Very well done and effective! Your diagrams really helped to make the connections clear. Though all decendents of Adam and Eve inherited Adam’s sin nature, by only coming from Eve’s line and the woman (Mary), this is how Jesus did not inherit Adam’s sin. I also liked how you drew our spiritual geneology from Jesus’ line as a branch off the woman.

Ryan

Oooooh, charts… 🙂

Very good. The diagrams are the clincher. I had never heard the rationale for the virgin birth stated in that manner. It also shows the importance of kephale meaning source. Thanks muchly.

Rusty

Thanks Rusty. Yes I think the diagrams do help to show how important the Greek word for head – kephale – is for expressing the meaning of source. In my mind there can be no other meaning for Adam as head of the human race other than source.

I appreciated your insight as to the importance for humanity that Eve had to come from Adam, otherwise there would be two humanities. Of course, it raises issues about hierarchy and equality as well. Would your understanding of two humanities be that one would be male and the other female?

Interesting idea.

Hi Diane,

When I say two humanities I mean two separate creations with no DNA connection. When sin entered the world, the man took his sinful rule over the woman and this developed to such an extent that women were placed into the category of animals and property. The Talmud which is the Jewish oral law has followed this misogynistic way of looking at women by placing great restrictions on their activities even forbidding men to talk to women in public and giving women little to no rights as human beings. Think about how the woman would have been treated if she had not been formed from the side of Adam. I believe that she would not have been thought of as having the same humanity as Adam. She would have been thought of as so different from him that she would have had very little worth regarding even her life and death and who knows how far the abuse would have gone.

Great post, I too like the diagrams.

Also I noticed the parallel that Eve was created from the body of Adam. Like we Christians are made (bornagain) by the Holy Spirit and made the body (church) of Jesus Christ.

So our spirit is born again, we are new creatures (created once again).

So I guess we all have two heads, Adams head and Christ head (two sources, a natural birth and a spiritual birth), but well ultimately we have only one head, everything origins from God, God is the ultimate source of everything.

In Christ

Martin, you are right. God is the ultimate source. He has created us in the physical realm and also given us our new birth through Jesus our Savior.

Interesting theory, but I have a question. Eve sinned as well. She was also given the law. The serpent deceived her and then gave some to her husband. Why in your opinion would Eve and her children not also have a sin nature? Eve was exiled from the garden with Adam and she was punished with Adam. I look forward to your answer as I am writing an article on Jesus’ blood.

Ron,

All of Eve’s children have the sin nature except for Jesus because all of Eve’s offspring (except again for Jesus) have a human father. Eve did not deliberately sin but scripture says she “fell into transgression†1 Timothy 2:14. Adam did not fall into transgression because of being deceived but he disobeyed God by his own free will with his eyes wide open to the truth. God distinguishes between the two motives for sin and this is clear even from Genesis as only Adam is kicked out of the garden. Genesis 3:22-24 says:

Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever“– therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken.  So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life.

Why was only Adam kicked out? Because he was the only one who sinned in a deliberate manner. God knew that Adam would also be tempted to disobey God again in eating from the tree of life which would now be forbidden to them in their fallen state. God never questions whether the woman would disobey him because her original disobedience in the garden was caused by deception not deliberate disobedience. God kicked out the disobedient one – the man – and barred his way to the tree of life. The woman left the garden but not because she was driven out by God. She left because she desired the man and he took his sinful rule over her. (Genesis 3:16) God had predicted that she would want to be with the man and that came true as she left her garden home to be with her husband.

Adam’s deliberate rebellion brought the sin nature with him to all of mankind. Eve fell into transgression not through her own desire for rebellion, but because she was fully and completely deceived. This deception of Satan against the woman allowed God to turn the tables on the deceiver himself and God brought His grace through the woman and on her blood line and it was to be through her seed that the deceiver would be destroyed.

Wonderful.This is also what I believe, and am convicted is truth. Thanks so much. I’ve bookmark your site.

to God be the glory,
Karen

Hi Cheryl

you sure do post ‘food for thought’! just trying to get my head round this stuff…

can i clarify… cos i think i might be misunderstanding you… so forgive me if that is the case…

are you saying that “men” carry a different sin nature to “women”? ie it is through our “fathers” and not “mothers” we inherit our sin nature? even though all men (after Adam) are born of women…and all men and women since the Fall have been born as the result of the union b/w Adam and Eve?

Rom 3:23 says All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Pretty clear that we all have inherited a sin nature i think. How does “eve’s” trangression through deception help ‘us’ when we still have Adam as our ‘father’? Like you say, Mary was born of a sinful nature, yet jesus was her son?

I don’t believe that Adam is representative of “men” but of humankind… because he was the first HUMAN (ie – irrelevant that he was male). Note: Paul’s deliberate use of anthropos, not aner in passages such as 1 Cor 15 regarding Adam as humanity’s representative.

i must have missed something in your explanation i think… work with me here!

question – i haven’t done hebrew as much as greek… is the “you” plural or singular in Gen 3:17 when God says to Adam i “commanded you…”? if it’s singular it might add to the case for God only giving Adam the command not to eat of the tree directly. (forgive me if it’s something you have already noted in another time and place before i began reading your blog!)

in Christ
(-:
k

Gidday Cheryl,

I am really chewing over the info in this section of your blog. Thanks for the diagrams etc. very helpful.

