Ok, but I have not heard anything from that person which was Unitarian.
Transmitting The Fallen Nature
- Thread starter Olde Tymer
- Start date
koberstein
Active member
edit by admin
Last edited by a moderator:
Please read the rules over gentlemen. If you cannot accept someone's Beliefs Please put them on ignore and not make derogatory comments about the person.
INHERITED CONSEQUENCES
Inherited consequences is the view that all people inherit the consequences of Adam’s sin, such as a corrupt nature, mortality, and a fallen world; however, people become guilty and fall under God’s condemnation due to their own sin alone. This was the Christian position before Augustine and has been affirmed by many throughout the history of the church. Significant historical support is provided for this view because, typically, it is not represented as a viable option in most works of systematic theology. These examples of the inherited consequences view also provide a critique of the varieties of the inherited guilt view
Adam Harwood, Christian Theology: Biblical, Historical, and Systematic (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Academic, 2022), 374.
koberstein
Active member
Again it is well to begin with the commonalities. For example, Jews and Christians agree that man is made in the image of God.
Some Christian theologies suppose that sin has damaged this image, whereas others locate the damage elsewhere. Jewish theology
does not speak of a damaged image. In any case, I submit "God created man in his image" as my candidate for the most profound
statement in the entire Bible.
Jews and Christians acknowledge the rather obvious fact that human beings sin. Beyond this, the theologies of sin move in
opposite directions. The Christian notion of "original sin" strikes many Jewish people as grossly unfair----why should we today
be punished for the sin of Adam long ago? Likewise "total depravity" suggests that everyone practices the grossest forms of vice;
but this is not what theologians mean by the term. Is man a sinner because he sins, or does he sin because he is a sinner?
Jews say the former, Christians the latter. But does the answer matter practically? No matter which is right, the fact remains
that people do violate God's will----as the tanakh reminds us, "there is no one who does [only] good and doesn't sin.
Although the Jewish theology of sin is "defensive," it strikes me that Christian theories of sin too follow a hidden agenda, which
is to impress on people how seriously God takes sin. Possibly that goal can be achieved with descriptions of man's sinful character
which pose fewer intellectual problems and just as true to the scriptural facts as the Augustinian versions that have dominated
Christian thinking since he wrote. And in fact there other versions exist; were the theories of Arminius, Cocceius and John Wesley
(none of whom are considered heretical like Augustine's opponent Pelagius) better known in Jewish circles, some of the problems
in this area of theology might be alleviated.
On the matter of atonement for sin, Messianic Judaism should be sure to bring out all that the New Testament teaches on the subject,
for Christianity tends to gloss over the very elements which Judaism stresses. In order for Yeshua's atonement to be effective, a person
who has sinned must not only admit his sin, he must repent---which means being determined not to commit the sin again; he must
be sorry---not out of self pity but out of distress at having offended other people and God; and he must make restitution to the
person wronged. From Christianity one seems to hear mostly how willing God is to forgive, from Judaism how crucial it is for us
to do all we can to right the wrong. But righting wrongs is scriptural in both the Tanakh and the New Testament, as is God's desire
to forgive the repentant sinner.
The sacrificial system must be discussed. Christians must understand that the tanakh's system of sacrifices, although it looked forward
to Yeshua the Messiah's final sacrifice for sin, was efficacious. Jews must come to realize that it takes more than "prayer, repentance
and charity" to "avert the evil decree," because the decreed penalty for sin is death (Genesis 2:17): hence the need for a sacrifice,
a death. The practice of kapparot (sacrificing a chicken) at Yom Kippur in some Orthodox Jewish circles witnesses to a vestigial
awareness of the importance of sacrifice, but this custom is probably not even known to the majority of Jews.
Jews question how Yeshua's sacrifice can have been effective, given that God hates human sacrifice. First, no other human being's
sacrifice could have been effective, because no one else was sinless, without blemish, as is required of sacrifices. Second, God's
hate for human sacrifice show all the more how much he loved us: he sacrificed his son despite it. Thus God's sacrifice was real.
