Question about BoM on Original Sin

[majick275]

Zaffiroborant,

Thanks for your post.
My reaction to the fall of Adam on every level is that I am grateful that Eve and Adam made the choice to fall. I think Eve rejoiced about it and Adam rejoiced about it, and I too rejoice about it.

My reaction on every level when I consider everyone else on this planet earth, is that they are here for a good purpose and that good purpose is being accomplished, regardless of what church they belong to or whether they don’t belong to any church.

I don’t wish anyone or everyone were perfect. Only Christ was perfect. I totally accept that as a reality.

grateful for sin? adam and eve rejoiced that they had sinned? what a uniquely mormon perspective. i disagree that it is something to rejoice about. I believe instead that the joy comes from Jesus saving us from their sin (and those that we ourselves have added to it) adam and eve did nothing for us. God did. and i don’t believe that God wanted Adam and eve to sin. he could have easily sat them down and told them the full consequences of eating the fruit or not and let them decide…instead he commanded them not to eat it.

 

[Finrock]

Hello REligio71! Hope you’ve had a good weekend.

Parker, how do you interpret 5:19 if it is not saying that the sins of Adam made us all sinners, and we are saved by Christ?

I just wanted to point out that Romans 5:19 says “…many were made sinners…” not all. Whatever that verse means, it isn’t saying that we were all made sinners by Adams sins.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[Religio71]

Hello REligio71! Hope you’ve had a good weekend.

I just wanted to point out that Romans 5:19 says “…many were made sinners…” not all. Whatever that verse means, it isn’t saying that we were all made sinners by Adams sins.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

Romans 5:12-Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.

Romans 5 clearly shows that the sin of Adam made us all sinners, brought sin into the world, and death.

 

[Finrock]

Hello majick275! How has your weekend been? I hope that it has been great.

grateful for sin? adam and eve rejoiced that they had sinned? what a uniquely mormon perspective. i disagree that it is something to rejoice about. I believe instead that the joy comes from Jesus saving us from their sin (and those that we ourselves have added to it) adam and eve did nothing for us. God did. and i don’t believe that God wanted Adam and eve to sin. he could have easily sat them down and told them the full consequences of eating the fruit or not and let them decide…instead he commanded them not to eat it.

Mormons don’t believe that we should rejoice in sin. We reject the notion that Adam and Eve were perfect and glorified. They had perfect immortal bodies, but they were innocent and ignorant of many things. Therefore, what we do believe in is that we should rejoice that Heavenly Father has given us this life full of trials and sorrow through which we can be perfected and have eternal life. Because if these current conditions didn’t exist, then we could not be perfected and we could not have eternal life. The Fall was and is necessary to bring to pass God’s eternal purposes for us and it is a good thing.

To give some more on the LDS perspective, we look at what Adam and Eve did in the Garden as akin to what Catholics understand as a “venial sin”. It wasn’t a serious sin. It was really like breaking a rule, not committing some horrendous crime. I tell my children (all relatively young) that they can’t leave the yard without permission and if they do leave the yard their will be a consequence. Well, my two oldest just yesterday left the yard without telling us. Not for one second did I think they didn’t love me. I did’t think they were being malicious, I didn’t think they were being prideful, I think they were just being kids. They didn’t commit any sin, they just broke the rule that was given them. Nonetheless, I had told them that there would be a consequence for breaking the rule, and so I had to execute what I had promised them would happen and they suffered the consequences of their actions. Now, I didn’t want them to break my rule, but what I did and what I do want is for them to exercise their agency to chose between opposing choices. I want this so that they can begin to learn from their experiences and begin to understand that our choices have consequences. Adam and Eve were innocent, like children and I think in the same way as with the situation with my children, they broke the rule God gave them. Not out of pride, or malicious intent to rebel against God, but in the same way that children break rules. There was a consequence and God had to execute His word. God didn’t necessarily want them to break His rule (although He knew they would), but what He did want was for them to have an opportunity to exercise their agency so that they could begin to learn and overcome through experiences that they could not experience while in the Gardne. Therefore the whole purpose of the Fall was to allow for a condition that could bring about the sanctification of mankind. It is the LDS position that this condition that all of us are now experiencing is that very condition that can lead us to being eventually sanctified, glorified, and to have eternal life with God.

