A theological-biological explanation of “the original sin’s transmission”

[AntoineSuarez]

@Bucky_Wood

“First Sin vs. Subsequent sin” as compared to “Egregious sin vs. small sin”

I would like to clarify that this quote is not my statement: I am not stating that the first sin was a more abhorrent deed than the subsequent sins.

What I state is the following:

Before the first sin there are NO human sinners.

After the first sin there are human sinners, and thus, before any subsequent sin (any other sin after the first one) there are human sinners.

Consequently:

After the first sin God has to decide how to treat the sinners.

After any subsequent sin, God has no longer to decide how to treat the sinners, because he has already decided.

To this extent my statement seems a matter of pure logic!

Further:

Evidence proves that God decided not to condemn the sinners to hell immediately after sinning, but let the first sinner and subsequent sinners like us on earth.

Why?

The reasonable (in my view obvious) answer is:

God is merciful and let us sinners on earth to give us time and opportunity to repent and reach salvation.

This logical answer is largely confirmed by scriptural text, specially by the teaching of Jesus Christ.

But then: Would it have been sound on the part of God to let sinners on earth as if they had not sinned?

The reasonable answer to this question seems to be:

No, this had moved the sinners to sin more and more and so supported rather their damnation than their salvation, against the very aim for which God let the sinners on earth.

This (in my view also obvious) answer is largely supported by scriptural text too.

Accordingly, after the first sin God let us sinners on earth in the state described in Genesis 3. This is the so called “state of original sin”, where in lack of God’s original grace we are submitted to illness, death, and concupiscence. Thereby we can better avoid the delusion that we are like God, feel the need of God’s grace and redemption, and move to ask God for forgiveness.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@AntoineSuarez

After the first sin God has to decide how to treat the sinners.

Nope. He had already decided (inasmuch as we can use a tensed verb with respect to God).

This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time…

2 Timothy 1:9

[marvin (Christian Sceptic)]

u still propose a materialistic view of sin and God with the view that physical death is a punishment for sin.
we become like God / out parents e.g. grown up in puberty, e.g. when we assign our own morality. once we identify as self in our physical body we are no longer part of the eternal life but limited to our own temporary life and body.
The fall is the poetic description of puberty and our separation from the past, and only if we grow up we will be able to reconnect with it in Jesus.

[St.Roymond]

@marvin

The fall is the poetic description of puberty and our separation from the past

I’ve run into some doozies before but this is exceptionally unrelated to the text!

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@AntoineSuarez

Before the first sin there are NO human sinners.

After the first sin there are human sinners, and thus, before any subsequent sin (any other sin after the first one) there are human sinners.

Brilliant deduction (Shelock)

Unfortunately your logic breaks down from then on.

@AntoineSuarez

After the first sin God has to decide how to treat the sinners

You think that sinning was a surprise to Him?

@AntoineSuarez

After any subsequent sin, God has no longer to decide how to treat the sinners, because he has already decided.

To this extent my statement seems a matter of pure logic!

Err, no. That assumes that God was winging it. SIn was not a surprise, it was inevitable.

@AntoineSuarez

Evidence proves that God decided not to condemn the sinners to hell immediately after sinning, but let the first sinner and subsequent sinners like us on earth.

Why?

Because it was expected and part of living.

@AntoineSuarez

The reasonable (in my view obvious) answer is

Is pure fantasy. Yo are putting yourself in God’s shoes and claiming to know His very thoughts.

@AntoineSuarez

God is merciful

That is not in dispute

@AntoineSuarez

and let us sinners on earth to give us time and opportunity to repent and reach salvation.

That is also not in dispute, but you are insisting that it is our only reason for living.

The meaning of Life? To be forgiven from Adams Sin!

No.

@AntoineSuarez

in lack of God’s original grace we are submitted to illness, death, and concupiscence.

And that is the biggest crime against God, that He would do such a thing (for that reason)

Illness, and death are just a part of living in this Universe. There is no curse, nor is it subject to any consequence of action.