Jews suppose the ideas of vicarious atonement and mediation between God and man are Christian; but they are entirely Jewish,
illustrated in the Tanakh by the animal sacrifices and the priests, respectively. Once more, the basic New Testament source on
these subjects is Messianic Jews [Hebrews], especially Chapters 7-10, which relate the animal sacrifices and Levitical priesthood
of the Torah to Yeshua's once-for-all, death-conquering self sacrifice and consequent eternal high priesthood.
Shalom
Bob Carabbio
Well-known member
The only "Consequence" that we inherited was a cursed EARTH (Gen 3:17) which was made subject to vanity. Adam fell into sin easily just like we do - WITHOUT BENEFIT of the fictitious "Sin Nature" that he supposedly passed down to us.
loss of access to the tree of life and fellowship with God in the garden
Um all theories of original sin do not charge man with the guilt of Adam
half do not
SIX MAJOR VIEWS OF ORIGINAL SIN
Christians affirm various views of original sin. When phrased as a question, the doctrine seeks to answer, What—if anything—do subsequent generations inherit as a result of Adam’s sin in the garden? Six major views have developed: denial of inheritance, four varieties of inherited guilt, and inherited consequences. The major ecumenical councils of the first four centuries did not address original sin. Rather, those councils addressed topics such as the humanity and divinity of Christ and the Trinity. Thus, the wider church has not affirmed a consensus position on original sin. The major views are described below.
DENIAL OF INHERITANCE
The first major view of original sin is called denial of inheritance. According to this perspective, the human problem of sin is not an inheritance of Adam and Eve because either they did not exist or their sin had an existential effect only on subsequent generations. Karl Barth exemplifies this view. Barth situates his discussion of sin in his treatment of the person and work of Christ. He explains, “Only when we know Jesus Christ do we really know that man is the man of sin, and what sin is, and what it means for man.” Barth continues, “The God against whom the man of sin contends has judged this man, and therefore myself as this man, in the self-offering and death of Jesus Christ His own Son, putting him to death, and destroying him.” Barth emphasizes that sin is known by its judgment by God in the death and resurrection of Jesus. Barth writes, “Jesus Christ suffered and died in our place.” Human pride is the root of sin, disobedience, and unbelief, and it is the antithesis of Jesus’s life and ministry. Though Barth affirms humans as sinners and human sin as the reason for the redemption provided by Christ, Barth does not link human sin with the sinful acts of the first couple in the garden. He writes, “The idea of a hereditary sin which has come to man by propagation is an extremely unfortunate and mistaken one.” He identified the roots of the idea in Romans 5:12 and Psalm 51:5. The Pauline text points to a connection between Adam and his posterity but “is not referring to an actualisation of that connexion within the world, the propagating and inheriting of the sin of Adam.” The psalm should be understood as describing human life as one of transgression from the beginning. “Original sin” should be addressed, not “hereditary sin.” Every person is “necessarily and inevitably corrupt” because every person sins and brings judgment on himself, not because of a connection to Adam. According to Barth, Adam was a representative figure for all people. The creation account and the figure of Adam should be read as saga, but not as history.48 Thus, Barth affirmed the fall of humanity into sin and the need for redemption in Christ, but he denied Adam was a historical person and that the fall was a historical event.
VARIETIES OF INHERITED GUILT
Inherited guilt refers to a category of perspectives affirming that as a result of Adam’s sin, all people inherit a corrupt nature, mortality, a fallen world, and guilt. Varieties include realism, mediate imputation, federalism, and conditional imputation.
Realism
Realism refers to the view that all people are both corrupt and guilty of Adam’s sin because they were present with him in the garden. Augustine is the exemplar of this view. As described above in the summary and critique of Augustine’s later writings, he regarded humanity as seminally present in Adam when he sinned in the garden. Augustine writes, “In our own persons we did not yet exist, but we were present in Adam, and therefore whatever befell Adam was our fate too.” In The City of God, Augustine explains, “For we all were in that one man, since we all were that one man.” He adds, “Already the seminal nature was there from which we were to be propagated; and this being vitiated by sin, and justly condemned, man could not be born of man in any other state.” Thus, we were present with Adam and were produced from a nature corrupted by that first sin. Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758) also affirms a realist view of original sin. He explains, “God, in each step of his proceeding with Adam, in relation to the covenant or constitution established with him, looked on his posterity as being one with him.” Edwards compares God’s dealings with subsequent generations through Adam as dealing with the root of a tree. God “dealt with all the branches, as if they had been then existing in their root.” He continues, “Both guilt, or exposedness to punishment, and also depravity of heart, came upon Adam’s posterity just as they came upon him, as much as if he and they had all coexisted, like a tree with many branches.” Edwards concludes there is “a constituted oneness or identity of Adam and his posterity in this affair.” The emphasis in the realism view is that Adam’s posterity was present with him in the garden and, for that reason, guilty of his sin.
