Cheryl Schatz

gengwal,
You said:

First, I certainly believe Adam shared the same nature of sin with us. But, that nature stems from his original sin. Any post garden sin may be inevitable, but the bible seems unconcerned with it.

I don’t think that we can say that the Bible seems “unconcerned with Adam’s sin nature, when Adam was kicked out of the garden because of his sinful possibilities. Also our own adamic nature is something that we are to die to which makes this nature (one just like Adam’s) as a major issue in the Scriptures.

Now, I think you disagree. I think you are arguing that his future rebellion, i.e. his post garden sin, IS declared somewhere in Gen 3:22-24. Do you consider that the second witness?

I believe that there are three reasons why we can understand that Adam has a sin nature:

1. He hid his sin.
2. He was considered by God to be a threat to the tree of life
3. He was prophesied to be the one who would practice sin through ruling his wife.

I consider all of these a valid witness to Adam’s sin nature.

1. That he “is become as one of us, to know good and evil”. But Eve also gained that knowledge so, while being spoken specifically about Adam in vs. 22, it is not a condition unique to Adam. If this portends rebellion, then Eve is as susceptible.

The language here is not about gaining knowledge that Adam did not have. The language is that mankind was created to know the difference between good and evil just as God knows it. Mankind was created with a conscience and a wisdom to understand knowledge. This passage is not talking about becoming like God at the fall.

2. That he may “put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever”. But this is not a sin.

It wasn’t a sin before the fall but after the fall when God specifically said that they would die, they now must stay away from the tree of life so that they can die as God said would happen. At this point in time, eating from the tree of life in direct rebellion to the promise that they would die, would be a sin.

I see nothing in verses 22-24 that talks about a future rebellion, only godly justifications for kicking him out. So, I still have not found the elusive second witness.

I gave three witnesses above.

So you acknowledge that there is no second witness to this sin accusation. We know it is true simply because God prophesied it in Gen 3:16 and God is not a false profit. I agree! I would contend the same would be true of any sin Eve was prophesied to have.

See the three witnesses above.

I agree. But hypothetically, if we could demonstrate that this desire was sinful, would you agree that we could conclude that Eve was guilty of it even though there is no second witness, based solely on God’s prophesy. (You seem pretty convinced that Eve’s desire is not sinful, so I suspect you have no problem afirming my hypothetical).

Sure. I believe that Eve’s sinful actions would be confirmed from the Scriptures, but I can also agree that if God said she would commit sin then this prophesy (or continued sin in Eve) would show a sin nature. Buy it would be up to you to prove that this was written as a sin that Eve would be committing. No one has come up with proof of this “sin” yet, but I am always willing to consider the evidence if it were to prove me wrong.