A Sin Question

[lattelady]

Snow,

A couple questions I have from your post: Are you saying that you believe that Jesus did have a degenerate nature as a result of being born of flesh here on earth? If so, how did he get that? What was the procedure? Many of the people on this Board seem to believe in an immaculate conception.

Also, what is your proof for man existed and "sinned" for a hundred thousand years before the Fall?

[Traveler]

Snow,

A couple questions I have from your post: Are you saying that you believe that Jesus did have a degenerate nature as a result of being born of flesh here on earth? If so, how did he get that? What was the procedure? Many of the people on this Board seem to believe in an immaculate conception.

Also, what is your proof for man existed and "sinned" for a hundred thousand years before the Fall?

I can answer for my opinion - not Snow's. First of all I do not believe any child is born with a degenerate nature capable of sin. Mankind is born with a fallen nature and sin or the knowledge of sin must be acquired.

As for proof of man prior to the fall? Carbon dating (as well as several other isotope methods), fossil records, DNA typing and every other method of dating devised by man.

The Traveler

[Misshalfway]

Adam's transgression not only brought sin into the world, it also brought death. The Atonement/gift of Christ covers both subsets of the fallen condition.

Children are born innocent. That is different than being born "perfected" or born in a sinful state. Even a child that is born and sinless is in need of Jesus because they could not overcome death alone. So, in my mind babies are not sinful but still fallen.

I think we all agree that we are born fallen. But I think it is important to define what "fallen" means. Flesh will always be prone to sin and corruptable but also has the power to overcome to some extent. Spirit will always be eternal and live on but will not necessarily continue on in righteousness. We are spirit and flesh. So.....to say we are born as sinful beings is an incomplete explanation of the condition of being fallen. It only defines half the picture. It is more accurate to say that we are prone to sin and destined to die but that we each have divine lineage to help us choose. We are all fallen and need the Atonement to return to God. But to condemn a person as sinful when they have committed no sin would be an error that even God himself couldn't make.

To commit official sin, a person must have knowledge of right and wrong. Even Adam and Eve's choice was not completely sinful because they didn't have a knowledge of right and wrong before they partook of the fruit. There's was a transgression only.

Edited October 12, 2009 by Misshalfway

[lattelady]

Misshalfway, when you say that Adam and Eve's choice to eat from the tree that God told them not to eat from (disobedience) was not completely sinful, what are your thoughts on Romans 5:12 "Therefore, just as SIN entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned..."

That verse calls their choice "sin."

What is the difference between a sin and a transgression?

[Misshalfway]

Misshalfway, when you say that Adam and Eve's choice to eat from the tree that God told them not to eat from (disobedience) was not completely sinful, what are your thoughts on Romans 5:12 "Therefore, just as SIN entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned..."

That verse calls their choice "sin."

What is the difference between a sin and a transgression?

"Sin entering the world" is different than being born already into a personally sinful state. Sin did enter the world thru the choice of adam but that doesn't make his choice inherently sinful. Adam and Eve did disobey God, but they did so from a state of innocence and immortality. They were beguilded by Satan who told them the truth......if they partook of the fruit they would know good and evil. Satan was right. Sin and truth and good and evil and death and eternal life was now open to all of mankind.

I see the choice as the opening of the door to altered earthly condititions. That is different than saying that each baby is inherently sinful when they are born. This statement is inaccurate. Each of us is born innocent.....we are as new and fresh as any saved individual. We have a fresh start to see how we will choose and we will be held accountable for our own choices. We are impacted by the choice of Adam, but we are not responsible and will not be punished for it. I am not even sure Adam will have any punishment. It is a matter of consequences. Consequences that enabled the atonement of Jesus Christ.

Edited October 12, 2009 by Misshalfway

[HiJolly]

Snow,

A couple questions I have from your post: Are you saying that you believe that Jesus did have a degenerate nature as a result of being born of flesh here on earth? If so, how did he get that? What was the procedure? Many of the people on this Board seem to believe in an immaculate conception.

Also, what is your proof for man existed and "sinned" for a hundred thousand years before the Fall?

Like Traveler, I'd like to toss out a comment or two.

Mosiah 3

The fact that we live in mortality means that we struggle with the 'natural man', or, base desires that are part and parcel with mortality. The 'animal within', for those who don't fear evolution.

Adam and Eve, before the Fall, existed in the Garden which WAS NOT like the earth we have around us. It was on a different plane of existence. I do not believe the Garden was EVER on the Earth.

