Where did original sin come from ?

[TedT]

Yes they were naked but they were not ashamed.

IF naked is being used here as a synonym for being a sinner as per Rev 3:17 You say, ‘I am rich; I have grown wealthy and need nothing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind, and naked. Berean Standard Bible, which equates being sinful with being blind to your sin, please remember that `rm, naked is the same word used in the very next verse to refer to the serpent's being cunning in evil.

If you can't see the possibilities here, I will explain it to you...

Also, if they were NOT sinners, what did they have to be ashamed about? It is like saying: and they were not ten feet tall!...a meaningless addition.

 

[Rockson]

Also, if they were NOT sinners, what did they have to be ashamed about? It is like saying: and they were not ten feet tall!...a meaningless addition.

They were not sinners before they fell into sin. No they were not. They were spiritually alive. It means being spiritually alive they needed no covering for they had the glory of God. They were naked as far as physical clothes but it couldn't be perceived.

 

[TedT]

???

 

[TibiasDad]

Augustine and Pelagius

Augustine’s doctrine of Original Sin was born from his attempt to combat the heresy of Pelagianism. The controversy began in Rome when the British monk, Pelagius, opposed Augustine’s prayer: “Grant what you command, and command what you desire”. Pelagius was opposing the idea that the divine gift of grace was necessary to perform the will of God. Pelagius believed that if we are responsible for obeying the commandments of God, then we must all also have the ability to do so without divine aid. He went on to deny the doctrine of Ancestral Sin, arguing that the consequences of Adam’s sin are not passed on to the rest of mankind. Adam’s sin affected Adam alone, and thus infants at birth are in the same state as Adam was before the Fall.

Augustine took a starkly different view of the Fall, arguing that mankind is utterly sinful and incapable of good. Augustine believed that the state of Original Sin leaves us in such a condition that we are unable to refrain from sin. The ‘image of God’ in man (i.e., free will) was destroyed by the Fall. As much as we may choose to do good, our evil impulses pervert our free will and compel us to do evil. Therefore we are totally dependent upon grace.

So far did Augustine take his grim view of the human condition, that he argued not only that the Original Sin effects all of Adam’s descendants, but that each person is guilty of the Original Sin from birth (Original Guilt). Infants are therefore guilty of sin and thus infants who die before baptism, in which (according to Augustine) the guilt of Original Sin is removed, are condemned to perdition and cannot be saved. As if that was not bad enough, Augustine went on to formulate the doctrine of Predestination, which affirms that God has foreordained who will be saved and who will not.

Augustine prevailed and Pelagius was condemned as a heretic by Rome at the Council of Carthage in 418. It seemed that Pelagius’ views were more reprehensible to the Latin Church than the idea of predestination and babies burning in hell – views that the Latin Church was not only willing to tolerate, but even willing to champion as Orthodox doctrine!


St John Chrysostom

Between Augustine and Pelagius there appeared to be no middle-way in the West. A different view, however, was expressed in the East by Augustine’s contemporary, John Chrysostom. The dispute between Augustine and Pelagius had not reached the East, and so Chrysostom’s views were not so agitated by heated disputes and polemics. Were Chrysostom involved in the dispute between Augustine and Pelagius, perhaps his teaching on Ancestral Sin would have prevailed over both Pelagius and Augustine alike, but considering that the sole concern of the Latin Church seemed to be the condemnation of Pelagianism, it is probably more likely that he would have been condemned as semi-pelagian.https://pemptousia.com/2017/02/original-sin-orthodox-doctrine-or-heresy/#_edn1 Whatever the case, Chrysostom’s views on the subject have never enjoyed the attention they deserve, and the heated nature of the dispute in the West meant that the doctrine of ‘Original Sin’ as expounded by Augustine was regarded as the only safeguard against the heresy of Pelagianism.