Obviously, as this thread has made abundantly clear, many Catholics disagree. But, this is the LDS perspective and you can agree or disagree with it. My intent isn’t to argue with anyone as to which perspective is right or which one is wrong. What I do want though is to provide as clear a description of what the LDS church teaches and believes as I can for the benefit of anyone who is interested in learning.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[Finrock]

Romans 5:12-Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.

Romans 5 clearly shows that the sin of Adam made us all sinners, brought sin into the world, and death.

I was speaking to Romans 5:19 in my post, which was what you had quoted when you said Adam’s sin made us all sinnners. Romans 5:19 doesn’t say that.

As far as this post of yours, I agree with your points that the Fall introduced sin and death in to the world. This is how I understand what Romans 5:12 says: I read it to say that through one man sin entered in to the world and death comes because of sin. Therefore, all people will experience death, because everyone has sinned. I don’t see the part where it says Adam made us all sinners. I believe that Adam introduced sin in to the world, but I also believe that whether or not we are actually sinners is up to us. I believe we are sinners because we have sinned, not because Adam made us that way.

Thanks for your post.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[RebeccaJ]

Of course Finrock, there is a difference between Original sin and actual sin. Mormons seem to have dumped the idea of Original sin altogether. Which still causes me to ask, what do you believe happened in the Garden that made the great Sacrifice of the Son of God necessary.

You don’t believe it was sin so great that we are all effected by it, so what was it?

 

[ParkerD]

Mormons don’t believe that we should rejoice in sin. We reject the notion that Adam and Eve were perfect and glorified. They had perfect immortal bodies, but they were innocent and ignorant of many things. Therefore, what we do believe in is that we should rejoice that Heavenly Father has given us this life full of trials and sorrow through which we can be perfected and have eternal life. Because if these current conditions didn’t exist, then we could not be perfected and we could not have eternal life. The Fall was and is necessary to bring to pass God’s eternal purposes for us and it is a good thing.

To give some more on the LDS perspective, we look at what Adam and Eve did in the Garden as akin to what Catholics understand as a “venial sin”. It wasn’t a serious sin. It was really like breaking a rule, not committing some horrendous crime. I tell my children (all relatively young) that they can’t leave the yard without permission and if they do leave the yard their will be a consequence. Well, my two oldest just yesterday left the yard without telling us. Not for one second did I think they didn’t love me. I did’t think they were being malicious, I didn’t think they were being prideful, I think they were just being kids. They didn’t commit any sin, they just broke the rule that was given them. Nonetheless, I had told them that there would be a consequence for breaking the rule, and so I had to execute what I had promised them would happen and they suffered the consequences of their actions. Now, I didn’t want them to break my rule, but what I did and what I do want is for them to exercise their agency to chose between opposing choices. I want this so that they can begin to learn from their experiences and begin to understand that our choices have consequences. Adam and Eve were innocent, like children and I think in the same way as with the situation with my children, they broke the rule God gave them. Not out of pride, or malicious intent to rebel against God, but in the same way that children break rules. There was a consequence and God had to execute His word. God didn’t necessarily want them to break His rule (although He knew they would), but what He did want was for them to have an opportunity to exercise their agency so that they could begin to learn and overcome through experiences that they could not experience while in the Gardne. Therefore the whole purpose of the Fall was to allow for a condition that could bring about the sanctification of mankind. It is the LDS position that this condition that all of us are now experiencing is that very condition that can lead us to being eventually sanctified, glorified, and to have eternal life with God.

Obviously, as this thread has made abundantly clear, many Catholics disagree. But, this is the LDS perspective and you can agree or disagree with it. My intent isn’t to argue with anyone as to which perspective is right or which one is wrong. What I do want though is to provide as clear a description of what the LDS church teaches and believes as I can for the benefit of anyone who is interested in learning.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

Thanks, Finrock, for this precisely put answer to Majick’s question. I welcome your comments and perspective here always–any others also.

 

[ParkerD]

I hope today finds you well. Let me make another attempt here to explain how I see the fall as a Catholic. I can not say this is how all Catholic or the church would see it but from my perspective This is what one one get.

