Transgression, What Is It

[Fatboy]

FB: In my discussion with mainstream Chrisitians they believe that sin and sin alone is the only way we can transgress the law. I have tried with out success to point out that sin is knowingly disobeying God. That is what sin is. I have stated that sin is a transgression, but not all transgression is sin. For there are laws we break without knowledge. I believe that although Adam and Eve disobeyed the Lord in the Garden of Eden, they did so without knowledge. They were as little children. Even though they were intelligent, they had not partaken of the fruit of knowledge of Good and evil. Therefore they did not have experience to determine good over evil or know the difference of it. So it was possible that Adam and Eve disobeyed without committing a sin. Therefore there is no original sin other than our mortality which makes us suseptable to death.

Any other thoughts?

[Ray]

Question: If Adam and Eve knew that God did not want them to partake of the fruit from that tree, how was it not a sin to partake of that fruit? They did know that God had told them not to partake of it, didn’t they? And if sin is simply to “knowingly disobey God”, which they did, how was that not a sin?

I believe it was a sin because there was a law with a punishment affixed for violating that law, and to knowingly violate any law of God is a sin. It’s just that they didn’t know the law of God was good until they obtained the knowledge of good and evil. Before they obtained that knowledge they were as a child who knows that their Dad has told them not to do something without understanding why, except for the idea that they would get punished for not obeying their Dad.

Btw, I will also state that Adam and Eve were not guilty of violating any other laws of God, at least that we are aware of, and that they were redeemed from their sin when they accepted the gospel.

[Guest curvette]

I agree with fatboy. If I believed in a literal Adam and Eve and a real tree with real fruit that would suddenly make them know the difference between good and evil, then I would have to believe that they didn't sin when they ate it--only transgressed the law. A baby may be told to stay in his crib, but he doesn't really understand. When he falls out, he gets hurt. That is his punishment. If the parent were to inflict further punishment--it would be wrong because the baby doesn't understand. He begins to though from the natural consequences of his actions.

[Ray]

Okay, so please explain to me the difference between a transgression of law and a sin.

I’d also like to carry your example a little further:

I say that baby decided to disobey his Dad by not staying in the crib, and that what occurred after that was a direct result of not obeying his Dad. Now, with the understanding that the baby violated a law from his Dad, and that a violation of law can be called a sin, I ask you, did that baby sin? I say yes and no, depending on how you look at it. The parent knows the baby violated a good law but the baby doesn’t know that. The parent knows that if the baby had stayed in the crib he would not have fallen, because the law of gravity first requires a fall. The baby, on the other hand, only knows that he felt better when he was in the crib.

The case of Adam and Eve is a little different, however, because after Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit they did gain a knowledge of good and evil.

[Fatboy]

Originally posted by Ray@Oct 20 2004, 11:54 AM

Question: If Adam and Eve knew that God did not want them to partake of the fruit from that tree, how was it not a sin to partake of that fruit? They did know that God had told them not to partake of it, didn’t they? And if sin is simply to “knowingly disobey God”, which they did, how was that not a sin?

I believe it was a sin because there was a law with a punishment affixed for violating that law, and to knowingly violate any law of God is a sin. It’s just that they didn’t know the law of God was good until they obtained the knowledge of good and evil. Before they obtained that knowledge they were as a child who knows that their Dad has told them not to do something without understanding why, except for the idea that they would get punished for not obeying their Dad.

Btw, I will also state that Adam and Eve were not guilty of violating any other laws of God, at least that we are aware of, and that they were redeemed from their sin when they accepted the gospel.

FB: As curvet stated. Little children can not sin, but they sure can break the law. Since Adam and Eve had not partaken of the fruit, what would they have to compare the consequences of their choice? God told them that if they partook of the fruit they would die. Since death had not occured, how would they know or understand what the consequences of that choice would be. Satan on the other hand told them that they would not die. Not knowing or experiencing that Satan could be lying, they followed the suggestion since they were told that is how God gained his knowledge. So even though they broke the law, and disobeyed, they did not understand the consequences of that choice. This is why the plan of God for mortality to enter into the world was a perfect plan.