I have spent more time in the Word than in any science books… so tell me what you think …
Getting specifically ‘biological’ … is it true that sperm carry ‘life’ where as the female egg is not ‘alive’ until joined with the sperm at the point of conception? (Hey forgive me, i did english lit and german, not biol and science at school!) If this is true, (i am not sure?!) then is this also a ‘literal’ connection with the spiritual principle of the ‘male’ passing on the ‘death’ seed. And Jesus, NOT having an earthly father, therefore being exempt from sin nature?
Perhaps you have already sort of said this above but not been so ‘biological’ or literal in your explanation:

“Yet that seed of life in the woman, could not produce life on her own. When her seed was mixed with the man’s seed, the result was always death because Adam was the father of the dying…”

Am i on track here?

have a great weekend!

(-:
K

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

Although we interpret this as: for this reason a man and woman shall leave their father and mother, and be joined to one another…….

That is not what scripture says. It specifically says the man should leave his parents and be joined to his wife.

Why is this important? Because when God gave the promise of the seed of the woman, it was to be traced through the female lineage. The man leaves his “tribe” and joins himself to the woman’s “tribe.”

Man turned this upside down when early in Genesis men began to take women “whomever they chose” as spoils of war and removed her from her family. As the The mother of Sisera said in Judges:

Jdg 5:30 ‘Are they not finding, are they not dividing the spoil? A maiden, two maidens for every warrior……..

But God fulfilled His plan as we see several women in the genealogy of Jesus; Rahab and Ruth and ultimately Jesus being the “seed of the woman” as prophesied by God in the garden.

That the man was originally intended to “leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife” is fulfilled in the mystery of Christ and the church.

Eph 5:32 This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.

Jesus left His Father and came to earth (the tribe of the woman) to cleave to His bride (the church.)

Amen! Good points, Victorious.

HI Cheryl,

This seems really complex for something i have found never to be an issue. The tension i find with your position is like all ‘theories’ you can set them up to mean what you intend the outcome to be.
I support and believe in 100% equality between men and woman and see neither as having the God ordained right pver each other. At this point i feel the bible is very cultually biased in what is expoected from ‘male’ and ‘female’. However, just because i disagree with the way you have approached this issue does not mean what you are trying to assertain is not valid and important. Keep fighting the fight.
Some views:
I fundamentally think both sinned in the garden and trying to draw huge conclusions about the trinity and Jesus leaving heaven to join his bride etc can be a little scary to say the least…i am not sure about these views.
I think this is primarily a matter of what your definition of sin is.
I think it also is matter of how you view orginal sin and the way inherited sin works.
If we start at different places we end up in different places.
Anyay, just some thoughts.

CP,

Thanks for your comments. You may need to read the post again if you found it complex. It actually is very straightforward and plain.

I do agree with you that both sinned in the garden. After all God said not to do something and both of them did. I don’t think that anyone is saying that Eve didn’t sin and I certainly am not saying that. What I am saying is that scripture tells us unequivocally that Adam is the one blamed for bringing sin into the world and not Eve. The Bible also tells us that we inherit our sin from Adam. We also see that the Messiah had to come from the woman and not the man. We also see the bible telling us about the motives of Eve and of Adam. What does this all mean? We must draw our conclusions from what the Bible actually says and not how we feel about sin.

The “puzzle” so to speak is that the Messiah had to come from Adam as the kinsman redeemer yet through Adam sin comes. So how does the Messiah come from Adam and not come from the sin line of Adam? God tells us in Genesis 3. The Messiah will come from the woman and we know that the woman came from the man before the man sinned. The man’s sin of rebellion was not passed on to Eve.

The whole matter of sin also comes down to judging motive along with the sin. Eve died for her own sin but her motive was not rebellion. She sinned because of deception so it was impossible for her to pass on the inherited sin of rebellion. Now you and I? We have the inherited sin of rebellion and we struggle with it every day. I praise God that he found a way out for us so that we could have a sinless Messiah who could take away the sin of the world.

You may need to sleep on this one and come back to it and see if it makes more sense another day.

As far as the Trinity, I am not sure what you mean. What conclusion did I try to draw about the Trinity from my diagrams?

The whole matter of sin also comes down to judging motive along with the sin. Eve died for her own sin but her motive was not rebellion. She sinned because of deception so it was impossible for her to pass on the inherited sin of rebellion.

That’s true, the word that she (EVE) used was “Beguilded” which is commonly tranlated “deceived”. The word “beguilded” in hebrew means fishermans bait to catch fish or something! The woman said to God “The Sepent Beguilded me and I did it!” She told the truth, the sepent used me, deceived me,then as fishermans bait or as bait to get to Adam! If we just let the bible speak for itself, it becomes clear. look up those herbrew words etc gives you the full deep meaning!