(And ironically you have stumbled upon the reason the Garden story was written. Because the writer believed that the unfairness of this world was avoidable and we should still be living in Paradise)

There is no reason for death and illness other than it is a necessary byproduct of living.

Blaming God, or Adam is just childish.

Richard

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@Dale

@AntoineSuarez

After the first sin God has to decide how to treat the sinners.

Nope. He had already decided (inasmuch as we can use a tensed verb with respect to God).

This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time…

2 Timothy 1:9

I just realized upon following the link myself that I had posted, I really should have included the whole verse for @RichardG (and others of us who have issues allowing God to be sovereign – @mitchellmckain?):

He has saved us and called us to a holy life – not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time,

2 Timothy 1:9

     

@Dale

Signed,

Dale, the evolutionary providentialist “who leaves God out of evolution” per Mr. Gillett, good grief, and yes, only the scientific part of it which cannot address that aspect.

“We have to believe in free will, we have no choice.” I.B. Singer I feel so much like a puppet and think everyone else is too.

[marvin (Christian Sceptic)]

its easier to recognize when one is way past one’s own

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@marvin

The fall is the poetic description of puberty and our separation from the past

@St.Roymond

I’ve run into some doozies before but this is exceptionally unrelated to the text!

@marvin

its easier to recognize when one is way past one’s own

That would apply to a lot of us here (myself and @Terry_Sampson more than most, I suspect ; - ). And it’s a new one on me and a bit of a stretch – it could have been penned by S. Freud? The newest up to that one is that maybe the first or ‘most important’ sin is blaming and refusing responsibility.

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

@Dale

the first or ‘most important’ sin is blaming and refusing responsibility.

That is certainly the idea which I have been advocating.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

I don’t find it entirely unreasonable (unlike not trusting in our Father’s sovereignty ; - ).

[St.Roymond]

@Dale

“We have to believe in free will, we have no choice.” I.B. Singer I feel so much like a puppet and think everyone else is too.

Many days I feel more like a rag doll that got tossed in a corner.

[St.Roymond]

@Dale

And it’s a new one on me and a bit of a stretch – it could have been penned by S. Freud?

I just got back from seven hours of conservation work and my tired brain in its weary body read that as “St. Freud”.
Which triggers a memory of a weird sci-fi story where Freud, Aldo Leopold, and Carl Sagan were saints . . . .

@Dale

The newest up to that one is that maybe the first or ‘most important’ sin is blaming and refusing responsibility

Some have speculated that this is part of why Paul points to Adam as the “prime sinner” – he not only knew what he was doing, he blamed Eve.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@St.Roymond

Freud, Aldo Leopold, and Carl Sagan were saints

Should throw in Carl Jung and his synchronicities too. With his Reformed background, sort of, he should have recognized the Source of all.

[marvin (Christian Sceptic)]

the rejection of the authority of the father s not a must in that process, so it does not free you from responsibility of your actions.
what is the worst in the interpretation of the fall is blaming God for our death. its as bad as accusing God of it being his fault because he gave us women. I pity those who think death is the punishment by God for our sin. They must read a bible that says “if you eat from that tree / disobey me i will kill you”. It sets one up for a bad relationship with the father

[marvin (Christian Sceptic)]

its far worse, as Adam blamed it on God when he said “it was the helper you gave me”

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@marvin

, as Adam blamed

One of the points of the story is to take responsibility for your own actions Eve blamed, Adam blamed, and neither accepted the fact that no one put a gun to their head and forced them to do it.

Original Sin then reinforces the notion that it is not my fault instead of learning the opposite.

We can only be forgiven if we admit the fault. And that fault is not Adam’s.
Any claim of.

1. Inherited sin, or
2. inherited sinfulness, or
3. having to sin

Works against personal responsibility.

Richard

[AntoineSuarez]

@St.Roymond

I can envision the “pollution” propagating back through time, but I’m sure my brother would have said, “No, it wouldn’t have to propagate, it would just be there” and try again to get the concept across.

I think that my theological-biological explanation fits both, your envisioning and your brother’s proposal.

Before the beginning of time God decided to create human beings and order them to share God’s eternal life (2 Timothy 1:9).