Oh. And the immaculate conception was the conception of Mary, the mother of Jesus, not Jesus Himself, according to Catholic theology. FYI.

HiJolly

1 Corinthians 2

Alma 26

Doctrine and Covenants 67

[Misshalfway]

Misshalfway, when you say that Adam and Eve's choice to eat from the tree that God told them not to eat from (disobedience) was not completely sinful, what are your thoughts on Romans 5:12 "Therefore, just as SIN entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned..."

That verse calls their choice "sin."

What is the difference between a sin and a transgression?

As I said before, a person MUST have knowledge of good and evil in order to sin. And a person must choose to sin for a punishment to be just. It would not be just to punish someone for the choices of another, nor would it be just to punish someone simply because they were in mortal and corruptible state.

Adam and Eve's decision to partake of the fruit could not be characterized as purely sinful because they were in a state of innocence and immortality at the time.

I have no problem with this scripture you cite. In fact it says basically what I was trying to explain before. Sin DID enter the world because of one choice. So did death. But all this means is that the conditions of earth life were changed into a mortal, corruptible state of being. This does NOT mean that each individual is born inherently evil. What it means is that each individual is born in a state of innocence into a mortal and corruptable state. But there is no sin until there is disobedience and accountabiliy. So, children are innocent until they have grown to an age where they know what's right and wrong and they are able to be responsible for their actions and accountable for knowledge.

I think we are basically saying the same thing in terms of man's inability to save himself. I just disagree with the idea that the nature of mankind is evil. I believe we are both good and evil and we have capacity for both. The choice of Adam just set the conditions for my earth life experience not my capacities for good or evil.

Edited October 12, 2009 by Misshalfway

[Misshalfway]

Misshalfway, when you say that Adam and Eve's choice to eat from the tree that God told them not to eat from (disobedience) was not completely sinful, what are your thoughts on Romans 5:12 "Therefore, just as SIN entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned..."

That verse calls their choice "sin."

What is the difference between a sin and a transgression?

As I said before, the difference is knowledge. Both conditions are displays of disobedience but the question of accountablity can only be measured based upon a person's capacity to comprehend right from wrong. Would you punish a child the same as adult? Would you punish the group for the sins of the one? No. Neither is just. If the rest of humanity were punished because of Adam's transgression, that would be an unjust condemnation. God will never punish unjustly. I am going to be judged according to my own sins and you will be judged for yours. The Fall simply set up the conditions for our earth life tests.

I have no problem with the scripture you cited above. Sin DID enter the world thru Adam. So did death. I don't see how this is a description of anything other than the conditions of mortality. I see nothing in this scripture that tells me that mankind is inherently or completely evil. If this were the case, then mankind wouldn't produce anything good and earth life wouldn't offer anything good either. And this is simply not the case with life or with people. Adam's choice brought all the extremes and opposites into the world -- good and evil, joy and pain, sin and righteous, life and death. We are part of those opposites as both good and evil are present in each one of us!

And this then comes to the purpose of earth life. If we are inherently evil,and this doctrine were true, all of earth life would be a useless exercize! Why even talk about a judgment day or punishment or establish the fear of God in a person?

Our earth test is all about what we will choose and what parts of us we will master. The gospel is the way we master them. Where is the test if there is nothing to choose from or no capacity to choose well? This was the whole problem with the Garden in the first place. No opposites. No inticings one way or the other. No knowledge to guide choices. No need for a Savior or a plan of salvation. Just immortality and damnation. Adam's choice was like opening a door......a door to all possibilities for progression in both extremes and all the degrees in between. It's up to us what we will do with our life. Life is more than just a group of evil ones and the Savior who saves them. The worth of souls is great! The potential of people even greater! Yes we need help. Yes we need to repent. But our sole responsibility is how well we will choose under these conditions of mortality and on that is what we will be judged. And we have enough goodness and enough capacity to choose the good and the righteous and to progress inside the safe and loving arms of a Savior if we choose to do so.

Edited October 12, 2009 by Misshalfway

[lattelady]

HiJolly, are you sure that the Catholic church's teaching on the immaculate conception is in regards to the conception of Mary? That has never been my understanding of Catholic teaching or Evangelic teaching either. It has to do with Jesus' immaculate conception. If you have references from Catholic teaching in that regard, I would like to see them.

This is one of the ways in which mainstream Christianity differs so much from what the LDS church teaches--the issue of the depravity of man. And I take what the Bible says on this subject to be the only teaching. I do understand that the LDS church teaches the addition of modern revelation which would shed a different light on what the Bible has said. It is difficult to accept that man is born with a sin nature and that the Bible teaches that the heart is deceitful "above all things" and desperately wicked. But I believe that this is why the message of the gospel really is such "good news." It can transform hearts.

