The Nature of Fallen Man

[RandyPNW]

So when does a child experience or express or interface with "conscience"

Good question. For a fact I recall when a tiny tot my blanket was taken away. And my parents insisted on taking my blanket away. I had been eating my blanket out of nervousness.

And I threw a loud fit to the point I felt inwardly embarrassed, because I knew I was "acting." I knew they had a reason to take my shredded blanket away.

I have a distinct memory of that moment.  Yes, I had a sensitive conscience from infancy. Where the sense of conscience begins, I suppose, is from the beginning, though very undeveloped.

I suppose it was at around four, or five years old that I first entered into Sunday School on my own, without my parents. I distinctly remember the pride of joining my child-peers in our own meeting time.

And I also distinctly remember hearing the song sung by all the children, "Jesus loves me this I know." I remember feeling kind of excited about that! I'm neither bragging nor complaining--just saying. You decide when the conscience is "expressed?"

[ProDeo]

The privation of this gift resulted in humanity falling back into its "merely natural state" separated from the (supernatural) gifts of God. We were, in other words, placed under the limitations of our nature, and those were limitations that direct access to God had removed.

This still does not answer the question, why did God decided that the rest of human kind (not taking part in the sin of A&E) would fall  into its "merely natural state".

[Athanasius]

The privation of this gift resulted in humanity falling back into its "merely natural state" separated from the (supernatural) gifts of God. We were, in other words, placed under the limitations of our nature, and those were limitations that direct access to God had removed.

This still does not answer the question, why did God decided that the rest of human kind (not taking part in the sin of A&E) would fall  into its "merely natural state".

Because in disobeying God Adam and Eve removed themselves, and the whole of humanity consequently, from God's presence; or, as a result of Adam and Eve's disobedience God removed humanity from His presence.

While their nature didn't change, the parameters of Adam's and Eve's world changed, insofar as their understanding of 'good and evil' developed, then evolved, imperfectly. To say nothing of their realisation of shame, guilt, embarrassment, regret. Genesis 3 as the origin of all negative emotion, basically. And humanity is a social species, made to be in relationship with God, each other, creation. I don't see how it would be possible to, say, remove Adam and Eve from the garden, but then allow their children in until they too, sinned, and so on, and so on.

When they sinned, they choose for all of us. At least we're granted the mercy of never knowing exactly what we lost, but I guess we're also cursed with ever-reaching for it. Of course, we'll get it back and more.

[ProDeo]

Yep, standard view.

And it is as it is.

And yet I don't understand that the punishment of A&E is also the punishment for their children, grand children, eventually you, me and everyone who lived.

Ez 18:20 - The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

It's our standard too, we don't blame / punish children for the sins of the parents.

Contrary to this is Exodus 20:5 - You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me.

It's all a bit confusing, don't you think so too?

[Athanasius]

Yep, standard view.

And it is as it is.

And yet I don't understand that the punishment of A&E is also the punishment for their children, grand children, eventually you, me and everyone who lived.

Ez 18:20 - The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

It's our standard too, we don't blame / punish children for the sins of the parents.

Contrary to this is Exodus 20:5 - You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me.

It's all a bit confusing, don't you think so too?

I see it as a natural consequence, rather than a punishment, which is often artificial in that it doesn't naturally follow the event. So, just as future generations have to live with the earth in whatever state we pass it on to them...

[Reddogs]

Well, my close friend, Martha just delivered a baby girl who will no doubt live to sin, but until the time she is able to formulate that decision she is without sin and does not carry a stigma of guilt under the forbidding gaze of a dark and angry God who has already destined her to condemnation.

She is a creature of hope and if destined for death in infancy, that hope will continue, to the chagrin of a dark orthodoxy.

Like all other humans since the Edenic event, that infant was conceived in spiritual death and sin (the state of being and condition, not any action accomplished). But since scripture says there’s no sin imputed where there is no law (and the child can’t yet stand culpable according to the law), then the child has no guilt for sin until a later time.

No need to corrupt Christian doctrine so you can virtue signal and try to save all the babies and little kids. They are in a state of spiirtual death and sin but the sin isn’t yet imputed to them. That’s because God is a God of grace and mercy and great wisdom and provision.

The unborn dead, infants, and young children are not in danger of hellfire. Law has to impute sin, and that doesn’t happen in the womb, at birth, or in the earliest stages of life.

There. Now you can become an orthodox Christian and lay aside all your fears and false doctrine based upon ignorance.

I love the sentiment here. The only thing I *might* disagree with is the idea that sin isn't imputed to the sinner when there is no consciousness of sin. There has to be a law with humanity simply because we all have a conscience. The introduction of a more explicit "law" is not required to have a conscience.

I think Paul was speaking of the fact people were not held accountable to the Law of Moses before it was even given. But they were still held accountable for their sin.

Obviously, if their being "accountable" means simply that they have the "disease," and they are mindless children, then they are held accountable only for being born in a "condition," and not responsible for committing any but the slightest of sins, if any at all.

I say that because the passage indicates people still die well before Israel obtained the Law of Moses. And we know all people die before they reach any supposed "age of accountability." They die from a "disease," and not from personal responsibility.