Chrysostom, while claiming that all human beings are made in the image of God, believed that the Ancestral Sin brought corruptibility and death not only to Adam but to all his descendants, weakening his ability to grow into God’s likeness, but never destroying God’s image (free will). Chrysostom is a major voice within a consensus of Greek patristic writers who interpret the Fall as “an inheritance essentially of mortality rather than sinfulness, sinfulness being merely a consequence of mortality”.[ii] Chrysostom’s position is echoed, for example, by St Athanasius the Great and St Cyril of Alexandria, who claimed that we are not guilty of Adam’s sin, though we inherit a corrupted nature; but our free will remains intact. This Greek patristic interpretation is founded upon Romans 5:12: “As sin came into the world through one man, and through sin, death, so death spread to all men because all men have sinned”[iii]. John Meyendorff explains how the deficient Latin translation of the text may have contributed to such a stark difference in the Latin interpretation of the Ancestral Sin:

‘In this passage there is a major issue of translation. The last four Greek words were translated in Latin as in quo omnes peccaverunt (“in whom [i.e., in Adam] all men have sinned”), and this translation was used in the West to justify the guilt inherited from Adam and spread to his descendants. But such a meaning cannot be drawn from the original Greek’.[iv]

St Cyril of Alexandria explained the passage in this way:

“How did many become sinners because of Adam?… How could we, who were not yet born, all be condemned with him, even though God said, ‘Neither the fathers shall be put to death because of their children, nor the children because of their fathers, but the soul which sins shall be put to death’? (cf. Deut. 24:18) … we became sinners through Adam’s disobedience in such manner as this: he was created for incorruptibility and life, and the manner of existence he had in the garden of delight was proper to holiness. His whole mind was continually beholding God; his body was tranquil and calm with all base pleasures being still. For there was no tumult of alien disturbances in it. But because he fell under sin and slipped into corruptibility, pleasures and filthiness assaulted the nature of the flesh, and in our members was unveiled a savage law. Our nature, then, became diseased by sin through the disobedience of one, that is, of Adam. Thus, all were made sinners, not by being co-transgressors with Adam,… but by being of his nature and falling under the law of sin… Human nature fell ill in Adam and subject to corruptibility through disobedience, and, therefore, the passions entered in”.[v]


St John Cassian

The East paid little attention to Augustine, and this was largely due to language barriers. For the Eastern Christians, serious theologians wrote in Greek, and they paid little heed to Latin writers. What opposition did come from the East came from some Eastern Orthodox theologians who, for one reason or another, found themselves living in the West. Amongst the most prominent was St John Cassian. St John opposed Augustine on four major points:

1) There were clearly instances where people had come to God of their own volition, who, while called by Christ and aided by divine grace, chose to change their ways (e.g. Matthew, Paul, Zacchaeus). Therefore, it is not grace alone that saves us, but also man’s willingness to repent.

2) After the Fall, Adam and his descendants retained a knowledge of good, and an impulse, however weakened, to pursue good. Man was not, as Augustine claimed, utterly depraved and incapable of good after the Fall.

3) The ‘Image’ of God in man is sick, but not dead. The divine image is in need of healing, but this healing requires synergy (the co-operation of man’s will with divine grace).

4) God wishes all to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, so those who are not saved reject salvation against His will. Predestination should be understood as foreknowledge and not as foreordination.

The West condemned St John Cassian’s views as semi-pelagian, but for the Orthodox, Cassian is one of the foremost exponents of the Orthodox doctrine of theosis.[vi] His views were supported also by Theodoret of Antioch:

“There is need of both our efforts and divine aid. The grace of the Spirit is not vouchsafed to those who make no effort, and without grace our efforts can not collect the prize of virtue”.


The Ancestral Sin and Baptism


Augustine’s view of Original Sin was the reason also for his justification of infant baptism. Believing that babies are born guilty of sin, he argued that baptism was necessary for the babies’ salvation. He saw the innocence of infants purely in terms of their being physically too weak to commit sin, but equally guilty as adults of Adam’s sin.