Mediate Imputation
Mediate imputation is the view that Adam’s descendants inherit corruption, but guilt is mediated through one’s own sinful acts. Thus, according to this view, Adam’s posterity is guilty due to original sin, but not for the sins of Adam and Eve. John Calvin is a prime example of this perspective. According to Calvin, Adam ruined the human race when he sinned. The curse flowed from Adam’s guilt to his offspring. He referred to the “inherited corruption, which the church fathers termed ‘original sin.’ ” Calvin explains that “sin was transmitted from the first man to all his posterity,” and “we bear inborn defect from our mother’s womb.” Calvin’s previous statement is supported in the editorial notes by several citations from Augustine’s writings. Calvin adds, “Therefore all of us, who have descended from impure seed, are born infected with the contagion of sin.” Calvin follows this statement by quoting from Job 14:4, an Augustinian prooftext for the guilt of infants.
Calvin, however, does not follow Augustine’s later views of original sin. Though Calvin refers to “inborn defect” and claims that “contagion crept into human nature,” he denies that Adam’s posterity is guilty of his sin. Calvin affirms infant guilt. He writes, “Hence, as Augustine says, whether a man is a guilty unbeliever or an innocent believer, he begets not innocent but guilty children, for he begets them from a corrupted nature.” Calvin states his meaning explicitly, “Original sin, therefore, seems to be a hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature, diffused into all parts of the soul, which first makes us liable to God’s wrath, then also brings forth in us those works which Scripture calls ‘works of the flesh.’ ” Our perverted and corrupt nature condemns us before God, but “this is not liability for another’s transgression.” In other words, humans are guilty because of the corrupt human nature we receive at the beginning of life, but our guilt does not proceed from Adam’s sin alone. Rather, “we through his transgression have become entangled in the curse.” Calvin concludes, “For that reason, even infants themselves, while they carry their condemnation along with them from the mother’s womb, are guilty not of another’s fault but of their own. For, even though the fruits of their iniquity have not yet come forth, they have the seed enclosed within them.” Calvin’s views were rooted in Augustinian presuppositions. Calvin repeated the church father’s views on the defective seed and corruption of human nature as a result of Adam’s sin. However, Calvin differed with him on original sin at the point of guilt. Calvin regarded people to be guilty due to their own inherited corruption, not due to any realist or federalist view.
Federalism
Federalism refers to the view that all people are corrupt and guilty of Adam’s sin because he represented humanity in the garden. Francis Turretin taught this view. The dual covenant of nature and grace is a foundational concept of federalism. Turretin explains, “In the former [the covenant of nature], God as Creator demands perfect obedience from innocent man with the promise of life and eternal happiness; but in the latter [the covenant of grace], God as Father promises salvation in Christ to the fallen man under the condition of faith.” A contract was implied in the garden because God gave Adam a command to obey. The reason for the fall was not an inborn inclination to sin—since Adam was righteous prior to the fall—but the misuse of his free will. Adam was “created capable of falling.” Though tempted by Satan, Adam alone was to blame for his first sin. The effects of Adam’s sin on himself and subsequent generations included corruption, guilt, and the loss of original righteousness. As a result, every person born of a woman—with the exception of Jesus—enters the world in the condition of Adam after his fall, without original righteousness and corrupt and spiritually dead. Turretin explains,
The bond between Adam and his posterity is twofold: (1) natural, as he is the father, and we are his children; (2) political and forensic, as he was the prince and representative head of the whole human race. Therefore the foundation of imputation is not only the natural connection which exists between us and Adam (since, in that case, all his sins might be imputed to us), but mainly the moral and federal (in virtue of which God entered into covenant with him as our head). Hence Adam stood in that sin not as a private person, but as a public and representative person—representing all his posterity in that action and whose demerit equally pertains to all.