Ray do you believe that it was part of God's plan to bring mortality into the world or do you believe that Adam and Eve took it upon their selves and fully sinned understanding the consequences of that choice? If you believe this, then I have to ask do you believe in a God that is all knowing, and that God knew before he ever created Adam and Eve what they were going to do?

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Ray@Oct 20 2004, 12:10 PM

Okay, so please explain to me the difference between a transgression of law and a sin.

I’d also like to carry your example a little further:

I say that baby decided to disobey his Dad by not staying in the crib, and that what occurred after that was a direct result of not obeying his Dad. Now, with the understanding that the baby violated a law from his Dad, and that a violation of law can be called a sin, I ask you, did that baby sin? I say yes and no, depending on how you look at it. The parent knows the baby violated a good law but the baby doesn’t know that. The parent knows that if the baby had stayed in the crib he would not have fallen, because the law of gravity first requires a fall. The baby, on the other hand, only knows that he felt better when he was in the crib.

The case of Adam and Eve is a little different, however, because after Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit they did gain a knowledge of good and evil.

Just like fatboy said: All sin is a transgression of the law, but not all transgressions of the law are sins. All buff, blonde men are human, but not all humans are buff, blonde men.

Adam and Eve couldn't sin because they didn't know the difference between good and evil. It's not that complicated.

[Fatboy]

Originally posted by Ray@Oct 20 2004, 01:10 PM

Okay, so please explain to me the difference between a transgression of law and a sin.

I’d also like to carry your example a little further:

I say that baby decided to disobey his Dad by not staying in the crib, and that what occurred after that was a direct result of not obeying his Dad.  Now, with the understanding that the baby violated a law from his Dad, and that a violation of law can be called a sin, I ask you, did that baby sin?  I say yes and no, depending on how you look at it.  The parent knows the baby violated a good law but the baby doesn’t know that.  The parent knows that if the baby had stayed in the crib he would not have fallen, because the law of gravity first requires a fall.  The baby, on the other hand, only knows that he felt better when he was in the crib. 

The case of Adam and Eve is a little different, however, because after Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit they did gain a knowledge of good and evil.

The baby transressed the law. The important thing to remember is that Justice see's no difference in knowingly breaking the law, and unknowingly breaking the law. There are many laws we break that we know nothing about because of our lack of knowledge. Justice does not make any difference in this. A law that is broken will receive the same consequences whether it was a known law or a unknown law. So if it were not for the atonement, a innocent baby could be condemned because of lack of knowledge. Mercy set things right. Any law that is broken must be paid for, whether or not we know we broke it. The greatest blessing of the atonement is that Christ suffered for not only sin, but for all transgressions. Those laws we break without knowledge are automatically paid for by the atonement. A free gift. Payment for sin can only be accessed upon the completion of repentance.

So to recap. Transgression is the breaking of the laws of God. There are those laws which we know and understand. Disobedience to those laws is called sin. This is a transgression. Those laws we break that we do not know or understand the consequences if we disobey them is also a transgression although not a sin. Does this make sense. I know sometimes I understand these precepts but can not relay the same thoughts over into words.

[Ray]

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin…even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord. – Romans 5:12-21

Considering the verse above together with the fact that we aren’t told of anything else that Adam and Eve did “wrong”, what “sin” do you think Paul was referring to?

And btw, I’ve heard from other people who say that a “transgression” is not the same as a “sin”, but if you’ll search the scriptures I think you’ll find that our Lord uses both of those words to refer to the same thing, i.e., a violation of the laws of God.

Of course, I’m willing to stand corrected if you will give me one good reason to accept what you say as the truth.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Ray@Oct 20 2004, 12:52 PM

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin…even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord. – Romans 5:12-21

Considering the verse above together with the fact that we aren’t told of anything else that Adam and Eve did “wrong”, what “sin” do you think Paul was referring to?

And btw, I’ve heard from other people who say that a “transgression” is not the same as a “sin”, but if you’ll search the scriptures I think you’ll find that our Lord uses both of those words to refer to the same thing, i.e., a violation of the laws of God.

Of course, I’m willing to stand corrected if you will give me one good reason to accept what you say as the truth.