The Greek Fathers, having a different view of the Fall and the Ancestral Sin, interpreted the purpose of infant baptism in another way, different in important respects from the familiar Augustinian and Reformed interpretations of the West. The Greek Fathers believed that newborn infants are innocents, wholly without sin. While infants inherit a human nature which, in its wholeness, is wounded by the Ancestral Sin, weakening the will and making each person prone to sin, they are innocent of sin nonetheless. In the fourth of his catechetical homilies on baptism, St John Chrysostom states, “We do baptise infants, although they are not guilty of any sins”. For the Greek Fathers, baptism, above all else, is an acceptance by the Church and entrance of the baptised person into the redeemed and sanctified Body of Christ, the beginning of a life spent in spiritual combat and instruction in holiness on the deepening journey to the Kingdom of God.

Considering the stark contrast between the Orthodox doctrine of the Ancestral Sin and the Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin, and the different understanding of baptism that these doctrines lead to, is it not surprising that some Orthodox speak of baptism in Augustinian terms – of the forgiveness of Original Sin – especially considering that the Orthodox service for baptism makes not a single reference to it? The closest we come to mention of the Ancestral Sin (Πρωπατρορικό ἁμάρτημα) in baptism is in the first prayer of the Service for the Making of a Catechumen (which was originally completely separate from the service of Baptism): “Remove far from him/her that ancient error” (παλαιά πλάνη). If one of the main purposes of baptism was the forgiveness of Original Sin, surely it would be worth mentioning in the baptism service! But the idea of ‘Original Sin’ being “forgiven” is nowhere to be found in the Greek Fathers or in the hymns and prayers of the Orthodox Church. For it is an idea which is alien to Greek Patristic thought. The Ancestral Sin is a condition, primarily of mortality and corruptibility, which needs healing, an inherited ‘illness’ which means that free will – or ‘the Image of God’ as the Greek Fathers preferred to put it – though kept intact, is in need of divine grace in order to progress along the path to attaining God’s ‘likeness’, the path to theosis or ‘deification’.

Conclusion​

Bearing in mind the significant differences between the Orthodox and the Augustinian views of ‘Original Sin’, it surprises me that some Orthodox Christians are so quick to employ the term, claiming that the Orthodox Church holds to the doctrine of ‘Original Sin’, and qualifying this simply by saying that it does not embrace the doctrine of ‘Original Guilt’. I do not think that this is adequate for expounding the Orthodox position on Original Sin. Although Augustine was recognised as a saint by the Orthodox Church,[vii] it has never accepted his teaching on Original Sin. If what I have written above is correct, then the Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin is wholly un-Orthodox, and it led, I believe, to a whole series of heresies in the Latin Church, such as Predestination, Purgatory, Limbo and the Immaculate Conception. We Orthodox would do well to distance ourselves from the well-known Augustinian position on Original Sin by employing a less familiar term: Ancestral Sin. It is not merely a case of semantics. For an erroneous understanding of this doctrine has serious repercussions for our understanding of sin and the Fall, for grace and free will, for baptism, the human condition and man’s deification. In short, how we understand the Ancestral Sin has direct implications for our whole soteriology – our understanding of the salvation of man and the world.https://pemptousia.com/2017/02/original-sin-orthodox-doctrine-or-heresy/

hope this helps !!!

I have always understood Original Sin in the Eastern sense above, and have always explained it it a very similar fashion.

I’ll confess that I’ve never heard the term “Ancestral Sin”, I’ve only said that the term Original Sin has different definitions to explain it.

I call it Original Sin because it is about the effects of Adam’s original action on the human race that would descend from him.

We are not born with guilt, and did not commit any sin while being “in Adam”. This said, Adam’s sin did real damage to his progeny, namely separation from intimate relationship with God. This is the “death” that happened in “the day that you eat of [the tree]”.

Being “spiritually dead” means we are now prone to sin, and this guarantees that we will all sin without fail, and be held responsible for our own sinful actions. The son is not responsible for the father’s sins, or visa-versa. (Ezk 18) We are guilty because of our actions, not Adam’s.

My reasoning for the rejecting the “we are all neutral” argument is that there is a reason that we all have sinned, and not a single person born of Adam has ever not sinned. Philosophically and logically speaking, you would think that at least one person would have made it if we are not ‘born to sin’, and scripturally, we could not have been told that “there is none righteous, no not one”!

