Adam's fall and its consequences

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Dec 28, 2016
5,455
236
63
#1
Of course Pelagius was called a heretic. He was contra Augustine. As for babies being born 'tabula rasa' - "a clean slate" - we can agree.
Are you saying babies are not born tabula rasa? I do not believe they are.

When does a person become responsible for their actions?
Well, the bible does say to know to do good and not do it, to them it is sin.

When does a person become, "a sinner?" At conception? At birth? At some age-of-accountability? Christians have been debating this issue for millennia. If it wasn't for this question there wouldn't have been Anabaptists or modern day Baptists; Amish or Mennonites.
David wrote "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."[Psalm 51:5] Then he wrote "Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward, spreading lies.[SUP] [/SUP]Their venom is like the venom of a snake, like that of a cobra that has stopped its ears,[SUP] [/SUP]that will not heed the tune of the charmer, however skillful the enchanter may be."[Psalm 58:3-5] So, we are born sinners and when we grew enough to put it into action, we sinned. An infant will take things they know are not theirs, and that is stealing. They will tell you a big honking falsity to keep from getting their 'bum bum' heated, and that is lying. When they get mad, they will slap, scratch, scream, bite, because they did not get their way. Babies are not the 'sweet little angels' ppl make them out to be. My wife and I do not have kids, but I've been around enough nieces and nephews to know, see and feel their hatred when things do not go their way.


Are you suggesting infants lie, steal, or consciously comprehend what it means to violate any of the Ten Commandments?
Well, they do know from their parents what is right and what is wrong. They know that if they get caught, to try to lie or deflect the blame to someone else to keep from getting into trouble.
 
Dec 28, 2016
5,455
236
63
#2
I appreciate your concession, SovereignGrace.
I would not consider that a concession, but I am just not sure how He deals with babies. The bible is not explicitly clear about it. There's David's saying in 2 Samuel 12, but I tend to think he is referring to the grave, as someone is grieving and would want to die and be with their loved one in the grave, but I could be wrong. I do know that He commanded the Jews to kill their enemies, all the way down to the babies. So, He does not view them as 'sweet little angels' like we do, it seems.

Do you think Paul would have held infants accountable?
Well, we are either in Adam or the Christ. There is no other option(s) available. We are born in Adam, as fallen creatures. However God views them is up to Him. I just rest in knowing He will do what is right every time. If He deems them as sinners and casts them into hell, then He deemed it right, and I will rest in that. If He deems them to be saved, and ushers them into heaven, then He deemed it right, and I will rest in that.

Considering his statements in Romans 5:12; First Corinthians 15:21,22 there is an argument to think he would have everyone deemed 'a sinner'.
I believe that is what he averred is that we are indeed, born sinners.
 
Dec 28, 2016
5,455
236
63
#3
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—[Romans 5:12]

Notice, it says because all sinned. Now, who are the 'all' here in focus? Those he acted as a representative for. Now, who was he a representative for? All of humanity, all his posterity. When he sinned and fell, it plunged everyone of us into sin and death. His sin was imputed to us, and God now sees us as if we were the ones who sinned. That's why babies die in the womb.

God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.[2 Corinthians 5:21]

Here we see the same concept at work. The Christ was sinless and ever will be the sinless Christ of God. However, whilst in Gethsamane's garden, He prayed three times for that most bitter cup to pass from Him. Why? In the hand of the Lord is a cup full of foaming wine mixed with spices; he pours it out, and all the wicked of the earth drink it down to its very dregs.[Psalm 75:8] That most bitter cup had our sins in it, and with them came His Father's wrath. He was imputed our sins, and once He was imputed our sins, He became sin. He now stood before His Father as if He had sinned, though He had never sinned even once. Through not fault of His own, He stood before His God as a condemned sinner.

Through no fault of our own, we stood before our God a condemned sinner as an infant. However He deals with those who die in infancy, only He knows.
 
Oct 21, 2017
30
0
0
#4
Are you saying babies are not born tabula rasa? I do not believe they are.
Tabula Rasa means, "a clean slate." My position is babies do not know right from wrong. Hence, they are a 'clean slate.'

Well, the bible does say to know to do good and not do it, to them it is sin.
The quote from James 4:17 KJV reads: "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin."

Not, them but him.