I think the reason why people are trying to see Hiarchy because there just looking at bits an pieces of scriptures and smashing then together instead of looking at it as a whole…The Whole Scope of Scripture….The Whole Scope of Salvation/Redemption. Then the Bible will flow like living water!

“Misspelled”

The woman said to God “The Sepent Beguilded me and I did EAT!”

Hi, Cheryl. Firstly, I am 100% egalitarian. I believe with all my being that women and men have the same rights to rulership on God’s earth. On that note, I never thought I’d say this to another egalitarian, but I think you’re making a huge stretch here (dang, did I never think I’d say that!) While you don’t say it and you don’t seem to believe it, I think you are greatly implying that Adam and the male seed through him have fallen lower than woman has. You said that men don’t have a different sin nature than women, yet what I see throughout your post and especially one of your responses is that sin is through the male line and we are cursed through our father, rather than our mother. It’s my understanding that both parents give us the mark of sin, not just our fathers. I understand and agree with the fascinating idea of Jesus only coming through woman’s seed because of the bloodline, but this does not, to me, follow with the line of thinking that we, in turn, are cursed only by our father’s line and not our mother’s. This almost sounds like a bigger wallop to men than certain secular people have made.

The biggest clincher by far, for me, was when you said Eve was not banished from the garden but only went to follow her husband. Um, Eve sinned; thus, she was no longer fit to be in the garden, regardless of whether her motive for sin was more severe than Adam’s. Furthermore, don’t you think God would want her to be with her husband? How would humankind progress if man went alone without woman? Besides, again, woman was no longer fit to be in the garden either. The idea that God would bansih man, but leave woman free to enjoy the garden if she chose, is WAY too out there for me.

Hi Jennifer,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts! You are going to want to watch for the next post when I will be discussing the issue of the Abrahamic covenant and why only males needed to be circumcised. I think you will find it very interesting and it may open up some things that have been used by God as symbols and their symbolic meaning. I am out of the country right now just checking my mail and I won’t be able to get the new post up for at least a week, but watch for it. I would be interested to see what you think 🙂

As far as the type of sin that Adam committed and whether Eve was kicked out of the garden or not, it is important not to try to understand these issues with our thinking of what is right or not. We need to check out God’s word to see what it says. There have been many faulty traditions regarding the creation of mankind that need to be dispelled. If you haven’t already, check out the posts on Adam and Eve to read more. If you still have questions, email me (see the contact page at the top) and I can help.

“why only males needed to be circumcised”

Excuse me for being blunt, but I always thought the reason for this was that only males have the male organ?
I mean, there’s no such thing as female circumcision (shudder) Only female genital mutilation. Men have foreskins, whereas women have no such expendable parts.

Jennifer,
I edited your comment so that programs that block x rated sites will not block mine.

Women too have a piece of skin that can be cut and removed. We will talk about that shortly in the next post. I think you will see some things that you may not have thought about before. Expect a few thought-provoking thoughts 🙂

Regardless of your view on women in ministry, your view on sin is extremely dangerous. You are basically justifying anyone who sins because they were deceived. It’s the old Flip Wilson “The devil made me do it” argument (ok, I just dated myself by even knowing who Flip Wilson is). Eve sinned as much as Adam did. She listened, she believed and she ate. Then she gave to her husband and he ate. Perhaps we could argue that Adam was justified because he listened to his wife … sexuality can be a very persuasive argument. Quit with the excuses. Eve sinned as much as Adam. All of this was to build up to try to explain the concept of kephale as “source.” There are far better (but still rather lacking) arguments for that than this poorly thought through argument.

jbs,
This is not a justification of sin at all. It is allowing God to judge the heart motivation along with the action.

A heart motive of rebellion is called sinning with a “high hand”.  There were sacrifices in the OT that were to be offered for “unintentional sin” see Lev. 4:22.  If God can judge between those who sin willfully and with deliberate rebellion, and those who sin unintentionally then God can bring mercy to those who did not sin with malice.

This is what Paul claims when he was saved by Jesus.  Paul says in 1 Timothy 1:13 “even though I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor.  Yet I was shown mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief”

God has the opportunity to step in and give mercy even though we do not deserve mercy when the sin has not been done with a “high hand”.

Adam was not justified in sinning because he sinned willfully and with his eyes wide open to the truth.  Hosea 6:7 shows that Adam treated God in a treacherous manner and Paul said that Adam was not deceived.  The bible says nothing about Eve’s sexuality tempting Adam.  Adam had no excuse.

While Adam and Eve’s sin was the same in that both of them ate the fruit, their heart motives were not the same.  God judges the heart.

The consequences of their sins were different also, the man’s is worded very similarly to the serpent’s, while the woman’s is not.  We are supposed to notice these details.

Absolutely correct!  To have a full and correct understanding one must pay attention to the details because all scripture is inspired and useful for teaching and correction.

To truthseeker continuing from Paula’s blog which she has now shut down the comments.