I don’t think we have to avoid the term Original Sin just because we reject the Augustinian miscalculations of it that Calvin turned into a pig with lipstick!

In the end, the question is really a moot point because, as I and scripture have said, “we all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”


Doug

 

[TedT]

I call it Original Sin because it is about the effects of Adam’s original action on the human race that would descend from him.

Since I cannot credit HIS visiting the effects of Adam's sin on those newly created after him as loving, righteous and just, I tend to credit our original sin to our own free will decision about YHWH's proclamation of Deity and the gospel found in the Son, Col 1:23, which separated all of HIS creation into the demonic reprobate, the holy elect and and the sinful elect who chose to rebel once they had the promise of election and were safe from hell. Of course this means we are not being created here on earth but have had a long existence pre-earth and were sent here by GOD, ie sown into mankind as per Matt 13:36-39.

We pay lip service to the ideas that we can become sinful only by a free will decision to rebel and that GOD cannot create evil but then hide these truths from ourselves in the back of our minds because some elders have told us we are being created here on earth as sinners...sigh.

 

[TibiasDad]

Since I cannot credit HIS visiting the effects of Adam's sin on those newly created after him as loving, righteous and just

Before I answer any further, to whom does “HIS” refer?


Doug

 

[TedT]

Before I answer any further, to whom does “HIS” refer?


Doug

YHWH, the Trinity.

 

[civic]

Since I cannot credit HIS visiting the effects of Adam's sin on those newly created after him as loving, righteous and just, I tend to credit our original sin to our own free will decision about YHWH's proclamation of Deity and the gospel found in the Son, Col 1:23, which separated all of HIS creation into the demonic reprobate, the holy elect and and the sinful elect who chose to rebel once they had the promise of election and were safe from hell. Of course this means we are not being created here on earth but have had a long existence pre-earth and were sent here by GOD, ie sown into mankind as per Matt 13:36-39.

We pay lip service to the ideas that we can become sinful only by a free will decision to rebel and that GOD cannot create evil but then hide these truths from ourselves in the back of our minds because some elders have told us we are being created here on earth as sinners...sigh.

None of those classes of "elect" are found in scripture. If you can find them then by all means post the verses stating those categories of the elect.

 

[TedT]

None of those classes of "elect" are found in scripture. If you can find them then by all means post the verses stating those categories of the elect.

Are you certain or just caught up in orthodoxy??

Some people are elect since the foundation of the world, right?
And all people are sinners from at least the time of their conception (if not before), right?
Therefore there are some elect sinful people on earth....the sinful people of the kingdom.

The good seed in the parable of the weeds are called good when we know they are sinners because they are liable to be pulled up with the weeds if the judgment is called too soon: Matt 13:27-30. Therefore good cannot have the meaning of moral righteousness but rather is a status word referring to their being HIS elect and not to be confused with the reprobate weeds, ie, they are not the same before GOD. That is, the good seed refers to HIS sinful elect, sown into the world to be redeemed.

As for the holy elect, we need to look no farther than the angels, those heavenly spirits working for GOD as HIS messengers - - angels is NOT a word describing a race or type of being like the word spirit does but is a job description.

2. Some angels are elect:
1 Timothy 5:21 I charge thee before GOD and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the ELECT angels. implying the fallen angels are non-elect demons ie the people of the evil one, the tares, sown into the world by the devil. IF angels can choose to sin and become demons, they can also choose to be holy and work for GOD...angel being a job description, NOT a race or type of being.

3. Angels are holy:
Mark 8:38 If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the HOLY angels. This verse contrasts the sinfulness of men with the holiness, that is, the righteousness, of angels by their free will, not just their consecration to GOD.

So it seems like we do have some sinful elect and some holy elect after all.

 

[Joe]

@Rockson Your quoted reply from here. "They were not sinners before they fell into sin. No they were not. They were spiritually alive. It means being spiritually alive they needed no covering for they had the glory of God. They were naked as far as physical clothes but it couldn't be perceived."