I don’t know if you are married, but for arguments sake lets say you are. Your wife is running a scam stealing lots of money from innocent people and you know nothing of it. You find out what is going on. Do you join her in this or do you lead her back to the right side of the law even if that means she goes to prison and you are left at home alone? Which way do you truly believe God would have you do? The Chance are if you lead her away from her what she is doing that her punishment will be lessened. but if you join her you both go down when caught.

God Bless

Scott,
Thanks for the interesting analogy. I am married (29 years this week), and have eight children youngest age 12.

I agree completely with Finrock’s post and the expression that Adam and Eve’s sin was a venial sin, not a serious sin.

That analogy doesn’t work as a comparison for me at all. For one thing, I don’t think there was a possibility or an understanding in any sense that “her punishment will be lessened.” There was a clear consequence–death. I think Adam understood that entirely, and knew he had to partake of the fruit if he was going to stay with Eve.

Paul doesn’t ever talk about that Adam should have not partaken after Eve had partaken, and that the punishment would have been lessened. He talked about it in simple terms–the sin of that particular disobedience brought death and opened the way (sort of like “Pandora’s box”) for more sin to happen in the world. He also emphasized that “but where sin abounded, grace did much more abound” …“through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

 

[ParkerD]

We know there were consequences to the Fall–concupiscence (the tendency to do evil rather than good), death, physical suffering. All that statement of Religio’s is is a recognition of the reality of what happened, and that had these evils not entered the world, we would not have had to suffer them. To deny that is to deny that those evils happened or that they are evil.

Arandur,
I agree with your first sentence and would add “thorns and thistles” to the list. I don’t agree that those consequences are “evils” and I don’t think Paul expressed that they are. Paul said in Romans 5:3-5 “We glory in tribulations also; knowing that tribulation worketh patience; and patience, experience; and experience, hope; and hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts…” Paul didn’t say that tribulation is “evil”. He gloried in that he had to experience tribulations.

Wrong. One can recognize the consequences of their own sin and wish they had not committed it, even if they learned from it. Sin wounds the soul; why would one wish for the wounding? That’s the perverse situation I see your theology putting you in.

Paul acknowledges in Romans 7 that he is a sinner, and he rejoices in the deliverance of Jesus Christ. He says in Romans 8:1 that “there is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.”

Rather, in Catholic belief, we wish we never sinned or never would sin, recognizing the harm that comes from sin. Do you not think God could provide a way if there were no sin?

I don’t think Paul asks any such question, or implies that such a question would be part of the way to look at the plan of Salvation. Paul says there is sin, then explains that its effects are completely done away through Christ.

You seem to suggest that if we had not sinned, God could not work Good.

What nonsense. I suggested no such thing. We are talking about two sins, the sin of Eve and the sin of Adam.

God worked good in spite of our sin.

Yes, correct. He also worked good in spite of Adam and Eve’s sin.

We can lament the sin and its effects, but be infinitely grateful for God’s Grace in covering over that sin and providing us a Way out.

If you mean I can lament my sins, I agree. If you mean I can lament Adam’s sin, I suppose that I could but I don’t. Neither did Adam, neither did Eve. They didn’t lament their sin.

Logical? Hardly. Baptism doesn’t rescue us out of the Fallen State, and so our “nature” in that respect is not different from those who aren’t baptized. You made a conclusion based on a false premise, so it is not logical. Instead, we want everyone to be Baptized all the more so that they can be washed of Original Sin and united with Christ, given the grace of Baptism to help them in their journey. The only way there is resentment there is if you also have resentment as an LDS for everyone who is not LDS, not benefitting from what you believe are the graces and supports of belonging to your church.

I have repeated over and over that I don’t believe people need to belong to my church. I think Paul taught that Christ already overcame the sin of Adam and Eve. I think Paul considered baptism as a covenant with Jesus Christ to keep the Spirit.