[Moksha]

Here's a question we batted around when I was in Bible College:

Do we sin because we're sinners, or are we sinners because we sin?

Out of curiosity, did anyone at that Bible College introduce the idea that there is no sin, but rather only mistakes and as mistakes they can be rectified?

[pam]

HiJolly, are you sure that the Catholic church's teaching on the immaculate conception is in regards to the conception of Mary? That has never been my understanding of Catholic teaching or Evangelic teaching either. It has to do with Jesus' immaculate conception. If you have references from Catholic teaching in that regard, I would like to see them.

This is one of the ways in which mainstream Christianity differs so much from what the LDS church teaches--the issue of the depravity of man. And I take what the Bible says on this subject to be the only teaching. I do understand that the LDS church teaches the addition of modern revelation which would shed a different light on what the Bible has said. It is difficult to accept that man is born with a sin nature and that the Bible teaches that the heart is deceitful "above all things" and desperately wicked. But I believe that this is why the message of the gospel really is such "good news." It can transform hearts.

My understanding is pretty much the way HiJolly explained it.

If I might use this link from a Catholic website concerning this. (Have to go to the source to find an explanation)

Immaculate Conception and Assumption

[lattelady]

Moksha: Nope, no one introduced that thought--we were taught strictly from the Bible.

[lattelady]

Pam, thanks for that--wow, that was enlightening! I was definitely ignorant of that teaching. Now that I'm clear on that, and understand the Catholic perspective--thanks, HiJolly, for that, I have to make it clear (you might have already understood this already) that Evangelical Christians don't believe "immaculate conception" is in reference to Mary. We believe that Jesus was conceived "immaculately", without a sexual relationship, and through the overshadowing and power of the Holy Spirit. Immaculate, to us, just means there was no physical union between Joseph and Mary, or God and Mary, since we believe that God is spirit. Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

[Misshalfway]

Out of curiosity, did anyone at that Bible College introduce the idea that there is no sin, but rather only mistakes and as mistakes they can be rectified?

I don't think they introduced that one into mormon Sunday school either.

[lattelady]

Is that what you believe, Moksha? that there is no sin, only mistakes?

[Justice]

Misshalfway, when you say that Adam and Eve's choice to eat from the tree that God told them not to eat from (disobedience) was not completely sinful, what are your thoughts on Romans 5:12 "Therefore, just as SIN entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned..."

That verse calls their choice "sin."

What is the difference between a sin and a transgression?

Time to get technical... I know you love it when I do that. :)

It does not say Adam sinned, it says through one man sin entered the world. What Adam did (transgression) allowed sin in the world.

So, sin did enter through what Adam did, but it does not say what Adam did was a sin.

[Misshalfway]

I appreciate that the LDS theology differs from mainstream Christianity and that's ok. And I appreciate that two people can read the Bible text and come away with different understandings. There is no doubt in my mind that the Bible is almost nothing but a commentary on the worst parts of human nature. But I guess I would argue that this isn't all it says. It is clear to me that we are given talents and gifts of the spirit. It seems that we must have some sort of ability to muster faith to believe in Jesus in the first place and if you believe that we are children of God, there must be at least some goodness or divine nature passed to us through that procreative process. It seems obvious to me that Jesus saw the goodness and innocence of children. He condemned those who would hurt a child and taught mankind to become like them.

And then there is my personal experience with God and lessons he has helped me learn with regards to my worth as a person and my capacity and talent and inherent loveableness even though I am in a fallen state.

I can't disagree that mankind has some serious nature deficits, but I can't be convinced either than mankind is completely evil. It seems that in America, our churches are telling us we suck and then all the therapists and self help books are trying to teach us to love ourselves and to have good self esteem. I mean when our kids come home from school and say "Man, I am a loser." What are we gonna say....."Yup honey, you are. It says right here in the Bible."

Edited October 12, 2009 by Misshalfway
added a thought

[lattelady]

I tell my kids that they are SO precious in God's sight that He sent His only Son Jesus to come to this fallen world to die for the bad things we have done, do, and will do, so that we could spend forever with Him--so they must be, and I must be more special than we can even conceive! He thinks we're worth a whole lot. I guess that's the message I've been trying to get through my head my entire life--apart from God, I can do nothing, but in Him, and because of Him, I am worthwhile, priceless, loveable, loved, accepted, beautiful. That's why I adore Him.