You said: ” …then likewise, Adam’s actions would provide us an opportunity for sin but we would still have to appropriate or participate in it. ”

That is exactly right. Adam’s actions brought us a sin nature, but a sin nature doesn’t force us to sin. We can’t say “the devil made me do it” or “Adam made me do it”. What our sin nature does is crave sin but it doesn’t make us sin. It is like a drug addict. His “flesh” craves the drugs but he is physically able to stop and not take the drugs. If one doesn’t believe that then just put the guy in jail and watch how without a drug dealer he can survive without the drugs. It is possible for sure. But our “natural man” craves sin. We all give in but we don’t have to.

So what I am saying is that Adam’s sin brought us to sin with the natural inheritance of his rebellious nature, but it cannot make us sin. Christ’s obedience brought us to righteousness by his actions but He does not force us to have faith in Him.

Does this make sense?

“You said: ” …then likewise, Adam’s actions would provide us an opportunity for sin but we would still have to appropriate or participate in it. ”
That is exactly right. Adam’s actions brought us a sin nature, but a sin nature doesn’t force us to sin.”

Cheryl, I didn’t say Adam’s actions brought us a sin nature. I said they brought us an opportunity to sin. You said they brought us a sin nature. Very very different-sin nature vs. opportunity to sin. Perhaps better yet, Adam simply brought us an example of sinning to follow should we choose to do so along with all the consequences of his sin that affect us. I do not see any mention of sin nature in the passage.

” We can’t say “the devil made me do it” or “Adam made me do it”. What our sin nature does is crave sin but it doesn’t make us sin. ….. But our “natural man” craves sin. We all give in but we don’t have to.”

You are again inserting ‘sin nature’ where the bible never does. It is like when the comps insert terms and concepts such as ‘roles’, ‘masculinity’, and ‘femininity’, into the bible and biblical discussions when those terms are never mentioned in the bible. It may SEEM ‘logical’ to do so, but if the basis isn’t truly there, nor the language, then we tread on unfounded ground at the least. You also seem to interchange ‘sin nature’ with ‘our natural man’. I think they are different. We do have our human nature. That seems to be all we need to sin. It was enough for Adam, who was not described as having a sin nature prior to sinning that enabled him to sin.

“So what I am saying is that Adam’s sin brought us to sin with the natural inheritance of his rebellious nature, but it cannot make us sin. Christ’s obedience brought us to righteousness by his actions but He does not force us to have faith in Him.”

Where in the bible does it say we ‘naturally inherited his rebellious nature? After all, if an inherited nature is required to sin, then where did Adam get his, since he sinned? And if a sinful nature is requisite for sinning, then logically and in a parallel vein of thinking, a righteous nature would be required for choosing righteousness. Yet, no mention is made of us inheriting a righteous nature so we can choose salvation. You rightly say that “Christ’s obedience brought us to righteousness by his actions…,” it says nothing of our coming to righteousness by having some kind of inherited righteous nature. Yet, the very same logic is being used to say that we choose sin because we have a sinful nature.

Adam seemed well able to choose to sin without having any mention of a sinful nature. I think then, that we are totally capable of sinning, in like manner, without having a ‘sin nature’.

Does this make sense?

truthseeker,

I have to run out for a bit but I thought I would clarify this before I left:

Cheryl, I didn’t say Adam’s actions brought us a sin nature. I said they brought us an opportunity to sin.

Yes, that’s right. The first sentence is my view and your view is what we agree on. The sin nature does not make us sin, that we can agree on. But because the sin nature or our propensity to sin is seen as a bondage, I used the illustration of a drug addict who doesn’t have to take drugs, but his craving draws him time and time again back into the old sin habit.

I will comment on the rest when I get back.

Where does the bible specifically and explicitly say we have a sin nature that came from Adam? Adam didn’t need a ‘sin’ nature to sin. His human nature seemed to be quite up to the task. I will need to do a bible search to see if there are verses that specifically say we have a ‘sin nature’. We do have ‘flesh’ but I am not persuaded that is the same as an unnamed sin nature.

As egals, we can easily see that because Adam was created first does not mean he was the leader or ruler of Eve automatically. Likewise, I think it cannot be said from Genesis that we have a sin nature that Adam gave us. I can no more see explicit verses saying Adam gave us a sin nature than I can see explicit verses that say men should have authority over women because Adam was created before Eve.

Truthseeker,

“As egals, we can easily see that because Adam was created first does not mean he was the leader or ruler of Eve automatically. Likewise, I think it cannot be said from Genesis that we have a sin nature that Adam gave us. I can no more see explicit verses saying Adam gave us a sin nature than I can see explicit verses that say men should have authority over women because Adam was created before Eve.”

I’m interested in this topic too. I’m going to Paula’s now to read the comments…

I’m sitting here agreeing with you and Cheryl, I’m undecided ultimately. But it seems to me that there is something of importance to the prophecy made in Gen 3 about the woman’s seed and sin entering the world through Adam. What all that means I don’t exactly know at this point, but I hope to eventualy determine what I do believe as to whether or not humans inherit a sin nature from Adam.

I look forward to any who will contribute further on this discussion…

truthseeker,

I am very glad that you are willing to dialog on this issue. I believe that it is a very important one.