It doesn't say "By one man's sin, sin entered the world" it says, "By one man sin entered into the world." Through Adam, sin entered the world and in his fallen state, men sin and die. I'd also say that it's saying that Eve is totally off the hook!

[Jenda]

Originally posted by curvette@Oct 20 2004, 11:47 AM

I agree with fatboy. If I believed in a literal Adam and Eve and a real tree with real fruit that would suddenly make them know the difference between good and evil, then I would have to believe that they didn't sin when they ate it--only transgressed the law. A baby may be told to stay in his crib, but he doesn't really understand. When he falls out, he gets hurt. That is his punishment. If the parent were to inflict further punishment--it would be wrong because the baby doesn't understand. He begins to though from the natural consequences of his actions.

I would have to disagree with this because they knew ahead of time that to eat it was a sin. IMO, that is the crux of the matter. It is the knowledge. Nothing else done in the garden was a sin because they did not have the knowledge of other sins, besides eating of the fruit. Once they ate of the fruit, they had the knowledge of what was sin and what wasn't, since that was the purpose of the fruit.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by curvette+Oct 20 2004, 01:14 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Oct 20 2004, 01:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ray@Oct 20 2004, 12:52 PM

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin…even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord. – Romans 5:12-21

Considering the verse above together with the fact that we aren’t told of anything else that Adam and Eve did “wrong”, what “sin” do you think Paul was referring to?

And btw, I’ve heard from other people who say that a “transgression” is not the same as a “sin”, but if you’ll search the scriptures I think you’ll find that our Lord uses both of those words to refer to the same thing, i.e., a violation of the laws of God.

Of course, I’m willing to stand corrected if you will give me one good reason to accept what you say as the truth.

It doesn't say "By one man's sin, sin entered the world" it says, "By one man sin entered into the world." Through Adam, sin entered the world and in his fallen state, men sin and die. I'd also say that it's saying that Eve is totally off the hook!

Good point. Here's the link to the Topical Guide section on "Fall of Man":

http://scriptures.lds.org/tgf/fllfmn

Not once is Adam and Eve's action described as a "sin."

Sin entered the world by the transgression in the garden -- but so did physical death enter the world by it, and nobody's arguing that Adam and Eve's action could be classified as physical death.

I'll have to look around a little more to see if there's any inconsistency between the LDS understanding of the Fall as a blessing, in the long run, and it being a sin. I wonder whether God, in requiring a sin to be committed for his plan to work, wouldn't be countenancing sin -- which he isn't supposed to be able to do, being unable to look on sin with the least bit of allowance.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Fatboy@Oct 20 2004, 12:17 PM

Ray do you believe that it was part of God's plan to bring mortality into the world or do you believe that Adam and Eve took it upon their selves and fully sinned understanding the consequences of that choice? If you believe this, then I have to ask do you believe in a God that is all knowing, and that God knew before he ever created Adam and Eve what they were going to do?

I am not Ray, but I will answer what it is that I believe.

I believe that God really didn't care, either way. I think He would have preferred for it to happen the way it did, because this brings all the glory and honor to Him, but He knowingly gave us our agency, knowing that it could have gone either way. I would hedge my bet that He "knew" that Adam and Eve would do what they did, but they still had the agency to not do it, and God had to be (and was, I am willing to believe) prepared to live with that consequence.

[Ray]

I would hedge my bet that He [God] "knew" that Adam and Eve would do what they did, but they still had the agency to not do it, and God had to be (and was, I am willing to believe) prepared to live with that consequence.

Of course He was, and did… until they did eat of that fruit. And the fact that God was also prepared for their choice to eat the fruit is evidenced by the fact that He had already appointed a Savior.

Not once is Adam and Eve's action described as a "sin."

I’m still waiting for someone to explain to me the difference between a “transgression” and a “sin”. I don’t believe there is any difference. I believe those 2 words mean basically the same thing. I will admit that I could be wrong about this, but I’m still waiting for someone to show me otherwise.

I'll have to look around a little more to see if there's any inconsistency between the LDS understanding of the Fall as a blessing, in the long run, and it being a sin. I wonder whether God, in requiring a sin to be committed for his plan to work, wouldn't be countenancing sin -- which he isn't supposed to be able to do, being unable to look on sin with the least bit of allowance.