My reply...

"And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed." (Gen 2:25)

This means they felt no embarrassment for being naked, which means they were like a child who knows no better to run around naked. They did not have the knowledge of good and evil. They were in a state of innocence.

"she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths." (Gen 3:6-7)

This means by eating the fruit they acquired the knowledge of good and evil and realized they were naked and felt embarrassed-ashamed of being so, which means the fruit did what it was to do, give them the knowledge to know they should not be naked.

Now before anyone objects please do me a favor and do what our Lord would do. Did He take off His clothes and run around naked, or did He know better and stay clothed?

The naked used in Genesis does not imply any spiritual metaphor. It means what it says in the physical meaning of nakedness and proves the fruit did give them the knowledge of good and evil, and it did in fact have man become like God knowing good and evil. "Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil."

Except for children and those who have seared their conscience, we all know it is wrong to run around naked and would be ashamed if we were naked in front of others. The only reason we know this is because A&E ate the fruit from the tree of G&E.

God Bless

 

[Rockson]

The naked used in Genesis does not imply any spiritual metaphor. It means what it says in the physical meaning of nakedness and proves the fruit did give them the knowledge of good and evil, and it did in fact have man become like God knowing good and evil. "Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil."

No I didn't mean it as a spiritual metaphor. I believe in the natural they were naked but they had the presence and glory upon them and it was like a covering. In that LIFE, and in the LIGHT GLORY was the power which backed up their dominion. If your natural eye were upon them I suggest you might have seen what I'll call glory garments.....like what the angels are clothed with Mt 28 and what Jesus appeared like at the Mt of Transfiguration.

I can't prove that but it is what consider was their experience. Good news is too that we have God's same glory in our spirits now. if were born again. Hebrews 4 states we have this treasure in our earthen vessels that is the glory of God, the LIFE of God. I suspect at the resurrection that which is veiled within us now that glory will rise up and transform our bodies to be like unto the body of Jesus resurrection body. If we could only comprehend how so very much God, Jesus the Father and Holy Spirit as so close to us now ...our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit . The Kingdom of God is within us!

 

[TibiasDad]

Since I cannot credit HIS visiting the effects of Adam's sin on those newly created after him as loving, righteous and just,

First, thanks for the clarification! Forgive my dullness, my head cold is messing with my processing skills at the moment, but I don’t “credit” anything to God at all. Sin has consequences, both punitive and protracted which affect others; just ask a family torn apart by adultery! Legally only the cheating spouse is culpable, but the extended family is effected as well.

Adam’s sin separated the race by which they are named, Adam, Mankind. The effects of that divorce cost him his home and relative ease of caring for the garden. This leaves us apart from God relationally and, for lack of a better word, without aid or protection from sin. It is the natural result of Adam’s actions, not something God “credits” or places on us.

I tend to credit our original sin to our own free will decision about YHWH's proclamation of Deity and the gospel found in the Son, Col 1:23,

Again, I’m not quite sure what you are trying to say here, as Col 1:23, “if you continue in your faith, established and firm, and do not move from the hope held out in the gospel”, doesn’t say anything about what you have said,”.

which separated all of HIS creation into the demonic reprobate, the holy elect and and the sinful elect who chose to rebel once they had the promise of election and were safe from hell.

I’m sorry, but this is ridiculous thinking. There are no such categories as “the demonic reprobate, the holy elect and the sinful elect. Nor is the theology that suggest things like “the sinful elect who chose to rebel once they had the promise of election and were safe from hell.”

Of course this means we are not being created here on earth but have had a long existence pre-earth and were sent here by GOD, ie sown into mankind as per Matt 13:36-39.

Again, your citation of Matt 13:36-39, like the Col 1:23 passage, has no correlation with the meaning you attach to it.

We pay lip service to the ideas that we can become sinful only by a free will decision to rebel

We don’t become sinful, we become sinners and guilty. We are sinful because we do not have life and are thereby inclined to hear and respond to the voice of sin/the tempter more easily. We become sinners by our choices, we tend to choose sin because we are sinful!

and that GOD cannot create evil but then hide these truths from ourselves in the back of our minds because some elders have told us we are being created here on earth as sinners...sigh.