You said:

You said they brought us a sin nature. Very very different-sin nature vs. opportunity to sin. Perhaps better yet, Adam simply brought us an example of sinning to follow should we choose to do so along with all the consequences of his sin that affect us. I do not see any mention of sin nature in the passage.

Just as the words “The Trinity” are not in the Bible but the concept is there, so the exact words “sin nature” are not in the Bible but the concept is there.

The book of Romans calls the natural tendency toward sin as “the flesh” or “in the flesh”.

Rom 7:5 For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death.

Here we see that the “flesh” was aroused with sinful passions.

Rom 7:18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not.

Here the phrase “in my flesh” is a synonym for the natural tendency towards an inability to continue to practice good.

In verse 21 Paul calls it a principle of the present evil within us.

Rom 7:21 I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good.

Paul further calls this natural tendency toward sin as against our intention to do good.

Rom 7:23 but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members.

Walking after the natural inclination is said to be “walking in the flesh”.

Rom 8:4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Rom 8:8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

The opposite of spiritual is of “the flesh” showing a natural tendency that is opposite to the spiritual nature.

1 Cor 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ.

“Flesh and blood” is another term that Paul uses for the sinful human nature.

1 Cor 15:50 Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

We also know that the transgression of Adam caused “the many” to die.

Rom 5:15 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression 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, abound to the many.

Through Adam came universal condemnation to Adam’s offspring:

Rom 5:18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.

Here disobedience brought many to the place of sin:

Rom 5:19 For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

The question we must ask ourselves is how did Adam’s disobedience bring us to sin? His disobedience cannot make us sin because we have a will that can refuse to sin. But the disobedience of Adam (as we were “in” Adam when he sinned) has tainted us in such a way that we are attracted to sin and desire to sin. We then choose to participate in sin because of this attraction.

truthseeker,

You said: “Where in the bible does it say we ‘naturally inherited his rebellious nature? After all, if an inherited nature is required to sin, then where did Adam get his, since he sinned?”

First of all, the Bible tells us that we are by nature in sin from before our birth.

Psa 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.

Psa 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb; These who speak lies go astray from birth.

Eph 2:3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.

Adam was not “born in sin”. Adam did not have a fleshly nature pulling him toward sin. Yet Adam had free will to sin against God. This is what made his sin of rebellion even more serious. Adam was not tempted to sin because of a fleshly nature but Adam was capable of sin. The same goes for satan. Satan chose to sin even though he was created perfect. He lost his perfection in his act of sin and now God says that satan’s nature is that of a liar, destroyer and murderer.

Adam’s nature was changed also with his sin. His propensity to sin from his rebellion caused him to rule over his wife. He was also the only one that God said might reach out to take the fruit from the tree of life. This shows a continuing natural propensity to sin.

The key passage that must be dealt with is Romans 5:16-19. Also the fact that small babies and young children are all naturally prone to sin without being taught. Where does this come from if our nature is perfect without sin from the beginning?

truthseeker,

You said: “Likewise, I think it cannot be said from Genesis that we have a sin nature that Adam gave us. I can no more see explicit verses saying Adam gave us a sin nature than I can see explicit verses that say men should have authority over women because Adam was created before Eve.”

We were “in Adam” when he sinned and from the natural man comes our death.

1 Cor 15:21 For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead.
1 Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

The connection to being “in Adam” is now our being “in Christ” and we are of His seed.

If our nature did not come from Adam then our new nature is not connected to Christ since both are our Father. The one natural and the other spiritual.

I have to go out now so I will come back later to answer questions.

The following link takes you to an article refuting the possibility of humans having a sin nature. It is an outstanding article, complete with many bible references. It is addressing this matter from the standpoint of those who claim that homosexuality is a trait one is born with, and it shows how this is not possible unless we are born with a sin nature. Extremely interesting article-I highly recommend it be read in its entirety. I don’t know how to make this link available as a live link, so you will just have to copy and paste. My apologies.

Well, ok, the link does transfer as a live link. Welcome to the 21st century, Truthseeker! (Where do techno-infants go to hide?!)

Pinklight, I agree with you. I, too, want to know the truth of this matter, and after reading the article I linked to above (#40) I now realize how much importance this issue has-far more so than I ever imagined to the claims Christians make. Wow!!!

truthseeker,
This is Jesse Morrell’s weak point and one that he has been highly criticized on. Lots of holes in his arguments. I will respond more tomorrow. One thing for tonight. He says:

“Homosexuals often cover and excuse their evil acts of perversion by saying that they were born homosexual. And if the teaching is true that men are born with a sinful nature, homosexuals are right to say they were born homosexuals. For they were born homosexuals if they were born sinners. Also they are right to excuse their evil actions of perversion. For is they were born sinners, they were born homosexuals

The Biblical doctrine of a fleshly nature does not mean that we are born with sin. But it means that we are born addicted to sin. Homosexuals have no more right to excuse their sinful actions than an adulterer does or one who is a liar. One may have an addiction in a certain area more so than another but all of the applications of our acting out the fleshly nature is sinful. Homosexuals also do not agree that their actions are sinful. They do say that they are born this way but their reasoning is more along the line that homosexuality is like blue eyes. It is not a sin to have blue eyes and in their mind homosexuality is a trait that is just as natural (and not sinful) as blue eyes. Morrell’s point here is flawed.

