The Fall, Man and Sin

[hasserl]

I don't know if this is in reference to myself, but I assure you that it does not apply to me.

No, this wasn't in reference toward you, sorry.

[colossians323]

Hermeneutics, the art and science of biblical interpretation. If you can't use hermeneutics in regards to scripture, you already lost

[bigmike82]

he may just be trying to cause arguments among Christians.

Then you guys are clearly not in agreement. Which is okay. Different sects do different things.

Discussing these things is a *good* thing, especially among Christians and even more so to those that you think aren't 'saved'. There's no sin in questioning doctrine and seeking answers.

[WASR10]

No, this wasn't in reference toward you, sorry.

It's all good, thanks for clarifying.

Then you guys are clearly not in agreement. Which is okay. Different sects do different things.

Discussing these things is a *good* thing, especially among Christians and even more so to those that you think aren't 'saved'. There's no sin in questioning doctrine and seeking answers.

Well said.

[mossy]

Interesting thread.

[Just Dave]

Since there seems to be a significant leap occurring from mankind's nature to shared guilt with Adam for his actions, would anyone claiming the two are inseparable like to provide scripture proving it which also dismisses scripture stating the opposite? There's certainly evidence given in this thread in the form of Bible verse attesting to the opposite being true and they haven't been dismissed through actual debate.




There are some unfair debate tactics being used in this thread:

- You cannot dismiss someone's argument by making blanket claims without supplying real evidence of this. 'Out of context' is a claim requiring explanation and evidence for each claimed incident, not a generalization which renders anything your opponent chooses to quote from scripture merely misunderstood.

- You cannot dismiss someone's direct evidence by supplying links to another argument. These links are often one sided or leave the issue unresolved (stating opinion as fact does not make it so), it's only fair to make your counter argument your own or concede that you're not really debating in good faith. Anyone can drown their opponent in links from other sources which agree with a given perspective, but it won't get further than ad nauseam rhetoric on source veracity rather than substance.

We don't have a "shared guilt" with Adam, when Adam sinned the world and all that was in it fell.

Adam and Eve were the best that mankind had to offer, they walked with God and had a close relationship with Him yet they still blew it.
You've done worse and I've done worse..a lot worse than Adam had done.

[texan]

We don't have a "shared guilt" with Adam, when Adam sinned the world and all that was in it fell.

Try telling that to some in this thread. But yes that is my understanding of it, shared guilt is a theological concept which is at odds with Bible scripture. There's an irrational leap being made by some from recognizing man's sinful nature to being sinful at conception for what someone else did.

[texan]

OK, here's the deal, he doesn't believe what he posted. Texan is not a Christian, he isn't of any belief, he is an atheist. I'm not sure what his game is here, he may just be trying to cause arguments among Christians. At best this is an atheists take on what Christians SHOULD believe according to his interpretation of their holy book. He doesn't actually hold to any of it himself, this is just folly for him.

Assume, label, dismiss, repeat. You are also wrong about my beliefs, but that isn't relevant to this thread. This is still the discussion of faith forum and one need not be a member of said faith to participate in theological discussions, in fact we should be encouraging the exchange of ideas different from our own. Everyone is the better for it so long as you don't fall to reactionism or feel threatened by competing philosophies. Which would say more about your own shortcomings than the discussion at hand, anyway.

How about joining in with a substantive argument outlining the basis for your position? I believe something of evidential merit would be appreciated by all at this point rather than the irrelevance of further personal opinion.

[Just Dave]

Try telling that to some in this thread. But yes that is my understanding of it, shared guilt is a theological concept which is at odds with Bible scripture. There's an irrational leap being made by some from recognizing man's sinful nature to being sinful at conception for what someone else did.

There is no theological concept such as shared guilt.
People are responsible for their own actions.

Systematic theology and biblical doctrine isn't something that could easily be detailed on an internet forum without asking someone to write pages and pages.
I've left some links in this thread that will help those who have questions.

[Lineman101]

There is no theological concept such as shared guilt.
People are responsible for their own actions.

Systematic theology and biblical doctrine isn't something that could easily be detailed on an internet forum without asking someone to write pages and pages.
I've left some links in this thread that will help those who have questions.

I would say that the Scripture is clear that you do not share in the sins of your father, but you do share in the sin of the federal head of humanity, Adam. In the same way, you did not share in the righteous act of Christ on the cross, but you can still benefit from the act. That is why Christ is called the Second Adam. How can one expect to benefit righteousness from Christ and dismiss the idea of shared sin with Adam?

[American Samurai]

Lineman nailed it. The first Adam's sin was imputed to us in the same way that the Last Adam (Christ) righteousness is imputed to us.

[texan]

There is no theological concept such as shared guilt.

I would say that the Scripture is clear that you do not share in the sins of your father, but you do share in the sin of the federal head of humanity, Adam.

Just Dave - You were saying?

This is why I'm glad Lineman101 went to the effort to create this thread. To an outsider of Christianity there appears a fundamental schism here in the rational interpretation on the nature of sin and the basal state of the human soul. I completely understand the origin of the varying interpretations, especially given the denominational nature of modern Christian faith, but that's what makes it such an interesting topic.

[mossy]

This is going to be one of those agree to disagree things. I don't think you are going to get the different sides to agree on one interpretation.

[Just Dave]

I would say that the Scripture is clear that you do not share in the sins of your father, but you do share in the sin of the federal head of humanity, Adam. In the same way, you did not share in the righteous act of Christ on the cross, but you can still benefit from the act. That is why Christ is called the Second Adam. How can one expect to benefit righteousness from Christ and dismiss the idea of shared sin with Adam?

That's the sin nature that I'm talking about, all of humanity is in this state because of the fall brought on by Adam's original sin (which was rebellion) and placed us into this fallen and sinful state.
Therefore each and every single one of us is going to rebel against God by our own actions.
Adam's sin was eating something that he was warned not too, my sins are much greater than anything Adam ever did.
As far as "sharing guilt", Adam is acountable for his sin as I am for mine and as you are for yours.
I do not share the guilt of Adam eating from that tree, I wasn't even there.

The word guilty is a legal term, it basically means you did the deed.
Sin, in a nutshell, is think or do something that goes against God and His perfect, holy nature...it is to break His law.

[texan]

This is going to be one of those agree to disagree things. I don't think you are going to get the different sides to agree on one interpretation.

For sure, but it is good to discuss the different perspectives. Mutual understanding, if not agreement, should be the goal here.

That's the sin nature that I'm talking about, all of humanity is in this state because of the fall brought on by Adam's original sin (which was rebellion) and placed us into this fallen and sinful state.
Therefore each and every single one of us is going to rebel against God by our own actions.
Adam's sin was eating something that he was warned not too, my sins are much greater than anything Adam ever did.
As far as "sharing guilt", Adam is acountable for his sin as I am for mine and as you are for yours.
I do not share the guilt of Adam eating from that tree, I wasn't even there.

The word guilty is a legal term, it basically means you did the deed.
Sin, in a nutshell, is think or do something that goes against God and His perfect, holy nature...it is to break His law.

FWIW this makes perfect theological sense to me.