I don’t think God is countenancing sin by providing a place where sin can be present. We are here to take a test, and in this test we must be exposed to both good and evil so that we can all see which one we prefer. But since God already knows everything, who do you think the test is for? On Judgment day we’ll all get a report, and we’ll all know how everybody did.

It doesn't say "By one man's sin, sin entered the world" it says, "By one man sin entered into the world." Through Adam, sin entered the world and in his fallen state, men sin and die. I'd also say that it's saying that Eve is totally off the hook!

Good point, but I could probably provide another scripture to illustrate my point. I’m only trying to show that what Adam did was a sin.

[Ray]

Okay, check out these scriptures:

39 - And it must needs be that the devil should tempt the children of men, or they could not be agents unto themselves; for if they never should have bitter they could not know the sweet—

40 - Wherefore, it came to pass that the devil tempted Adam, and he partook of the forbidden fruit and transgressed the commandment, wherein he became subject to the will of the devil, because he yielded unto temptation.

41 - Wherefore, I, the Lord God, caused that he should be cast out from the Garden of Eden, from my presence, because of his transgression, wherein he became spiritually dead, which is the first death, even that same death which is the last death, which is spiritual, which shall be pronounced upon the wicked when I shall say: Depart, ye cursed.

42 - But, behold, I say unto you that I, the Lord God, gave unto Adam and unto his seed, that they should not die as to the temporal death, until I, the Lord God, should send forth angels to declare unto them repentance and redemption, through faith on the name of mine Only Begotten Son. – D&C 29: 39-42

Notice that verse 41 states that those who transgress become as spiritually dead as Adam was in the beginning and as the wicked will be at the end, unless, as it says in verse 42, they accept the principles of repentance and redemption through faith on the name of Jesus Christ. Do you now see that Adam was considered to be “wicked” immediately after he gained the knowledge of good and evil, particularly concerning what he had just done? God didn’t say something like: "okay, so now that you know both good and evil, be careful from now on." Adam was immediately punished for his act of eating the forbidden fruit. And why would that be if what Adam had done was not a sin, or a transgression, or a thing that was “bad”.

Are you guys really trying to tell me that Adam was innocent after he ate that fruit?

[Fatboy]

Originally posted by Ray@Oct 20 2004, 01:52 PM

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin…even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord. – Romans 5:12-21

Considering the verse above together with the fact that we aren’t told of anything else that Adam and Eve did “wrong”, what “sin” do you think Paul was referring to?

And btw, I’ve heard from other people who say that a “transgression” is not the same as a “sin”, but if you’ll search the scriptures I think you’ll find that our Lord uses both of those words to refer to the same thing, i.e., a violation of the laws of God.

Of course, I’m willing to stand corrected if you will give me one good reason to accept what you say as the truth.

Sin entered into the world through trangressing the law. Sin was brought into the world not because of sin, but disobedience. Justice only saw that disobedience was done. The result would be the same. Because of disobedience Justice demanded that a fall occured. Because of the fall, sin was brought into the world because of mortality. Imperfection. Now I realize that your thinking in this area has been so for a long time. I have tried unsuccessfully to explain this to mainstream christians. And I don't know why I see it so clearly and you do not. I struggled understanding this concept for years. I was so excited one night as I was praying about something not even related to it. It just came out of the blue to me, and I am just excited to try and express it. I know sometimes that I do not have the language skills to do it justice.

Back to the point. Disobedience does not mean that it is the result of sin. Sin is knowing and understanding what God's law is. How could Adam or Eve sinned if they did not know what good and evil was? Yes God told them what they were to obey, but telling them and them understanding what the law meant are two different things.

[Fatboy]

Originally posted by Ray@Oct 20 2004, 05:09 PM

Okay, check out these scriptures:

39 - And it must needs be that the devil should tempt the children of men, or they could not be agents unto themselves; for if they never should have bitter they could not know the sweet—

40 - Wherefore, it came to pass that the devil tempted Adam, and he partook of the forbidden fruit and transgressed the commandment, wherein he became subject to the will of the devil, because he yielded unto temptation.