Turretin argues for the imputation of sin from the parallel between Adam and Christ in Romans 5:12–21. Though Turretin affirms the seminal view, he adds and prioritizes the federal view.59 According to the federal view, all people are sinners and guilty because Adam, while representing the human race, violated the covenant he made with God in the garden.
Conditional Imputation
Conditional imputation is the view that all people are corrupt and ratify the guilt of Adam when they knowingly commit their first sinful act. Millard Erickson (b. 1932) advocates this view in his writings. According to Erickson, all of humanity (excluding Jesus Christ) participated in the sin and guilt of Adam in the garden. But, he explains, the Lord excludes from condemnation “infants and those who never reach moral competency.” Erickson points to classic biblical texts for support. First, Jesus held up infants and children as examples of people who would inherit the kingdom (Matt 19:14). Second, David declared that he would one day see his deceased infant (2 Sam 12:23). Erickson writes that people are “not morally responsible before a certain point, which we sometimes call ‘the age of accountability.’ ”
Erickson begins his defense of the age of accountability with Deuteronomy 1:39, a text that explains that the Israelite children were not held responsible for the sinful actions of the older generations. Isaiah 7:15–16 and Jonah 4:11 also refer to this period when people do not yet know the difference between good and evil, right and wrong. Erickson then notes the Adam-Christ parallel in Romans 5. Just as one must personally ratify the obedient act of Christ on the cross in order to be saved, one must personally ratify the disobedient work of Adam in the garden in order to be condemned. Erickson affirms a conditional imputation of Adam’s guilt with “no condemnation until one reaches the age of moral responsibility.” At that point, when we become aware of our “tendency toward sin” and then make a decision to commit a sinful action due to our sinful nature, then our “childish innocence” ends. He explains, “We become responsible and guilty when we accept or approve of our corruption.”63 At that point, we ratify the work of Adam in our own lives, and the guilt of Adam is imputed to us.
INHERITED CONSEQUENCES
Inherited consequences is the view that all people inherit the consequences of Adam’s sin, such as a corrupt nature, mortality, and a fallen world; however, people become guilty and fall under God’s condemnation due to their own sin alone. This was the Christian position before Augustine and has been affirmed by many throughout the history of the church. Significant historical support is provided for this view because, typically, it is not represented as a viable option in most works of systematic theology. These examples of the inherited consequences view also provide a critique of the varieties of the inherited guilt view.
Adam Harwood, Christian Theology: Biblical, Historical, and Systematic (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Academic, 2022), 366–374.
Bob Carabbio
Well-known member
And immediate spiritual Death. Just like we suffer when we begin to SIN. Adam's HUMAN NATURE never changed. only his environment did.
Sure it did. He was created innocent. He then acquired the knowledge of good and evil
Bob Carabbio
Well-known member
At least he understood the CONSEQUENCES of choosing EVIL over God's commands. I don'e see ant "change" in his HUMAN NATURE, though. He decided to toss God under the bus with his "Perfect" and "Innocent" nature. There WAS a significant change in his ENVIRONMENT, since the "Ground" was cursed for his sake, and the Creation was made subject to "Vanity" (Rom 8:20).
The loss of original innocence.
Bob Carabbio
Well-known member
but the same Human Nature that we all have.
after the fall
Bob Carabbio
Well-known member
Nothing about our "nature" changed after the fall. Adam tossed God under the bus Without benefit of a "Sinful nature".
Loss of original innocence
Bob Carabbio
Well-known member
SO nothing, then.
Its more than nothing
All were born without that original innocence and now knew good and evil
The Rogue Tomato
Well-known member
So, what you're saying is that we're all created innocent, like Adam, and prone to sin, like Adam. So God created humans to be deficient so that There is none righteous, no, not one; 11 There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God. That's what God created. It has nothing to do with being fallen, right?