What you have described is so alien to Catholic thought that I don’t even know where to begin and how to comprehend it. I don’t know anyone who thinks even similarly. You just have very little understanding of Catholics and the Church

If you’re saying you don’t believe Adam and Eve “blew it,” and that the notions that they didn’t love God enough or had too much pride are incorrect, then I have gotten the wrong understanding of Catholic beliefs from people who have described those beliefs on this thread. If you’re saying you don’t believe God “wanted all this to be different but our ancestors blew it”, then I have gotten the wrong understanding of Catholic beliefs from people who have described their beliefs. I liked Catholic20064’s version, though.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker, how do you interpret 5:19 if it is not saying that the sins of Adam made us all sinners, and we are saved by Christ?

In the end, both churches believe in the saving grace of Jesus Christ, and that it is only in him that we gain salvation.

Religio71 and Arandur,
I agree with what Finrock wrote about this question. I think the words “many were made sinners” is a restatement of verse 12 with a slight variation but the same basic idea, that death came into this world as the effect of one sin, and that all humankind have sinned. But I strongly disagree with any notion that Adam’s sin “made me a sinner.”

I take full and complete responsibility for my sins. My sins have been my fault. I thank Christ with all of my heart that He has suffered for my sins, and for Adam’s sins, for Eve’s sins and for everyone’s sins. I am not grateful that I have sinned, but I am grateful to be in this world where I understand that I am less than perfect and therefore by definition I have to ackowledge that I will sin during the course of my life, probably every day.

 

[ParkerD]

Some have written that God wants us to seek perfection, as taught by Christ in the Sermon on the mount. I agree that He does, but I acknowledge that it is only through Christ that we can do that.

This was one of the reasons that I think Paul emphasized grace when he was teaching the Roman Jews. He wanted them to be less inclined to think the law was everything. He also wanted them to understand that Christ had brought a new law and a new covenant, and that “grace abounds” through Christ.

I also think “be ye therefore perfect even as your Father in Heaven is perfect” means exactly what those words say. I think they say “become like your Father in Heaven.” One who is perfect will have perfect charity and love, perfect patience, perfect faith such that they can move a mountain, perfect long-suffering, perfect gifts of the Spirit and fruits of the Spirit, perfect sanctification, perfect forgiveness of others, perfect forgiveness of self, perfect understanding of the attributes of God and the attributes of godliness, perfect willingness to obey God, perfect selflessness, perfect meekness, perfect humility, and perfect oneness with Jesus Christ.

 

[ParkerD]

Religio71 and Arandur,
I agree with what Finrock wrote about this question. I think the words “many were made sinners” is a restatement of verse 12 with a slight variation but the same basic idea, that death came into this world as the effect of one sin, and that all humankind have sinned. But I strongly disagree with any notion that Adam’s sin “made me a sinner.”

I take full and complete responsibility for my sins. My sins have been my fault. I thank Christ with all of my heart that He has suffered for my sins, and for Adam’s sins, for Eve’s sins and for everyone’s sins. I am not grateful that I have sinned, but I am grateful to be in this world where I understand that I am less than perfect and therefore by definition I have to ackowledge that I will sin during the course of my life, probably every day.

Religio71,
By the way, the kinds of sins I was talking about “probably every day” are not the “breaking the ten commandments” kind of sins, which I don’t think I’ve ever broken during the course of my life, other than getting mad at my parents as a teenager once in a while.

The kinds of sins I was talking about for me are getting angry inside (sometimes happens), acting impatient or being impatient, trying to persuade others without trying to also see their point of view and allow them to express it freely without interruption. I have been a less than perfect parent, sometimes acting in ways that made my children “feel bad” so that they would do something “good”, which is a form of unrighteous dominion and control. I have learned to be better in some of these areas (especially the latter), but I totally acknowledge my imperfections and my need to rely on Christ’s forgiveness and grace and power to change. I also totally realize that I would never had had to confront these weaknesses (and others) within myself if I had not lived in this mortal, less than perfect world, and certainly if I had never married and never had children. I rejoice in the gift of growth through Christ–necessary growth, growth He knew I needed and we needed when He offered His life in my behalf and in the behalf of all of us.

