Cheryl Schatz

gengwall,

Our sin “nature” is passed on to us from Adam because of his original sin in the garden, not any perpetual sinning he may or may not have participated in once he left.

So what you are saying then is that we have a “nature” that possibly Adam did not? That he possibly only rebelled once and there was a possibility that he did not have a sin nature like ours?

His death is due to that original sin, and so is ours.

Yes, his death is due to the original sin, but remember he was kicked out not because of the original sin. He was kicked out because he had a propensity to do it again. If it was one sin and no more, and he had no sin nature that would have caused further rebellion, then he could have remained in the garden. God’s concern was for a future rebellion not just the past rebellion.

It is assumed based on his sin nature. You assume it, and so do I.

This is the key – he had a sin nature. It is the sin nature that makes it impossible to stop sinning without a complete heart change. Why would Adam be any different with his sin nature than we are? If he could just quit sinning with a sin nature and without a change of heart, it doesn’t seem like he or anyone would need a “new man” created within us. But the fact is that once you have a sin nature you are a slave to sin. It isn’t a question of “if” you will sin since the slave cannot help but being a slave.

BTW – Job had this inherited sin nature but scripture tells us he was a blameless man.

Job was a “blameless man” not because he had never sinned but because he trusted in God. Faith is accounted as righteousness.

Every scriptural reference to Adam and sin, in my view, is related to his original sin.

Well God talked about a future rebellion so this isn’t quite accurate and to think that Adam brought on us a sin nature that he didn’t share with us in, doesn’t seem to be what the Scriptures say. The “old man” or “old Adam” always refers to the nature of sin, no just one act of one specific man.

More importantly, scripture does not witness to the specific sin of “rule” over his wife, which is all we are concerned about here. The real issue is not if Adam generally sinned, but if he engaged in the specific sin of “rule” as Gen 3:16 describes.

God predicted the sin which presumably was already in his heart due to his sin nature. If Adam did not sin in this way, then God was a false prophet. Therefore we know that Adam did sin and God was indeed a true prophet.

I am not interested in the breadth and depth of her sin outside of the garden, but only if she committed a sinful “desire/turning toward/against” Adam. If I can not find a second witness to Adamic “rule”, I also do not expect a second witness to Eve’s “desire”.

First of all we know that Adam was a sinner. God predicted his sin. But the words of God to Eve may not mean sin at all. There is a good and a bad definition. If God provides nothing else then the term, we cannot automatically provide the meaning of “sin” unless there is something else that requires us to charge her with sin. I just have never seen such a charge of sin so we can’t just assume her sin.

Finally, I simply can not fathom God’s prediction of Eve’s future behavior as being “neutral”.

I think it is a positive thing. But I can accept that it doesn’t have to be commendable. However it doesn’t fit the criteria of a sin.

I have to step out now so I can’t finish answering your comment. I will finish it later.