More later.

33 truthseeker,

You are again inserting ’sin nature’ where the bible never does. It is like when the comps insert terms and concepts such as ‘roles’, ‘masculinity’, and ‘femininity’, into the bible and biblical discussions when those terms are never mentioned in the bible.

Then let’s change the term to what the Bible actually uses. While the common modern term is “sin nature” the true Biblical terms “fleshly”, the “old man”, the “old self”.

While our “new self” is created in the image of Christ, our “old self” is created in the image of the first Adam.

Col 3:9 Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self with its evil practices,
Col 3:10 and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him

Eph 4:22 that, in reference to your former manner of life, you lay aside the old self, which is being corrupted in accordance with the lusts of deceit,
Eph 4:23 and that you be renewed in the spirit of your mind,
Eph 4:24 and put on the new self, which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth.

Eph 2:3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.
Eph 2:4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us,

Gal 5:24 Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

Jer 16:19 O LORD, my strength and my stronghold, And my refuge in the day of distress, To You the nations will come From the ends of the earth and say, “Our fathers have inherited nothing but falsehood, Futility and things of no profit.”

Romans 6:6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin;

1 Cor. 3:3 for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men?

2Co 1:12 For our proud confidence is this: the testimony of our conscience, that in holiness and godly sincerity, not in fleshly wisdom but in the grace of God, we have conducted ourselves in the world, and especially toward you.

Col 2:18 Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind,

2 Peter 2:18 For speaking out arrogant words of vanity they entice by fleshly desires, by sensuality, those who barely escape from the ones who live in error,

It is clear from the scriptures that there is something within us that from young on is a “fleshly desire” that all of us have that is bent on sin. This “fleshly desire” can be fought only effectively through the Spirit and through obedience to God.

Rom 8:4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
Rom 8:5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.
Rom 8:6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,

In the article that you linked to, Jesse Morrell tells the truth when we says that we choose to sin, but he gives no indication where the “fleshly desires” comes from and he says that sin is not “natural” to the unregenerated man. This is not true. What was “natural” (goodness) to God’s original creation is no longer the “natural” way. In fact just as the devil originally was part of God’s good creation his act of sin created a new nature within him and that nature is what he now follows.

Joh 8:44 “You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

Adam too because of his act of rebellion against God had a new nature filled with sinful desires. God did not create this in him. It was the result of his first act of rebellion. And that nature, just like the new nature of satan, was a part of Adam that was there within him before any one of his children were born. The new nature of Adam’s that drove him to be be continually tempted to sin is what we have within us.

I will continue to comment shortly.

In Jesse Morrell’s article here are some of the areas that he has gotten wrong. Under II. Why homosexuals say that they are born that way:

A. If the fault is their nature, and not their choice, they cannot be blamed.

This is faulty reasoning. The fact is that the Bible teaches that sin is our choice and we are not blameless because we have a nature that craves sin. Even the unregenerate showed that they had a choice to sin or not to sin and the “fleshly lusts” of our old man is no excuse for sin.

B. If the fault is their will, and not their nature, they are to be blamed.

Here is a false dichotomy. Just because the ultimate fault is their free will and not their nature, does not disprove that they do not have a “fleshly man” that lusts after sin.

(1.) You are not responsible or accountable for the condition of your nature at birth.

While we are not responsible for the “fleshly man’s nature” that we have inherited, there is nothing in the Bible that indicates that this nature forces us to sin. We are ultimately still accountable for our free-will choice even if our nature tempts us to sin. Morrell’s listing of excuses for not being accountable for sin in no way refutes the biblical teaching of the “old man” nature.

(2.) Men do not deserve hell for the flesh, blood, bones, skin they involuntarily and unavoidably inherit.

This is a straw man argument because men do not receive hell for flesh, blood, bones, skin that they inherit. Men receive hell for their free will choice to reject God and their practice of sin.

(4.) Since God punishes sinners, including homosexuals, this proves that it is their own fault that they
are sinners. And if it is their own fault, it must be their own free choice.

This is true, but it doesn’t disprove the “natural fleshly man” that we all have at birth. The fact is that we all have “natural lusts” but we have the will to chose to turn away from the lusts.

2. They logically know that if they were created that way, it is God’s fault.

This is no more logical than Adam’s blaming God and Eve for his sin. Neither God nor Eve made Adam sin and neither can be blamed for his sin.

Charles Finney said, “To represent the constitution as sinful, is to present God, who is the author of the constitution, as the author of sin.”

I know that many say that Charles Finney was a heretic. I know almost nothing about Charles Finney but I do know that the statement above is not true. God is not the author of the nature of Adam after the fall that became the nature of the “old man”. This nature is connected to the nature of the devil, not to the nature of the original creation.

3 A. If a person is born a sinner, instead of being a sinner by choice, they cannot be responsible to stop being a
sinner or be accountable for their failure to do so. Moral obligation and moral accountability is limited
by natural justice to moral ability.