 

[Arandur]

Arandur,
I agree with your first sentence and would add “thorns and thistles” to the list. I don’t agree that those consequences are “evils” and I don’t think Paul expressed that they are. Paul said in Romans 5:3-5 “We glory in tribulations also; knowing that tribulation worketh patience; and patience, experience; and experience, hope; and hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts…” Paul didn’t say that tribulation is “evil”. He gloried in that he had to experience tribulations.

You should see the long Catholic tradition of seeing the merit of enduring suffering and trial
This is so because of the Fallen State. It didn’t need to be so, or life in Heaven could not be good, and neither could God, for both of those states persist in goodness without the harm/evils of this world.

Paul acknowledges in Romans 7 that he is a sinner, and he rejoices in the deliverance of Jesus Christ. He says in Romans 8:1 that “there is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.”

Yes, of course, Jesus has Redeemed us from sin.

I don’t think Paul asks any such question, or implies that such a question would be part of the way to look at the plan of Salvation. Paul says there is sin, then explains that its effects are completely done away through Christ.

Yes, there is sin, and Jesus was the plan for it. There did not need to be sin. It is a crucial difference.

What nonsense. I suggested no such thing. We are talking about two sins, the sin of Eve and the sin of Adam.

You have been saying that God could not have brought about the good of His plan without Adam and Eve sinning. How is that not saying that God can’t bring about Good without sin?

Yes, correct. He also worked good in spite of Adam and Eve’s sin.

I was talking about Adam and Eve’s sin. Original Sin. For “Adam” means “Man” as in “Mankind.” Which is why Romans 5:12 says that all have sinned (in Adam all sinned).

If you mean I can lament my sins, I agree. If you mean I can lament Adam’s sin, I suppose that I could but I don’t. Neither did Adam, neither did Eve. They didn’t lament their sin.

You don’t think, in their toil and suffering, that they lamented? They never repented of their sin?

I have repeated over and over that I don’t believe people need to belong to my church. I think Paul taught that Christ already overcame the sin of Adam and Eve. I think Paul considered baptism as a covenant with Jesus Christ to keep the Spirit.

Then don’t tell us that we judge people and all that other nonsense. I was applying the same argument you used to say that our belief about Original Sin would cause resentment and judgment back on you, showing you how if you believe this, then you must also, to be consistent, resent and judge all non-LDS.

If you’re saying you don’t believe Adam and Eve “blew it,” and that the notions that they didn’t love God enough or had too much pride are incorrect, then I have gotten the wrong understanding of Catholic beliefs from people who have described those beliefs on this thread. If you’re saying you don’t believe God “wanted all this to be different but our ancestors blew it”, then I have gotten the wrong understanding of Catholic beliefs from people who have described their beliefs. I liked Catholic20064’s version, though.

You err in drawing conclusions from those beliefs, from trying to say they encourage resentment and judgment of others. If anything, these beliefs encourage more brotherhood, mercy, and kindness.

 

[Arandur]

Religio71 and Arandur,
I agree with what Finrock wrote about this question. I think the words “many were made sinners” is a restatement of verse 12 with a slight variation but the same basic idea, that death came into this world as the effect of one sin, and that all humankind have sinned. But I strongly disagree with any notion that Adam’s sin “made me a sinner.”

I take full and complete responsibility for my sins. My sins have been my fault. I thank Christ with all of my heart that He has suffered for my sins, and for Adam’s sins, for Eve’s sins and for everyone’s sins. I am not grateful that I have sinned, but I am grateful to be in this world where I understand that I am less than perfect and therefore by definition I have to ackowledge that I will sin during the course of my life, probably every day.

Personal sin is our own fault, yes. Original Sin is more of a condition, one of generation, one that Jesus removed when he made all things new, when he offered us death and rebirth through baptism. Again, it gets back to the question Rebecca keeps asking, what do you really think was necessary about Jesus if we’re only talking about personal sin?

Let me rephrase it in another way. LDS don’t believe that children can sin before the age of reason (8). Thus, they are sinless, having no personal sin. Why do children need Jesus at all?

Or, if we have no personal sin, and if sin is not necessary, then it is theoretically possible for us to not sin at all. Why would we need Jesus?

Or, if that is too great a stretch, what about a child who lives until his teenage years without sinning? 8-12, that’s not so bad. He doesn’t need Jesus’ Redemption?