A holy God cannot create that which is contrary to his nature. He can allow it to occur, but cannot “create” evil! By giving us free will, God necessitates the need to choose something other than what he represents. It is a logical potential not real until chosen by another free moral being. God doesn’t create it, he creates the potential for evil, but not the necessity of its occurrence.


Doug

 

[Joe]

I don’t “credit” anything to God at all. Sin has consequences, both punitive and protracted which affect others; just ask a family torn apart by adultery! Legally only the cheating spouse is culpable, but the extended family is effected as well.

Adam’s sin separated the race by which they are named, Adam, Mankind. The effects of that divorce cost him his home and relative ease of caring for the garden. This leaves us apart from God relationally and, for lack of a better word, without aid or protection from sin. It is the natural result of Adam’s actions, not something God “credits” or places on us.

A holy God cannot create that which is contrary to his nature. He can allow it to occur, but cannot “create” evil! By giving us free will, God necessitates the need to choose something other than what he represents. It is a logical potential not real until chosen by another free moral being. God doesn’t create it, he creates the potential for evil, but not the necessity of its occurrence.

Amen brother!

 

[civic]

Amen brother!

I third that remark.

 

[e v e]

Ted

the flawed argument of not being affected by adam:

"so a soul is unable to walk with God in the garden anymore and must still be in the garden... no problem. "

"because what adam did did not affect the soul ... but i need my walker."

".. and now this perishable body must be also because Adam s crime did not affect the soul. wait i need my blood thinner."

oh but yeah... the soul is saved.
what's a little cancer, disease death...war, dementia oh and storms destroying hawaiian villages and a 1000 missing."

"^^^^^^ but totally logical this is His creation and it is Good."

right?


wrong. (imo of course)

 

[e v e]

None of those classes of "elect" are found in scripture. If you can find them then by all means post the verses stating those categories of the elect.

the elect is in reality what s meant as His souls here on this earth...
the sons who fell and will be restored to their land which is paradise.....
who lost eden because of adam...
and will be led by Christ out of this nightmare prison
at the Change....

and who are the 144k...
and who He knew before eden fell...
this includes both sons and daughters of Him...
but tis the sons who will rebuild Eden with Christ
and will be her caretakers...

restored eden , as new earth , is the same promised land
always promised even since the OT, which was
rejected and that rejection causing captivity...

His sons will be restored to His creation
therefore His Creation will be Restored!
which satan plotted to make fall and which adam
went along with...
paradise will be restored

We will go Home...
until then.. we have His promise though we be prisoners
in this foreign land...

and hopefully, many if not all of His souls will
understand this and will want to go Home now please
and will not align to adam

 

[e v e]

His souls are His because He is our ACTUAL Father..
we came from Him...

so not some hocus pocus thing with getting elected
and a bunch of others were not for no really good reason..
He is not illogical or mean... ever!

some have satan as a father...
and so that is a really good reason
they cannot go to paradise..
as they were never from paradise
or from God...

their mindset and desire is sin...and vampiring... and war...
--- this flesh world that does not love....
and that mindset of this world is not compatible to
going to His eden paradise
which is Love and Caring and Life....

 

[TedT]

Col 1:23, “if you continue in your faith, established and firm, and do not move from the hope held out in the gospel”, doesn’t say anything about what you have said,”.

Maybe because the part that has meaning for me is in the part that you pass over and don't quote. But I also do not expect you to see what I see in any verse because you do not have the eyes to see the theology of our pre-conception existence (PCE) yet at all. If it was openly seen, then it would not be hidden and would be part of every doctrinal hermeneutic...

I also have no idea what you believe about these verses in which you scorn my interpretative offerings because you just claim I am wrong without telling me what the truth really is... I look forward to your interpretation of both Col 1:23 and Matt 13:36-39.