Well David wrote "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."[Psalm 51:5]

Here's a different translation: “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.” (Psalm. 51:5 KJV)

Nothing there regarding David being a sinner. A strong case can be made that this is talking about the defilement of David’s mother because she was previously the wife of, or the concubine of, a heathen king. David had two half-sisters named Zeruiah and Abigail (1 Chron. 2:13-16). The father of David’s half sisters was not Jesse but Nahash (2 Sam. 17:25). Nahash was an Ammonite king (1 Sam. 11:1; 1 Sam. 12:12). David’s father was Jesse, not Nahash, but David’s half sisters were daughters of Nahash. This could explain why Nahash showed kindness toward David (2 Sam. 10:2).

David’s mother was most likely the second wife of Jesse. The first wife of Jesse would have been considered superior to his second wife, as his second wife had been either the concubine or wife of a heathen king. This would explain why David’s half brothers viewed themselves as superior to David, and why David was considered prideful for thinking he was as good as them (1 Sam. 17:28-30). This may explain why David was not called before Samuel the prophet amongst the other sons, as he was viewed as the embarrassment of the family and possibly was an illegitimate child (1 Sam. 16:11). David’s mother apparently had a good relationship with the Lord (Ps. 86:16; 116:16). But she would have been, in the eyes of Jewish law, considered defiled by her previous relationship with an Ammonite (Num. 25:1,2; Deut. 7:3,4; 1 Kings 11:2-4, Ezra 9:2; Neh. 13:23,25; 2 Cor. 6:14-17).

It may simply be that David’s mother was not married to Jesse when she became pregnant, or that she was still the concubine of, or married to, Nahash the heathen king when she conceived. The context of David’s prayer of repentance in Psalms 51 is not consistent with David making an excuse for his adultery by saying, "I was born a sinner. It’s not my fault. I was born this way." In true repentance, an individual takes full responsibility for their sin and offers no excuses or justification. David was not blaming his sin on his birth.

Then he wrote "Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward, spreading lies.Their venom is like the venom of a snake, like that of a cobra that has stopped its ears,that will not heed the tune of the charmer, however skillful the enchanter may be."[Psalm 58:3-5] So, we are born sinners and when we grew enough to put it into action, we sinned.
Born sinners but NOT until we sinned? When does that happen, exactly?

An infant will take things they know are not theirs, and that is stealing.
How can an infant have any moral culpability?

They will tell you a big honking falsity to keep from getting their 'bum bum' heated, and that is lying. When they get mad, they will slap, scratch, scream, bite, because they did not get their way. Babies are not the 'sweet little angels' ppl make them out to be. My wife and I do not have kids, but I've been around enough nieces and nephews to know, see and feel their hatred when things do not go their way.
Infants do not speak. Babies are reliant upon their parents and caregiving adults. How are they responsible for their actions?

Well, they do know from their parents what is right and what is wrong.
Perhaps we are speaking past each other? My position is infants do not know "right from wrong." As such they are immune from blame, or guilt, or shame.

They know that if they get caught, to try to lie or deflect the blame to someone else to keep from getting into trouble.
When does a person have self-awareness? When would a person understand 'right from wrong?' And more importantly, how would anyone be able to determine it?
 
Oct 21, 2017
30
0
0
#5
I would not consider that a concession, but I am just not sure how He deals with babies. The bible is not explicitly clear about it. There's David's saying in 2 Samuel 12, but I tend to think he is referring to the grave, as someone is grieving and would want to die and be with their loved one in the grave, but I could be wrong. I do know that He commanded the Jews to kill their enemies, all the way down to the babies. So, He does not view them as 'sweet little angels' like we do, it seems.
Good points. The *God* of the bible seems to have little regard for human life. Genocide, filicide, what have you.

Well, we are either in Adam or the Christ.
The syllogism recorded in Romans 5:12 places those dead in Adam, alive in Christ. It is a neat dichotomy.

There is no other option(s) available. We are born in Adam, as fallen creatures. However God views them is up to Him. I just rest in knowing He will do what is right every time. If He deems them as sinners and casts them into hell, then He deemed it right, and I will rest in that. If He deems them to be saved, and ushers them into heaven, then He deemed it right, and I will rest in that.
Well, how can I argue that logic. Hopefully, *God* never tells you to sacrifice your first born or kill anyone or own slaves like He {sic} did in Bible days.
 