These humans were supposed to be free, i.e.: they were not predetermined to sin, but could in principle reject God’s love and transgress his commandment.

Accordingly, before the beginning of time God considered the two possible alternative scenarios: Humans sin and humans do NOT sin. And brought about a creation that fits both scenarios.

In case humans sin:

God had the alternative of either condemning us sinners directly “to join the devil and his angels”, or letting us on earth to give us opportunity to repent and reach salvation.

As evidence shows and scripture confirms:

God decided to save us and call us to a holy life before the beginning of the time (2 Timothy 1:9).

However, God considered that for the aim of salvation it would not have been suitable to let us sinners on earth as if we had not sinned.

Thus, God submitted creation to degradation, so that sinners on earth would be submitted to illness, death, and concupiscence, but gave us the grace in Jesus Christ to overpower this state of degradation; and for sure, all this God decided before the beginning of the time (2 Timothy 1:9).

In case humans do NOT sin:

This was undoubtedly a real possibility God considered (and was present in his mind) before the beginning of time.

So, God decided (before the beginning of time) to endow the first human beings with the grace to overpowering illness, death, and concupiscence, at the very moment of their creation in time, and as long as they did not sin.

This grace is also part of “the grace God granted us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time”. (2 Timothy 1:9).

In summary:

• If one considers things from our perspective in time, we can conclude that the degradation of nature leading to the state of illness, death, and concupiscence (the “state of original sin”) we are submitted to, is an effect of the first human sin (and in this sense “pollution”) “propagating back through time” (very much along your line of thinking).

• If one considers things from the timeless perspective of God, one can say that such a state of degradation wouldn’t have to propagate, it would be there as a real possibility in God’s mind, i.e.: outside our four dimensional space-time world, as “pollution” caused by the first human sin, but used by God to save us and lead us to a holy life through “the grace given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time” (very much along your older brother’s proposal).

To finish I would like to clarify that in all this reasoning I am assuming 2 Timothy 1:9 as an axiom:

We humans are on earth because God called us to a holy life, and in his mercy God decided to let all human sinners on earth to save them all, from the first sin onward.

Obviously everyone is free to reject this axiom, but if someone rejects it, participating to the discussion in this thread may be rather a waste of time for him.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@AntoineSuarez

We humans are on earth because God called us to a holy life, and in his mercy God decided to let all human sinners on earth to save them all, from the first sin onward.

Obviously everyone is free to reject this axiom, but if someone rejects it, participating to the discussion in this thread may be rather a waste of time for him.

Ouch!

God has given us the free will to choose Him or not. If this si true then the choice of “not” must be a valid one.

You cannot demand that everyone must be Holy (even if you are not specifying Christianity)

Richard

[MirekM777 (Miroslav Masopust)]

2023-07-31T22:00:00Z→2023-07-31T22:00:00Z
It is written in the Bible that God planted the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden. Also in the new Law, in the 1st chapter of the letter of James, it is written that when a believer is tempted, he is also tested by God. In context, it means - God tested Adam and Eve whether they would obey His commandments or not. Adam and Eve were deceived by the Tempter and sinned. But it was God who tested the first people. And it was also God who tested his favorites Abraham and Jesus Christ. And they did not fail God’s test. So how is it possible that Adam and Eve failed? If God’s testing of man is always right, how come the result is not always right?
I believe that if someone is not prepared for the exam, they will fail.

[St.Roymond]

@AntoineSuarez

Accordingly, before the beginning of time God considered the two possible alternative scenarios: Humans sin and humans do NOT sin. And brought about a creation that fits both scenarios.

In case humans sin:

Neither my scenario nor my brother’s have any “in case” in them, not the least bit. Both propose a Creation that was made in perfect harmony, neither had any flaws until the first sin occurred.
And yes, if you’re stuck thinking in a timeline where eternity is locked in with time, that doesn’t make sense. My brother’s point is that thinking only of linear time that God is locked into is bad math because geometrically it’s simplistic.

If I was better at math I might be able to make your view fit some x-dimensional geometry…