We die in Adam, we live in Jesus. Because of Original Sin. One inflicts it, the other heals it. In fact, I believe you’ve been agreeing all along that Jesus would not have been necessary without Adam’s sin. Why would that be so, if there is only personal sin?

Some have written that God wants us to seek perfection, as taught by Christ in the Sermon on the mount. I agree that He does, but I acknowledge that it is only through Christ that we can do that.

So do Catholics. Jesus enables us to overcome the impediment of the Fallen State.

I totally acknowledge my imperfections and my need to rely on Christ’s forgiveness and grace and power to change. I also totally realize that I would never had had to confront these weaknesses (and others) within myself if I had not lived in this mortal, less than perfect world, and certainly if I had never married and never had children. I rejoice in the gift of growth through Christ–necessary growth, growth He knew I needed and we needed when He offered His life in my behalf and in the behalf of all of us.

This means little when your only perspective is this world. You have no concept of what life would have been like without sin. If you don’t think we can sin in Heaven, do you think we will be static, not growing? No, we will grow spiritually all the more for our union with God and the other Saints, and our freedom from sin.

Your not having children statement seems to get back to your belief that Adam and Eve couldn’t have children before the Fall. As I have shown, the text says otherwise. God commanded them to multiply. He made them male and female (requiring genitalia built for a purpose). He made them husband and wife, becoming one flesh (through intercourse, which literally creates one flesh in the offspring). Fertility abounds in goodness and freedom from sin; sin destroys, it does not create.

I also don’t see how that is congruent with the LDS belief in being able to have spirit children, or indeed in God’s own creative capacity, as both are absent sin and the Fallen State.

 

[ParkerD]

Of course Finrock, there is a difference between Original sin and actual sin. Mormons seem to have dumped the idea of Original sin altogether. Which still causes me to ask, what do you believe happened in the Garden that made the great Sacrifice of the Son of God necessary.

You don’t believe it was sin so great that we are all effected by it, so what was it?

Rebecca and Arandur,
Since Arandur has re-stated your question, though I had thought it would be a good idea to wait until Finrock answered, I’ll add my view ahead of his.

You’re correct that Mormons don’t believe that the sin of Adam was a sin that “makes us sinners” or that endangers us into the potential of being sinners or that is “on our head” in any way. The sin of Adam brought death, and the Sacrifice and death of the Son of God was necessary to overcome the effects of physical death–our death. The sin of Adam brought the fall of humankind into a condition away from the personal presence of God, and the Sacrifice and death of the Son of God was necessary to overcome the effects of this spiritual death that came upon all of humankind as a result of Adam’s fall. Little children have been saved by Christ due to His sacrifice and death, and don’t have sin “on their head” at all, so they don’t need baptism at all to be saved. Sin begins when people can make knowledgeable choices, and then they do need baptism in order to keep the Spirit (which is communication with God, talking with God and listening to God), but it is not because of Adam, it is because of each person’s individual sins.

We absolutely desperately and totally need Christ’s redemption from our personal sins, and from Adam’s transgression which redemptive grace has already happened but for all of us is conditioned on our repentance and change to receive spiritual rebirth in Christ.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca and Arandur,
Since Arandur has re-stated your question, though I had thought it would be a good idea to wait until Finrock answered, I’ll add my view ahead of his.

You’re correct that Mormons don’t believe that the sin of Adam was a sin that “makes us sinners” or that endangers us into the potential of being sinners or that is “on our head” in any way. The sin of Adam brought death, and the Sacrifice and death of the Son of God was necessary to overcome the effects of physical death–our death. The sin of Adam brought the fall of humankind into a condition away from the personal presence of God, and the Sacrifice and death of the Son of God was necessary to overcome the effects of this spiritual death that came upon all of humankind as a result of Adam’s fall. Little children have been saved by Christ due to His sacrifice and death, and don’t have sin “on their head” at all, so they don’t need baptism at all to be saved. Sin begins when people can make knowledgeable choices, and then they do need baptism in order to keep the Spirit (which is communication with God, talking with God and listening to God), but it is not because of Adam, it is because of each person’s individual sins.