The part of this long verse I'm referring to is the following: Col 1:23...if indeed you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope of the gospel you heard, which has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, ...Berean Standard Bible
in the meaning of the implication of the gospel which we have heard having already been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, in which every creature under heaven
surely may be read to refer to every person ever created without doing any damage to the meaning of the words but only bumps heads with orthodoxy's insistence that people are being newly created (as sinners) all the time.

I am told that has been proclaimed is a past tense which indicates a finished and completed action which then may be repeated in the future. If every creature under heaven has heard this proclamation as a finished act, then it is not being finished here and now on earth, implying that we all heard this gospel in the distant past, pre-earth as pre-conception existence theology contends.

IF every person ever created has heard the gospel then there can't be new people being created sinful and needing to learn the gospel and make a free will choice (while enslaved to sin) to accept it or not. Nor does this every creature under heaven cover the billions of people who never heard the gospel at all in history past in which billions more people have never heard the gospel in the world than the few who have heard it in this last 2000 years while this verse contends that every person has heard it.

So we see there is a choice here, not just an open and shut case that pce can't possibly be found in this verse.

Again, your citation of Matt 13:36-39, like the Col 1:23 passage, has no correlation with the meaning you attach to it.

The meaning I attach to Matt 13:36-39 is explicit in the use of the word EXPLAIN, V36:
Strong's 1285. diasapheó - to make clear, explain fully
and from Thayer's Greek Lexicon: 1. to make clear or plain, to explain, unfold, declare.
I contend that to use a metaphor or other literary device in an explanation of a metaphor is to not explain it at all but only to provide an extension of the metaphor. Iow, verses 37-39 are to be taken at face value as the gospel truth of who the weeds and the good seed are and how we got to be here in this world.

Sheep are NOT reborn goats.
Good seed are NOT reborn tares.

The Son of Man sows the sinful people of the kingdom into the world.
The devil sows the reprobate people of the evil one into the world.
That means they are separated into these groups before they get sown / born into this world, not after.
And for those who need the reminder, to sow does not mean to create but to move from a storage bin to a field for growing. The storage bin for sinful spirits would seem to be Sheol as per: Ps 9:17 The wicked will RETURN to Sheol—all the nations who forget God.
Berean Standard Bible. To return means in ordinary language to go back to someplace you have been before, which in this verse refers to Sheol, even though the KJV does its best to dissuade us from ever seeing the word return by their deliberate mistranslation of return to hide from our perusal what they consider a heresy.

 

[TedT]

We don’t become sinful, we become sinners and guilty. We are sinful because we do not have life and are thereby inclined to hear and respond to the voice of sin/the tempter more easily. We become sinners by our choices, we tend to choose sin because we are sinful!

Too sophisticated for me, sigh. We are conceived in sin and as sinners we die in the womb for death is the wages of sin, not a consequence of life. NO innocent except Christ has ever died as they have no sin but infants in the womb die all the time.

If we are sinners and guilty in Adam (as proven by our being able to die) then that is GOD's choice to make us sinners in Adam in that we had no free will choice to be in or not to be in Adam.
We are in Adam by GOD's will not our own.
If being in Adam causes us to be sinners or sinful liable to die then it is by HIS will, not ours.
And all the sophisticated word games that are played and believed to be able to ignore this conclusion are moot: GOD cannot create evil or sinners by any means, even by a surrogate like Adam.
Light cannot create darkness.
A good tree cannot put forth rotten fruit.
A stream of life giving water cannot put forth salt or brackish water.
Psalm 5:4 You are not a God who takes pleasure in evil; with you the wicked cannot dwell. so why would HE make /create all of us, including HIS Bride, as sinners or sinful in Adam? HE would not!

No one becomes sinful sinner by any other means than by their free will decision to rebel against GOD or one of HIS commands, not by Adam.

 

[e v e]

what if it is adam's disobedient Choice ?
Not God's...

God is not evil... nor creates evil.. ever.

as for we , we are prisoners and so have few if any! choices...


In fact, Adam is the prince of the air. Adam is the subject of the Lucifer chapter.

Adam rules (here) and maintains the sealed vision/corrupt scroll along with his satanic minions.