Should all people be blamed for Adam's sin?

[polonius]

At the beginning of the Bible, we are told that Adam and Eve sinned. ("Original Sin")

And all future generations inherited their guilt.

Is that true?

And wasn't that rather unjust of God?

[marco]

It is NOT the claims of the Genesis story that bring us to believe in and trust GOD but the other way around.

I can accept this. Augustine said: Crede ut intellegas - believe, that you may understand, and Anselm adopted this method. That might be easy for me to do were Paul not such an irritant. It is hardly an invitation to believe to be addressed as a fool.

The 'lack of seeing GOD in the world' is just another way to say a lack of 'black feathers' and while the topics may have different import, the logic of claiming non-existence based only on non-evidence is wrong in both cases.

Well I disagree with your analogy, clever though it is. The proof of black swans is seeing them. We don't have visual evidence that God exists, and certainly not that the Biblical God is real. Even if we concede that there is a designer, we don't rush to have tea with Yahweh.

[Peds nurse]

[Replying to post 18 by marco]

Well, Mr. Marco, I disagree with that philosopher. Just because we don't witness something to occur, doesn't mean it hasn't occurred, or does not exist. Isn't that the exact opposite of science?

[postroad]

[Replying to post 20 by Peds nurse]

More like, without evidence, I am not required to believe something. if all offered as proof is witness testimony and the testimony of the witnesses is shown to be unreliable and contradictory I am not obligated to believe it. If the witnesses can not even agree to what it is that is to be believed.....well

[marco]

[Replying to post 18 by marco]

Well, Mr. Marco, I disagree with that philosopher. Just because we don't witness something to occur, doesn't mean it hasn't occurred, or does not exist. Isn't that the exact opposite of science?

Er, I am not upholding this view, my dear nurse. I think we have evidence of many things we have not witnessed. We know that Nelson was killed by a French sniper at Trafalgar because he vainly refused to remove the hat that clearly identified him. So yes, we accept things we have not personally witnessed.

Should we accept the Garden of Eden scene? I cannot see on what basis we would. If the entire OT could be read with awe rather than with gasps of incredulity, then we might begin to think of according some sense to the story.

[biblebeltpresbyterian]

This post seems to have taken a turn to apologetics from its original theological/doctrinal question. In response to the OP:

As Adam was the federal representative of mankind, the status of guilt was transferred to all mankind on account of his choice. Responsibility for the choice to rebel against the will (moral design) of God is placed entirely on man. Christ is also the federal head (second Adam) and it is his righteousness that covers us. This is a simplified understanding of the Reformed/Calvinistic view of original sin and its solution.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 22 by Peds nurse]

Well, Mr. Marco, I disagree with that philosopher. Just because we don't witness something to occur, doesn't mean it hasn't occurred, or does not exist. Isn't that the exact opposite of science?

We can't know if something occurred UNLESS we have evidence of it's occurrence.


My bank manager keeps trying to tell me that.

[marco]

As Adam was the federal representative of mankind,

There is no such thing. One can, like Milton, compose poetry to comment on Paradise lost and we can then get away with attaching speculative titles to the first human.

the status of guilt was transferred to all mankind on account of his choice.

And how would anyone not related to God know of this divine legality?

Christ is also the federal head (second Adam) and it is his righteousness that covers us.

Presumably you mean "covers" in the sense of an insurance policy. Unless the word federal has taken on a mystical meaning in the past week, Christ isn't a federal anything.

Cardinal Newman has placed the idea of a second Adam in a fine hymn, Praise to the Holiest in the Heights, but it's a tricky view. One Adam was enough, surely.

[dio9]

but are we not in fact alienated ? From each other individuals tribes nations , God if you will? Is there any other species that suffers the existential angst we do? Ever seen an anxious frog ? No . There is something about us that stands us apart. Not in a good way . Its been recognized from the beginning of our race. We have set ourselves up outside the garden . No we should not be blamed for leaving the garden but leave the garden we did. And now what is our desire? Its to get back to the garden.

[biblebeltpresbyterian]

[Replying to post 27 by marco]

I think we are operating on different presuppositions and I was simply stating the Reformed perspective, which I believe is the correct interpretation of Scripture. There is far too much to cover here, but I will give it a go.

In response to my statement that "Adam was the federal representative of mankind," you state that there is no such thing and we cannot apply speculative titles to the first human outside of poetry. You also close by stating that "one Adam was enough." Paul calls Jesus the "second" or "last" Adam. I do not have the time currently to go into an exegesis of 1 Cor. 15:45, but perhaps later I could.

In response to Christ being the federal head you suggest that Christ isn't federal anything and, I assume joking, state my use of "cover" as an "insurance policy." This is not the case at all. Take a look at Paul's theology of Christ. We are covered (clothed) in his righteousness for justification, so also a Christian is "in" Christ just as they used to be, and all others, are "in" Adam. This is the federal headship of Christ.

[marco]

We have set ourselves up outside the garden . No we should not be blamed for leaving the garden but leave the garden we did. And now what is our desire? Its to get back to the garden.

All but two of us were never in the garden to begin with. And what is this high value set upon living in a garden, with fruit trees and the odd reptile? For the old bearded brutes of ancient times an oasis was heaven, but they had no concept of fresh running water miraculously appearing from a tap and heat obtained at the turn of a switch. Who wants to return to open air living, with fig leaves for garments?

It is an unwitnessed, figurative account; an ancient man's guess at what God did to start things off.