We absolutely desperately and totally need Christ’s redemption from our personal sins, and from Adam’s transgression which redemptive grace has already happened but for all of us is conditioned on our repentance and change to receive spiritual rebirth in Christ.

The bold part is the definition of Original sin.

It is as though you are saying Adam’s sin condemned all of humanity, that is, our separation from God. While at the same time saying it did not. Especially since you believe that children are exempt from the condemnation that St. Paul speaks of.

Paul teaches we are all condemned. No where is it taught that there is a person who was born outside of Original sin. How is it that you believe a person is not condemned by Original sin until the age of 8? Where in the Bible do you find this teaching?

 

[ParkerD]

The bold part is the definition of Original sin.

It is as though you are saying Adam’s sin condemned all of humanity, that is, our separation from God. While at the same time saying it did not. Especially since you believe that children are exempt from the condemnation that St. Paul speaks of.

Paul teaches we are all condemned. No where is it taught that there is a person who was born outside of Original sin. How is it that you believe a person is not condemned by Original sin until the age of 8? Where in the Bible do you find this teaching?

Rebecca,
I don’t think of our separation from God as condemnation. I think of it as similar to a baby bird falling out of the nest, having to learn how to forage for itself and learning by doing and thus growing. Our separation from God comes to us if we don’t receive the Spirit, and Adam and Eve received the Spirit after their separation from God. Spiritually, they were no longer separated from God after they received the Holy Ghost, and neither are we.

They were not condemned by their separation from God. Neither am I. They began to learn things they couldn’t have learned “in the nest”. Thus am I.

Paul is teaching about two different deaths, physical death and spiritual death. He says,

15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17 For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

The “judgment” in verse 18 is physical death, which comes upon all men including little children who die young. The “free gift” of life after death, resurrection, comes to all through Christ. I’ll add more about spiritual death separately, since that is where we differ as to little children.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca,
I don’t think of our separation from God as condemnation. I think of it as similar to a baby bird falling out of the nest, having to learn how to forage for itself and learning by doing and thus growing. Our separation from God comes to us if we don’t receive the Spirit, and Adam and Eve received the Spirit after their separation from God. Spiritually, they were no longer separated from God after they received the Holy Ghost, and neither are we.

They were not condemned by their separation from God. Neither am I. They began to learn things they couldn’t have learned “in the nest”. Thus am I.

Paul is teaching about two different deaths, physical death and spiritual death. He says,

15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17 For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

The “judgment” in verse 18 is physical death, which comes upon all men including little children who die young. The “free gift” of life after death, resurrection, comes to all through Christ. I’ll add more about spiritual death separately, since that is where we differ as to little children.

What is spiritual death but separation from God?

 

[ParkerD]

What is spiritual death but separation from God?

Rebecca,
Yes, spiritual death is separation from God, and Paul talks about becoming alive in Christ, spiritual life. Christ talked about spiritual rebirth to Nicodemus. Spiritual rebirth, we could say, is what this life is all about. That spiritual rebirth brings us into the presence of the Holy Ghost, so we have two-way communication with God and are no longer spiritually dead.

But little children are not intrinsically spiritually dead. If I look into a baby’s eyes or a toddler’s eyes, I see total purity–I don’t see condemnation. I see total trust. I see total light, the light of Christ, freely given to them.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca,
Yes, spiritual death is separation from God, and Paul talks about becoming alive in Christ, spiritual life. Christ talked about spiritual rebirth to Nicodemus. Spiritual rebirth, we could say, is what this life is all about. That spiritual rebirth brings us into the presence of the Holy Ghost, so we have two-way communication with God and are no longer spiritually dead.

But little children are not intrinsically spiritually dead. If I look into a baby’s eyes or a toddler’s eyes, I see total purity–I don’t see condemnation. I see total trust. I see total light, the light of Christ, freely given to them.

Parker, Adam was separated from God, both physically and spiritually. Do you agree with this? If so, why would you believe that Jesus atoned for physical death but not spiritual death?

Yes children are innocent from actual sin. You seem to confuse Original sin with actual sin.

edit to add: and yes, we were are all condemned, what else is death?