They still needed to be rescued by the atonement of Christ. Whether they are separated from paradise or not after death, due to their sin, is a matter of your view on predestination, I suppose.

If a child is the fruit of parents, or ancestors, who have settled on a spirit of rebellion, then the child likely would be an apple that falls close to the tree. The child would be born with the inclination to follow suit.

But having done no wrong, the child may enter into a place, upon death, outside of paradise, with perhaps zero "stripes." It's purely speculative to me, and had to give my two cents. I'm open on the issue of Predestination, although I call myself a "Calvinist." And I do have a reason for this.

So when does a child experience or express or interface with "conscience"

That is a good question. The Jews had what us considered the age of accountability which was when the child reached 12. It was based on the Jewish custom that a child becomes an adult when he reached the age of 13, so 12 was the border between adult and childhood. Thus the age of accountability.. https://www.jewishawareness.org/bar-mitzvah-and-the-age-of-accountability/

Christians tend to lean toward when the child is deemed to be accountable for his or her beliefs and actions. But this can vary by child or parents views, so it basically means when ever those who oversee the child decide, whether 9, 12, 18 or 21 etc....

[Fenris]

That is a good question. The Jews had what us considered the age of accountability

Not "had". Have. Present tense.

  It was based on the Jewish custom that a child becomes an adult when he reached the age of 13, so 12 was the border between adult and childhood.

The "age of accountability" is 13 for boys, 12 for girls. That holds true for an "earthly court". The Talmud says that the "heavenly court" does not pass judgement on cases where the perpetrator is under 20 years old.

Of course Jewish children are expected to follow the law at the age where they can comprehend it, for learning purposes.

[Zachary]

Considering the rationale behind such institutions as infant baptism for the removal of "original sin," per example, one cannot but warily suspect the formation of doctrines - devised after the NT, Apostolic era - intended to define and classify elements of the human condition since the fall.

I will attempt to merge and touch on these related topics and invite all insight in the upcoming thread.

What does the Bible actually say?

Work in progress. Chill.


Merry Christmas! Stephen

Here is the first time the word "fallen" shows up in the KJV bible.

Genesis 4
3And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
4And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
5But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
6And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?

So maybe it is a clue?
Before Adam took the knowledge of good and evil they were naked and not ashamed. That likely meant they didn't know the difference. After knowing the difference they felt ashamed.
Perhaps the fallen nature is indeed emotional conflict within ourselves, because we "fall" short of our own desires. Just like Cain who wanted to be the winner.

I don't find the words "fallen nature" directly in the bible. But when things are fallen, like Cains countenance in that day, it is found here and there.

[Fenris]

Here is the first time the word "fallen" shows up in the KJV bible.

Well that's your problem right there.

It's just a translation. Not inspired. I personally feel that the KJV captures the poetic flow of the original Hebrew the best, but as a translation it's only average. Plenty of mistakes, some egregious.

and why is thy countenance fallen?

In Hebrew "וְלָ֖מָּה נָֽפְל֥וּ פָנֶֽיךָ"

The literal English translation is "and why did your face fall?"

Showing how much the Bible is part of western culture, it's an idiom in English too-

From the dictionary: The phrase "one's face fell" is a common English idiom meaning that a person's facial expression suddenly changes from looking happy or hopeful to looking sad, disappointed, or dejected.

Has nothing to do with the concept of man being "fallen", which is not even a concept in the Jewish bible.

[Zachary]

Here is the first time the word "fallen" shows up in the KJV bible.

Well that's your problem right there.

It's just a translation. Not inspired. I personally feel that the KJV captures the poetic flow of the original Hebrew the best, but as a translation it's only average. Plenty of mistakes, some egregious.

and why is thy countenance fallen?

In Hebrew "וְלָ֖מָּה נָֽפְל֥וּ פָנֶֽיךָ"

The literal English translation is "and why did your face fall?"

Showing how much the Bible is part of western culture, it's an idiom in English too-

From the dictionary: The phrase "one's face fell" is a common English idiom meaning that a person's facial expression suddenly changes from looking happy or hopeful to looking sad, disappointed, or dejected.

Has nothing to do with the concept of man being "fallen", which is not even a concept in the Jewish bible.

How does it not? Fall fell fallen. You wiggle your way from the meaning of the word fall. When the fall comes the trees shed their leaves. And then they grow new ones. What leaves are you harkening from? Dead and buried ones?

[Fenris]

How does it not? Fall fell fallen. You wiggle your way from the meaning of the word fall. When the fall comes the trees shed their leaves. And then they grow new ones. What leaves are you harkening from? Dead and buried ones?

What? Are leaves that fall from trees "fallen" in the Christian theological sense? My brain, it's gnawing its way out.

[Zachary]

How does it not? Fall fell fallen. You wiggle your way from the meaning of the word fall. When the fall comes the trees shed their leaves. And then they grow new ones. What leaves are you harkening from? Dead and buried ones?

What? Are leaves that fall from trees "fallen" in the Christian theological sense? My brain, it's gnawing its way out.

As they fall they are falling. Once they have fell, they are fallen. Hope that helps.