truthseeker,
Wow, I can’t believe the good questions that are continuing to come! This appears to be an area that we can all learn from and the questions pinpoint the areas where we are unclear.

Cheryl, you state that one of the reasons or ‘witnesses’ you see that establishes that Adam had a sin nature is #2.” He was considered by God to be a threat to the tree of life.” This would seem to indicate that he had a sin nature before he even participated in the whole incident of taking from the tree of life. In other words, why would God have considered Adam a threat if he didn’t possess-prior to this incident (the Fall)-a sin nature?

Adam was not a threat to the tree of life before he sinned because God gave him full permission to eat from this tree. Remember in chapter 1 God said that they were permitted to eat from every tree in the garden that had seed bearing fruit. Then in chapter 2 we find out that there is only one tree forbidden so we can be assured that the tree of life had lifegiving seed and it was not forbidden to either Adam or Eve before the fall. It was only after the fall that the tree of life was forbidden to them since they could not die as God said they would if they ate from its fruit.

You don’t state that you believe God also saw Eve as a threat. Therefore, you believe Eve had no sin nature leading up to the Fall. This would imply that God created Adam, alone, with a sin nature (otherwise, where and when did Adam come to possess this sin nature?).

Neither Adam or Eve had a sin nature before the fall. God did not create Adam with a sin nature. How did Adam come to possess this sin nature? He came to possess this sin nature through rebellion by reaching out for and eating from the forbidden tree when he had full knowledge that it could not give him wisdom to become like God. Adam was not deceived. Adam ate in full rebellion and this rebellion caused a change in him.

Yet elsewhere, in other discussions, you stated that the sin nature came as a result of the Fall, not prior to it. That would contradict the basis for your second ‘witness’ here:
Quote from #227 Cheryl: “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.” End of Cheryl’s qoute.

I have never stated that the sin nature came before the fall. It came at the fall and was not a part of Adam’s creation. When Adam hid his sin he already had this sin nature. It wasn’t until the fall that Adam became a threat to the tree of life. And God gave a prophesy about Adam’s future as a sinful man – he would take a rule over his wife that God did not give him.

Does this make better sense?

1. Creation – no sin nature
2. Reaching forth to take and eat the fruit in full rebellion – sin nature now becomes a part of his own human nature.

283 Gengwall says: “Cheryl’s response is basically two fold:1. That Adam’s sin nature, exemplified by the apparent inevitability of him eating from the Tree of Life, is a second witness that Adam sinned outside the garden…” End of quote.

My comment: This statement or summary also attributes to Adam a sin nature PRIOR to eating from the Tree of Life. (It does not imply Gengwall’s agreement of this summary necessarily.)

I think that gengwall would be in agreement with regarding Adam not created with a sin nature and this sin nature came as a result of his willful disobedience.

I see both a view that Adam somehow had his sin nature before the Fall, where in earlier blog discussions on this site that wasn’t the case, and also simply a problem with the sin nature theory itself.

I am not sure how you got confused on this one, but hopefully I have cleared this matter up for you to understand.

There is nothing to say that Adam needed a sin nature to do what he did. Otherwise, if that is the case, then Eve needed a sin nature to sin, also, which I imagine she did after the Fall, during the rest of her life.

No, Adam didn’t need a sin nature to sin. He was given free choice, however without a sin nature, it wasn’t inevitable that he would sin. But sinning in rebellion with full knowledge of the sin and the truth is a very serious issue. Sin is not something that we can fool with and Adam sinning with full knowledge opened the flood gate for a new nature that had a bent towards sin. But Eve did not sin in rebellion so she had no sin nature that would cause her to sin again. God doesn’t give any prophesy about her future sinning and we know that she didn’t have Adam’s sin nature. She could sin because she still had a free will but without deception to take her into sin and with her eyes wide open to the deception that had taken her, she had not reason to sin again. If she continued to sin there would be a problem for what do we do with her sin nature? Is a continued sin nature passed on from Eve to her descendants?

She likely sinned at least once. Speculation, yes, but nowhere in the bible does it say that Eve lived a sinless life.

The Bible is clear about Adam’s sin nature and his continuing to be a threat to continue to rebel, but God gives no such warning about Eve. To charge her with sin would not only be speculative but unwise since we all are entitled to be looked on as innocent until proven guilty. She is not like us, remember?

So, if she can sin without a sin nature, what is to say we need a sin nature to sin? Human nature is plenty capable it appears of making sinful choices.

No one needs a sin nature to sin however without a sin nature there is no compulsion to sin and the sin one does is extremely costly. Lucifer had no sin nature until he took on pride and the desire to rule God and everything else. The sin of one without a sin nature got him severed from God forever. Human nature is plenty capable of making sinful choices as we have the propensity to sin. We are not like Adam and Eve at the creation. We were not created in perfection and with life. We are now created with the propensity to sin at the drop of a hat and we are created with a life that is dying.

I see the following claims-direct or indirect-as being very problematic both here and in other arenas:
Troublesome claims or inferences:
1. Adam had a sin nature pre-Fall,

No such claim is made on this blog.

2. God made Adam with a sin nature?

This is also not claimed by me or anyone here.

3. Yet Eve sinned without having a sin nature? What was the purpose, then, (NOT the consequence) of making Eve able to sin without a sin nature but giving Adam a sin nature?

Eve was deceived into sinning. God chose to give us the free will to choose to obey Him and the freewill to choose to disobey him and be lost. God was not interested in making puppets who loved Him and served Him because they had no choice.

4. All subsequent humans are born with a sin nature (not Jesus, of course.)

This one is true. And Jesus is the seed of the woman who did not have a human father. Again a good reference to a post I wrote is here http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2006/11/20/adam-as-head-of-the-family/