41 - Wherefore, I, the Lord God, caused that he should be cast out from the Garden of Eden, from my presence, because of his transgression, wherein he became spiritually dead, which is the first death, even that same death which is the last death, which is spiritual, which shall be pronounced upon the wicked when I shall say: Depart, ye cursed.

42 - But, behold, I say unto you that I, the Lord God, gave unto Adam and unto his seed, that they should not die as to the temporal death, until I, the Lord God, should send forth angels to declare unto them repentance and redemption, through faith on the name of mine Only Begotten Son. – D&C 29: 39-42

Notice that verse 41 states that those who transgress become as spiritually dead as Adam was in the beginning and as the wicked will be at the end, unless, as it says in verse 42, they accept the principles of repentance and redemption through faith on the name of Jesus Christ. Do you now see that Adam was considered to be “wicked” immediately after he gained the knowledge of good and evil, particularly concerning what he had just done? God didn’t say something like: "okay, so now that you know both good and evil, be careful from now on." Adam was immediately punished for his act of eating the forbidden fruit. And why would that be if what Adam had done was not a sin, or a transgression, or a thing that was “bad”.

Are you guys really trying to tell me that Adam was innocent after he ate that fruit?

Which is what happened to Adam. He went through a spiritual death because he had disobeyed by yielding to temptation. The spiritual death was the consequence that Justice demanded for transgressing the law. Another consequence was mortality resulting in physical death. The key to this is verse 39. Good and evil, happy, sad, light darkness. In order for us to comprehend one we must have the other. The whole thing was a plan to bring this to Adam and Eve and their posterity.

[Guest curvette]

I think one of the problems with this discussion is language or semantics. The words "sin" and "transgression" are so close as to be often interchangeable. Really they mean the same thing except that "sin" means to transgress moral law and transgression is a general breaking of a law. Since Adam and Eve didn't know the difference between good and evil, it's hard to put their choice in the "sin" category. Maybe another way to say it is that Adam and Eve did not "willfully" sin. They made a choice to transgress God's command, but they didn't know it was wrong. Because they didn't know, it wasn't really immoral--more amoral.

[Ray]

Sin is knowing and understanding what God's law is.

I think you didn’t finish this sentence as you meant to and I think I can understand why.

I think the difficulty you’re having while trying to put your idea into words comes from not completely understanding the idea, and while I am also having some difficulty expressing my idea to you, I believe I am doing a better job of it than you are because I understand the issue a little better than you do. All praise to God.

I think sin is a word we use to refer to the attitude of doing something against the will of God, and a transgression is what we call the act of doing that. In other words, I think sin is to knowingly violate the will of God, and a transgression is the act we perform when we make the choice to knowingly violate the will of God.

For instance, I think Adam sinned when He chose to disobey the counsel of God, and his transgression was to eat of that fruit. We cannot say that Adam did not know what he was doing, because Adam knew what God had told him, and while Adam didn’t yet know that God’s counsel was good, he did know that his choice was in opposition to the counsel God gave him.

Thus, sin is to follow Satan instead of following God, and Adam “fell” when he chose to follow Satan instead of following God. And what did he “fall” from? From righteousness, or the “condition” he was in when he had done nothing but follow the will of God.

I think it’s important to note that Adam needed the gospel at the very moment he ate of that fruit. In other words, even if Adam did nothing “wrong” other than to eat that fruit, he still needed to accept the gospel to be able to come back into the presence of God. With that understanding it should be clear that there is no middle ground. You’re either righteous or wicked. You’re either fallen or saved. You’re either for or against God.

And the thing that separates Man from God is sin.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Ray@Oct 21 2004, 10:52 AM

I think sin is a word we use to refer to the attitude of doing something against the will of God, and a transgression is what we call the act of doing that. In other words, I think sin is to knowingly violate the will of God, and a transgression is the act we perform when we make the choice to knowingly violate the will of God.

I agree with your definition of sin--that's a good way to put it. Transgression doesn't differentiate though between the knowing offender and the unknowing offender. The law is transgressed upon either way.