This is a false representation of the doctrine of the “old man”. People are not “born a sinner”. People are born with the nature of the “old man” and from there they make choices of their own to sin. Moral accountability is not from the “natural man” who is the “old man” nature because if so then babies would be condemned to hell. Rather moral accountability is at the point where a person comes to a knowledge of their sin and makes a conscious choice to walk away from their conscience.

5. They intuitively know that punishment is limited to voluntary disobedience

This is true. Punishment is indeed limited to voluntary disobedience, however this does not disprove the Biblical doctrine of the nature of “old man”.

Under III. Homosexuality is not in accordance with human nature. – What Morrell does here is say that homosexuality is against “nature” and therefore is not “natural”. Again this is a false dichotomy since the “nature” that is spoken of in Romans 1:26 is the natural creation of our bodies. Homosexuality is certainly against “nature” but it is not in opposition to the nature of the “old man” who craves and lusts after sin. Morrell has again failed to disprove the nature of the “old man” which is our fleshly lusts that must be renewed by God to the “new man” with the new nature that seeks after God

1. A. Our metaphysical nature is fallen (physical depravity) but not sinful (moral depravity)..

Again this presents a misunderstanding of the doctrine of our common creation as the “old man”. We are not born as sinners but born with the cravings of the “old man”. God did not create this “old man” in us as this is our inheritance back to Adam, but if we turn to God in faith and in repentance He will create in us the “new man” which is absolutely from God.

More to come….

33 truthseeker,

You said:

Where in the bible does it say we ‘naturally inherited his rebellious nature? After all, if an inherited nature is required to sin, then where did Adam get his, since he sinned?

Adam did not have an “old man” nature. Adam had free will and he chose to exercise his free will to rebel against God. But the fact that Adam did not have an “old man” nature and still chose to sin in this one area does not exclude our “old man” nature that we received at the fall of Adam.

And if a sinful nature is requisite for sinning, then logically and in a parallel vein of thinking, a righteous nature would be required for choosing righteousness.

I have never heard anyone say that a sinful nature is required for one to sin. After all the devil was created as Lucifer without sin. He chose to sin by his own act of free will without a sin nature. However after he chose to sin his nature has completely changed into a nature where he cannot tell the truth as his nature is fully that of distortions and lies.

Yet, no mention is made of us inheriting a righteous nature so we can choose salvation. You rightly say that “Christ’s obedience brought us to righteousness by his actions…,” it says nothing of our coming to righteousness by having some kind of inherited righteous nature.

I am not claiming that our coming to righteousness means that we have a righteous nature that has been put on us. Doesn’t this seem like what many Calvinists are saying? I am not a Calvinist.

However it is true that once we have come to faith in Christ, He creates in us a new nature. If we need that “new man” with its new nature, then surely there was something deficient about the “old man” as his inherent lusts.

Yet, the very same logic is being used to say that we choose sin because we have a sinful nature.

I am not making this argument. What I am saying is that it is easy for us to chose sin because we have the “old man” nature. We are not forced by this nature to sin so there is no excuse.

Adam seemed well able to choose to sin without having any mention of a sinful nature. I think then, that we are totally capable of sinning, in like manner, without having a ’sin nature’.

This does not follow that because Adam was created without the “old man” nature, that we too have no “old man” nature. The fact is that although Adam was created without sin and lived without sin for a time, after he sinned, he had an “old man” nature that made God kick him out of the garden so that he would not continue in sin and eat from the tree of life.

I hope this helps.

“Then let’s change the term to what the Bible actually uses. While the common modern term is “sin nature” the true Biblical terms “fleshly”, the “old man”, the “old self”.”

I was going to suggest this change.

I’m gonna read on now…

“I know that many say that Charles Finney was a heretic. I know almost nothing about Charles Finney but I do know that the statement above is not true. God is not the author of the nature of Adam after the fall that became the nature of the “old man”. This nature is connected to the nature of the devil, not to the nature of the original creation.”

Can I make a point? Adam’s nature had to of changed at some point because WE,all humans born after Adam certainly DO NOT have the same nature as he did that is, a perfect, innocent, nature. So we either have a nature that was like his “before the fall” or after.

I cannot see in anyway how any human born after Adam has a nature that he had prior to him sinning in the garden.

I also cannot see any human as ever having lived to have had a perfect nature like Adam in the begnninhg and then fall as Adam did either.

So are we perfect in nature like Adam when we are born and thenb we fall like him? I could never think or believe that. So I think there is a difference in nature between the way Adam was created and how we are born.

pinklight,

So I think there is a difference in nature between the way Adam was created and how we are born.

Yes, there is a huge difference between what Adam was first created as and how we are born. The really special thing is that although we are connected to Adam in our fleshly nature, we are now connected to Jesus in the spiritual. We are His seed and one day we will be fully like Him for we will see Him as He is. What a glorious day to know that we will be completely sinless one day and perfect!