Oct 21, 2017
30
0
0
#6
The syllogism recorded in Romans 5:12 places those dead in Adam, alive in Christ. It is a neat dichotomy
My apologies. The syllogism is found in 1Cor 15:22, and Romans 5:18.
 
Dec 28, 2016
5,455
236
63
#7
What do you mean by *God*?

nvm...I read your bio...spiritual status unsure? Good day sir and good bye.
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#8
Tabula Rasa means, "a clean slate." My position is babies do not know right from wrong. Hence, they are a 'clean slate.'
I think you are both talking about something slightly different.

It seems to me that you mean that their knowledge is tabula rasa. They have not learned yet what is wrong or good.

While SovereingGrace seems to be talking about their state as human beings, inclining to evil from the beginning, no matter if they realize that or not.

----

In other words, you seem to say that their brain is without information if beating others is wrong, yet.
While SovereignGrace says that their brain constitution as such inclines to hit somebody if not taught otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Dec 28, 2016
5,455
236
63
#9
Good points. The *God* of the bible seems to have little regard for human life. Genocide, filicide, what have you.



The syllogism recorded in Romans 5:12 places those dead in Adam, alive in Christ. It is a neat dichotomy.



Well, how can I argue that logic. Hopefully, *God* never tells you to sacrifice your first born or kill anyone or own slaves like He {sic} did in Bible days.
God has very little regard for human life? Srsly? He sent His Son to die for a multitude of hell bound sinners. The Christ died for many who were His enemies.
 
May 11, 2014
936
39
0
#10
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—[Romans 5:12]
I would say this clears it up. How I see it is: One is not a sinner until one sins. Obviously. But: It is a guarantee everyone will sin. This way the blame is on the person and not God. Do we agree on that?

When one reads the original fall of Adam in Genesis there is no mention of sin nature or inherited guilt too.
 
May 11, 2014
936
39
0
#12
I just got a spiritual smackdown from reading Romans 5:18 "Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men."

That sounds like universalism, which would contradict other Scriptures. But if it is not universalism, then wouldn't that mean that the trespass did not lead to condemnation for all men? It cannot be that all is condemned but the all in the second part of the sentence does not really mean all men anymore?

This is interesting. Anyone got a good way to harmonize this with rest of the Scriptures in a way that does not just claim the second all is not really all but first is?
 
Dec 28, 2016
5,455
236
63
#14
The one I quoted, romans 5:12 "because all sinned" so because all sinned that is why it says.
That is past tense, as it is already a done deal.

What you are saying is akin to saying an apple tree does not become an apple tree until after it brings forth an apple.

Not so. It is because it is already an apple tree is why it brings forth apples.
 
May 11, 2014
936
39
0
#15
That is past tense, as it is already a done deal.

What you are saying is akin to saying an apple tree does not become an apple tree until after it brings forth an apple.

Not so. It is because it is already an apple tree is why it brings forth apples.
Well if you read my entire message I did say: "It is a guarantee everyone will sin" so we seem to agree on that.
 
Dec 28, 2016
5,455
236
63
#16
Well if you read my entire message I did say: "It is a guarantee everyone will sin" so we seem to agree on that.
But Psalm 51 and Psalm 58 aver differently than what you are averring, my Brother.
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#17
I just got a spiritual smackdown from reading Romans 5:18 "Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men."

That sounds like universalism, which would contradict other Scriptures. But if it is not universalism, then wouldn't that mean that the trespass did not lead to condemnation for all men? It cannot be that all is condemned but the all in the second part of the sentence does not really mean all men anymore?

This is interesting. Anyone got a good way to harmonize this with rest of the Scriptures in a way that does not just claim the second all is not really all but first is?
Can it be that Paul is talking to Christians in Rome?

I.e.: "Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men (in the Church), so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men (in the Church)"
 
May 11, 2014
936
39
0
#18
Can it be that Paul is talking to Christians in Rome?

I.e.: "Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men (in the Church), so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men (in the Church)"
AH YES YOU GOT IT. WE HAVE A WINNER WINNER CHICKEN DINNER. Thank you brother.
 
May 11, 2014
936
39
0
#19
This makes me rethink the "L" in TULIP. (Which to me and many others is no doubt the biggest stumbling stone)

Because if there is no "L" in TULIP the only logical conclusion is universalism, which goes against many Scriptures.