Cheryl Schatz

gengwall,

Is not Job referring to Adam’s actions in the garden still – his attempts to “cover up” for his rebellion, and to justify and blame shift? Gen 3:16 is predictive of events post fall, not mid fall. I still see no second witness in support of Gen 3:16 that points to Adam sinning outside of the garden.

The verse I quoted shows a sin nature – one that continues after the original act. While Adam started his sin nature in the garden, if it can be proven that he continues to sin (by his actions in the garden) and God predicts he has more sin to come and the fact that he gives us his sin nature by inheritance, then his sin nature is proven from the Scripture. The sin that came into the world is sin nature. If you want I can quote the Scriptures on this. Job shows that subsequent to the first act of sin, another sin was committed. The real issue of sin committed outside of the garden is whether Adam has a sin nature or not. It is impossible for Adam to give us a sin nature if he didn’t have one himself.

I think this is an argument of convenience. Seriously, is there anything “neutral” in God’s indictment from 3:14 on?

Yes. God has no “indictment” on Eve. There is nothing in God’s words that says “Because you did this…” The consequences that come on Eve (death) is because of God’s original command that they would die if they ate. In dealing with Eve, God deals with the consequences of her deception and the changes that will happen in her world, but it is not a further “indictment” as if she was a rebellious sinner.

Can the actions of either Adam or Eve really be neutral in relation to each other in the context of the impacts of thier sin on their subsequent lives?

Yes. That is unless God is telling Eve that the serpent is going to hang around and deceive her into doing bad things to her husband. But from the context we can understand that Eve is no longer deceived and she is not about to believe the lies from a legless serpent.

The fact is that Eve goes through no condemnation from God. Her actions predicted in the future have no condemnation either. Adam’s actions do. Adam is the only one who is said to act treacherously toward God (Hosea 6:7).

How God deals with Eve is how God deals with us. By this I mean that there is no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus. But there are still consequences of what we have done. Sometimes sin causes some of us to suffer a divorce, etc, even if these same ones no longer commit any willful acts of sin against their partner.

As suspicious as I am of “desire” or “turning” as a virtue, I find the thought of it being relatively inconsequential blather on God’s part to be unfathomable.

LOL!! gengwall, you are the very first to charge me with “blathering”.

That’s fine. The issue of whether it is a commendable thing or neutral (my own “desire” can be both commendable and something I need to work on because I must rely on God alone for my spiritual strength) may need to be left in the area of something that we just agree to disagree on. But if it is an issue of sin, that I would ask you to seriously consider whether it has been “proved” as a sin. If it isn’t a sin, what is it? The only other thing I can think of are “neutral” and “commendable”. If you are unwilling to consider her actions to be “commendable”, then you may find yourself in the “neutral” zone.

I am still laughing. “Blathering” eh? Hmmm… So cute!