Now for all those who say that they do not have a sin nature perhaps they need to rethink their position. If you say that you do not have a sin nature, then there is nothing to change to be like Christ. All you need to do is to stop sinning. But why can’t they? The reason is that we have not yet had this flesh changed. We are to live in the Spirit but we often do not consider ourselves dead to sin and to that “old man”. We feed him and nourish him when we should consider him a dead, stinking, old former nature.

Looking ahead to Jesus, we desire to live for Him so that it is no longer we that live, but Christ who lives through us. We really do need His life because our old nature will never see life. It is our “new man” created in His image that will live on.

Well I am still very much confused over this subject, or cannot see clearly on it. And I’m still stuck on how we human beings could be considered perfect like Adam was created? Or was Adam not created “perfect”?

pinklight,
Adam (after Eve was created to be his ezer) was created in a place of “good” without sin, without flaw but with the ability to be a free moral agent to chose. We humans are not perfect. We are filled with flaws due to our inherited “old man”. One day we will be perfect, but we aren’t there yet.

Does this answer the question or were you looking for truthseeker to answer?

Cheryl,

I was just speaking my mind. Um, I’m still confused ;P It’ll take me time to get this issue down. Thank you for helping!

pinklight,
You are very welcome!

I have been away for a while. I have continued to ponder this topic though and found the discussion (all 8 pages of it-some of the best is in the last few pages) at the link I have listed to be very helpful.

Correction: I meant all 12 or 13 pages of the link I just mentioned-not 8 pages. The pages are a fairly quick read and I found the whole discussion useful.

Hi truthseeker,
I would encourage you to continue to look at this issue from both sides and not just from one side. There are a great deal of contradictions on the side that says there is no such thing as a sin nature or “the old man” nature. This can be very dangerous for several reasons.

1. It may cause us to disregard the Scripture and think that we can trust our own hearts as if we have not been affected by the old man.

Jer 17:9 “The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?

2. It may cause us to reject Biblical teaching like the virgin birth. If there is no such thing as a nature that is inherited through Adam, then a virgin birth without a human father would no longer be necessary.

3. We may find ourselves thinking that if we do not have an inherited sin nature, then it is possible for us to live a sinless life and we may find ourselves deceiving our own selves.

1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.

The “have” no sin is in the present tense. Denying that we have sin is a deception that we can do to ourselves. Many have gone down this path before and lived in deception.

4. If we deny that we have inherited an “old man” nature from Adam, then the very sign of the foreskin as a sign of sin is meaningless. The pictures of sin related to the flesh of the male then become unnecessary, useless and meaningless. We need to challenge this view and test it thoroughly by the whole counsel of God.

5. The denial that we have an “old man” nature that comes from our father Adam would challenge the need for a kinsman Redeemer. If we are not connected to Adam in the consequences of his sin through an inherited nature, then there is no need of a kinsman Redeemer who had to come through the line of the woman.

6. How do we put off the “old man” if we do not have an “old man” nature? (Col. 3:9 and Eph. 4:22)

There are definitely things that are affected by the rejection of our common “old man” nature that comes through the line of Adam. The contradictions that the opposing side has, the failure to answer the Biblical questions and the consequences of having to reject portions of Scripture are all red flags

Blessings!
Cheryl

This is a very interesting perspective. But I don’t see how it works – after all, Mary had the human sin nature…
Anyway, thanks for the interesting idea, in any case! (And for all of the other work you do – wow, I love it. :D)

Grace,
Welcome to my blog!

As far as Mary goes, she indeed did have a sin nature, because she had a human father. And the sin nature would have been transferred to all her children that had a human father. But Jesus was different. Since the sin nature only comes through the man and not the woman, any human born that has no human father would not get his mother’s sin nature. This of course means that only one human was ever born without a sin nature after the fall. That one unique human being who is from Adam but without sin, we our Lord Jesus.

I do appreciate your encouragement!

Great article! I’m a visual learner, so your charts really make your words stick for me—thanks!

I once heard a preacher say that Adam’s “first sin” was willfully and defiantly disobeying God and eating of the forbidden tree.

But he said that a “second sin” of Adam’s as Head of His Home was that he was standing right there with his wife while the serpent was deceiving her and he did nothing to protect her against the serpents trickeries! He let Eve be deceived! Adam refused to protect his wife and his home against the enemy and stand for what God said to stand for. That’s pretty heavy.

I also thought what you said about the “Two Human races” was interesting—but what a crazy concept! In that notion, Jesus would have only served to save womankind and mankind would have been left in his sin.

Dina,
Welcome to my blog!

I also agree that Adam had two sins – listening silently, yet knowing the truth while his wife was deceived, and then eating the fruit. I believe God listed the “listening” first and then eating second, so I think God see’s the refusal to help Eve spiritually in her greatest time of need (while she was being deceived and didn’t know it), as the greater sin, since Adam was sinning against God and Eve.

As far as two human races, one from Adam and one from Eve, that was not God’s way since His desire was to have one human race and one Savior for all. I believe that is why it is so vital that Eve came from Adam’s own body before Adam sinned. This leaves just one human race, yet with a Savior who is the last Adam, yet without sin. Only God’s foreknowledge could have prepared such a plan that thwarted satan’s plan to destroy us all.