[Dr T]

Time to get technical... I know you love it when I do that. :)

It does not say Adam sinned, it says through one man sin entered the world. What Adam did (transgression) allowed sin in the world.

So, sin did enter through what Adam did, but it does not say what Adam did was a sin.

So would you not say that doing something against what God told us to do is not sin?

[lattelady]

Justice, I know the text doesn't say, verbatim, "Adam sinned, and through his sin, sin entered the world." But when you look at the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden, God gave them only one rule: you can eat of any tree in the Garden, but do not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil--for when you eat of it, you will surely die. Their choice was not a mistake; it was not an accident; it wasn't a lack of understanding either, because God made it clear what the boundary was. Their choice was deliberate disobedience (sin); and He told them the consequence--death. So when you look at that passage in Romans and it says sin entered the world through one man and death through sin, we know exactly what it's talking about--Adam's sin, and it's consequence.

[Snow]

Snow,

A couple questions I have from your post: Are you saying that you believe that Jesus did have a degenerate nature as a result of being born of flesh here on earth? If so, how did he get that? What was the procedure?

No - I didn't say that. What I said was that the doctrine of original sin necessitated the non-scriptural gymnastics to deal with the implications of original sin. One such gymnastic is the idea of an immaculate conception.

However, if by degenerate nature you mean a human body that is subject to the vicissitudes of disease and death, then yes - obviously. He got it from being born human.

Many of the people on this Board seem to believe in an immaculate conception.

If by that you mean born without the stain of original sin, then, of course, we LDS all believe in immaculate conception. If by immaculate conception you mean the Catholic dogma pertaining to Mary, then no, there are many here who believe such a thing.

Also, what is your proof for man existed and "sinned" for a hundred thousand years before the Fall?

Are you seriously so unacquainted with the rudiments of science that you are not aware of the proofs for advent of modern man (homo sapiens)? If so - I do not intend wasting the time to enlighten you. Deniers of science don't warrant much attention. They are irrational. If your point is that although modern man has been around hundreds of thousands of years, you do not believe that, prior to Adam, he ever robbed, or lied, or slept around, or murdered, or engaged in hooliganism - then see my opinion of deniers of science.

[Justice]

This is an attempt to answer both of your posts and questions.

God didn't just give Adam 1 thing to do, or not do. To not partake of the fruit wasn't even the first commandment. He told Him (or them) first to multiply and replenish the earth.

Dr T, you need to define "us." You and me, yes. But, Adam? He was immortal and innocent. He had not yet experienced sin, had no knowledge of the consequence of sin (death), and did not understand what evil was. He was in a much different position than we are now. Too many people don't ponder on what this may have meant to their choice.

I believe Adam and Eve partook of the fruit to keep the first commandment, or they wanted to multiply and replenish the earth. They chose to keep the first commandment knowing it would break the second, or knowing they had to eat the fruit to gain the knowledge of how to keep the first commandment. They did not, however, fully understand the consequences until after they had partaken. This is why it was labeled "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."

So, it wasn't a situation of "I know it's wrong but I'm going to do it anyway." It was a matter of "if we're going to multiply and replenish the earth (do what God told us to do) we have to partake of the fruit (do what God told us not to do)."

From that perspective I believe their act was a transgression, not a sin.

Edited October 13, 2009 by Justice

[Snow]

Pam, thanks for that--wow, that was enlightening! I was definitely ignorant of that teaching. Now that I'm clear on that, and understand the Catholic perspective--thanks, HiJolly, for that, I have to make it clear (you might have already understood this already) that Evangelical Christians don't believe "immaculate conception" is in reference to Mary. We believe that Jesus was conceived "immaculately", without a sexual relationship, and through the overshadowing and power of the Holy Spirit. Immaculate, to us, just means there was no physical union between Joseph and Mary, or God and Mary, since we believe that God is spirit. Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

You are confused. You may be thinking of the Immaculate Reception - the winning TD pass, Terry Bradshaw to Franco Harris but most likely you are simply referring to the Virgin Birth of Christ and confusing it with the Catholic dogma of the immaculate conception - which applies to Mary, not Christ. You can look it up.

[pam]

lol you are showing your age Snow remembering any kind of pass between Terry Bradshaw and Franco Harris. Then again I remember many Dan Fouts to Kellen Winslow and Charlie Joyner passes.

[pam]

What I would like to ask of lattelady. You posed the question almost 80 posts ago. Has your question been answered?