had after her rebellion. This would have affected her one seed. However we know that she never ever sinned out of rebellion because the Bible says that sin came into the world through one man and this was written after she was dead.

Eve was deceived, so didn’t get to the point of rebellion when she ate the fruit. But that doesn’t mean she was incapable or immune from rebellion. It just didn’t happen to her at the fall.

She certainly was not immune from rebellion however rebellion is an unusual sin for perfect creations. In the angels only one angel originated rebellion and 1/3 of the angels followed satan in that rebellion while 2/3 never sinned in all the eons of time since they were created.

As far as Adam and Eve, according to the age they were when a child is said to have been born, it is possible for them to have lived in perfection for a hundred years or more before the fall. That is normal for perfect humans who are not sinners but only “capable” of choosing to sin. Now that sin has come into the world none of us could ever say that we have lived for 80 years without sin. It isn’t possible for us while it was absolutely possible for them.

And although her susceptability to deception may have changed as a result of the fall, her core capability to rebel was unaffected. Isn’t it possible that she, maybe even more than Adam, had potential for rebellious sin after they left the garden?

I think that it is certainly possible for her to have chosen to become rebellious however the account of sin and her seed appears to disprove any actuality of rebellion. The 2/3 of the angels that didn’t sin with satan stayed with God. Eve had her eyes opened so she wasn’t going to be deceived again, but she also did not start with a spirit of rebellion and no such spirit is ever recorded in the Scriptures. Since Eve’s seed had to remain free from any inherited rebellion, we can be confidently sure that she remained free of rebellion even outside the garden.

gengwall,
You asked:

I think I need to rephrase a question of mine to Cheryl from an earlier time but in light of the discussion. Do you believe Eve was incapable of sin outside of an circumstance of deception? In other words, do you believe that it was impossible for Eve to deliberately sin in the manner that Adam did?

Neither Adam or Eve was incapable of sin, however sin would not happen to either without either deception or rebellion. Adam fell through rebellion and Eve fell through deception.

If so, I must conclude that you believe she had a different “nature” than Adam even pre-fall, since it is clear that it was not impossible for him to deliberately sin.

Adam and Eve did not have a different nature pre-fall. However the choice to sin with one’s eyes wide open to the full knowledge of what you are doing in rebellion against God has a tragic consequence and that is a change in nature. When Adam sinned his nature changed from one capable of sin to one bent on sin with a full enslavement to sin.

gengwall,
Okay, I am back to deal with your questions. The dentist gave me a headache this morning so I wasn’t about to tackle a question when I was in throbbing pain.

Greg,

The doctrine of original sin is one of the cornerstones of Catholicism, Lutheranism and Calvinism.

I no longer believe this doctrine because I fail to see how it can be legitimately supported by the Biblical record in context.

The original sin doctrine you are talking about is the doctrine that mankind has inherited Adam’s sin. That is not correct. You may also be interested in my next post. You are right that the doctrine of the fall and how it affected us is very germane to the issue of whether Eve should be punished further for her sin, etc. I think it will be a lively discussion on the topic. I will work on it tonight and see how far I get.

Arlene,

It appears that many women think that they will not be held accountable as long as they are obedient to their husband. That would make him responsible for her sin and he would have to speak for her to God. It certainly could have an effect on women to believe that salvation comes through their husbands.

TL
I amazed at the little things that I too missed in going through the text. But God is faithful and He continues to open my eyes.

I have added your blog to my favorites list on the side. Thanks!

Thanks TL

gengwall,
I’ll try really hard to get to your comments tomorrow. I just wish I had more time than I do. Sometimes my days are so filled that I don’t get a chance to get onto my blog until late in the evening and even after two hours of reading and answering the questions I am far from done. Tomorrow is another day. I’ll place you first then.