[Ray]

Originally posted by curvette+Oct 21 2004, 10:59 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Oct 21 2004, 10:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ray@Oct 21 2004, 10:52 AM

I think sin is a word we use to refer to the attitude of doing something against the will of God, and a transgression is what we call the act of doing that.  In other words, I think sin is to knowingly violate the will of God, and a transgression is the act we perform when we make the choice to knowingly violate the will of God.

I agree with your definition of sin--that's a good way to put it. Transgression doesn't differentiate though between the knowing offender and the unknowing offender. The law is transgressed upon either way.

Good point and I agree. Thanks. :)

[Fatboy]

Originally posted by curvette@Oct 21 2004, 10:06 AM

I think one of the problems with this discussion is language or semantics. The words "sin" and "transgression" are so close as to be often interchangeable. Really they mean the same thing except that "sin" means to transgress moral law and transgression is a general breaking of a law. Since Adam and Eve didn't know the difference between good and evil, it's hard to put their choice in the "sin" category. Maybe another way to say it is that Adam and Eve did not "willfully" sin. They made a choice to transgress God's command, but they didn't know it was wrong. Because they didn't know, it wasn't really immoral--more amoral.

Your right. I define this way. Sin is a transgression. Any sin is transgressing the laws of God. Definition of sin is knowingly disobeying. What is knowing a law? Understanding what the conseqences of those laws. As I have already stated, God told them that they would die if they ate the fruit. They had no knowledge or understanding of what death was. They had never seen, experienced it watched death in anyway. Now I know that commiting adultery is bad. Although I have never did this, I have seen the devestation that takes place. So I do not need to go through the actual experience to know that following the commandment is better than disobedience. Had Adam have seen, or experienced any kind of death while in this immortal state, then I would say that Adam did know and sin, which is a transgression. But he knew nothing about death, and in fact Satan told that he would not die, but that it was necessary gain knowledge of good and evil. Adam, once again did not have the knowledge to determine whether or not Satan was telling the truth or lying.

[Fatboy]

Originally posted by Ray@Oct 21 2004, 11:52 AM

Sin is knowing and understanding what God's law is.

I think you didn’t finish this sentence as you meant to and I think I can understand why.

I think the difficulty you’re having while trying to put your idea into words comes from not completely understanding the idea, and while I am also having some difficulty expressing my idea to you, I believe I am doing a better job of it than you are because I understand the issue a little better than you do. All praise to God.

FB: Perhaps you understand the way you interpret it better than I do. And you may be explaining your position better, but because of my lack of language skills make it wrong and you right?

I think sin is a word we use to refer to the attitude of doing something against the will of God, and a transgression is what we call the act of doing that.  In other words, I think sin is to knowingly violate the will of God, and a transgression is the act we perform when we make the choice to knowingly violate the will of God.

FB: Wrong. Transgression is the breaking of Gods laws. You want to tie it up with only sin being the only way to transgress. Suppose you broke a law not knowing it was a law? You had no idea that you had broke the law until you were captured and thrown into jail. Your defense was "I didn't know". The court still sends you to prison after due process. Is this fair? You talk of attitude. What attitude did Adam and Eve have when they partook? Was it an attitude of I am going to willingly go against God's laws? You can not tell that from the scriptures.

As I have stated before, sin is transgressing the laws of God. There are laws which we transgress that we did not know about or have any attitude about what we are doing, but we still break those laws. We still transgress, but that is not sin.

For instance, I think Adam sinned when He chose to disobey the counsel of God, and his transgression was to eat of that fruit.  We cannot say that Adam did not know what he was doing, because Adam knew what God had told him, and while Adam didn’t yet know that God’s counsel was good, he did know that his choice was in opposition to the counsel God gave him.

FB: Do you have little children? Can little children sin? Chirst says that unless we become as a little child we can not enter the kingdom of God. They can not sin even though they

Thus, sin is to follow Satan instead of following God, and Adam “fell” when he chose to follow Satan instead of following God.  And what did he “fall” from?  From righteousness, or the “condition” he was in when he had done nothing but follow the will of God.

FB: Did Adam know who Satan was? Did he know that Satan was evil and would lead him astray? If he did not, then how could you judge him to willingly follow Satan for disobedience? For all Adam knew he was doing the right thing.

I think it’s important to note that Adam needed the gospel at the very moment he ate of that fruit.  In other words, even if Adam did nothing “wrong” other than to eat that fruit, he still needed to accept the gospel to be able to come back into the presence of God.  With that understanding it should be clear that there is no middle ground.  You’re either righteous or wicked.  You’re either fallen or saved.  You’re either for or against God. 

And the thing that separates Man from God is sin.

FB: Sin entered because of transgression. Justice does not care whether Adam knew or not. The punisment is the same. Because of that mortality entered bringing with it sin. So by man sin entered into the world.

hi

[Ray]

Heh, I think you should try applying that logic before you think it is good.

I think you’re saying that because Adam hadn’t seen death, he had no real basis for believing what God told him. Do you also think we should wait until we see heaven before we believe we could go there?

Adam also did not know that he would not die, so why did he believe Lucifer?

And btw, "Hi" back to you.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by curvette+Oct 21 2004, 10:59 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Oct 21 2004, 10:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ray@Oct 21 2004, 10:52 AM

I think sin is a word we use to refer to the attitude of doing something against the will of God, and a transgression is what we call the act of doing that.  In other words, I think sin is to knowingly violate the will of God, and a transgression is the act we perform when we make the choice to knowingly violate the will of God.

I agree with your definition of sin--that's a good way to put it. Transgression doesn't differentiate though between the knowing offender and the unknowing offender. The law is transgressed upon either way.

So, when we pray "Forgive us our tresspasses as we forgive those who trespass against us", we are only asking forgiveness for the physical act, and not for the "attitude"?

[Ray]

Ray: I think sin is a word we use to refer to the attitude of doing something against the will of God, and a transgression is what we call the act of doing that. In other words, I think sin is to knowingly violate the will of God, and a transgression is the act we perform when we make the choice to knowingly violate the will of God.

FB: Wrong. Transgression is the breaking of Gods laws. You want to tie it up with only sin being the only way to transgress. Suppose you broke a law not knowing it was a law? You had no idea that you had broke the law until you were captured and thrown into jail. Your defense was "I didn't know". The court still sends you to prison after due process. Is this fair? You talk of attitude. What attitude did Adam and Eve have when they partook? Was it an attitude of I am going to willingly go against God's laws? You can not tell that from the scriptures.

As I have stated before, sin is transgressing the laws of God. There are laws which we transgress that we did not know about or have any attitude about what we are doing, but we still break those laws. We still transgress, but that is not sin.

I have already accepted a revised definition of sin and transgression based on information from curvette, which was already my idea but which I simply failed to express. If you’ll notice, my posts are usually revised because I usually go back through my posts to clarify my ideas as much as I can.

Anyway, my revised definition of sin and transgression would be as follows:

I think sin is a word we use to refer to the attitude of doing something against the will of God, and a transgression is what we call the act of doing that. In other words, I think sin is to knowingly violate the will of God, and a transgression is the act we perform when we violate the will of God.

As I said before, Adam knew he was violating the will of God, and that was his sin. His transgression was to eat the fruit that God told him not to eat, unless Adam chose to pay the consequences.

Can little children sin?

I was wondering when somebody would bring this up.

To that question I will ask this question. Can a little child steal something? To that I say yes, and I could provide examples of how it has happened. Well, if a child can steal, and stealing is a sin, then how can we say that children do not commit sin? To that I say it is because the child is not held accountable.

Notice the idea of being held “accountable”. So why aren’t children held accountable? Who made up that rule? Accountable for what, and by whom? When Adam and Eve did something that God told them not to do, they were held accountable, weren’t they? So why the exception for little children? I say that it is because we are now accountable to Jesus, because Jesus paid the price for the sins of Adam and Eve. God told Adam and Eve what the consequences would be for eating the forbidden fruit, and having done it, they then had to face the consequences. Jesus now says that children are free from sin until they reach an age of accountability, and that any child who does not reach the age of accountability is considered to be free from sin by virtue of the atonement.

As I said before, we can see that Adam and Eve were not considered to be free from sin because they were cast out of God’s presence immediately after they ate the forbidden fruit. Why would God do that if they had not sinned? And why would anyone be considered “wicked” and sentenced to “spiritual death” for violating the will of God? I say it is because of law.