Did Adam's and Eve's flesh change when they sinned?

Yes! It was subjected to decay...you know...wrinkles, odor, fat, etc.,etc.

Can I get a witness!

Didn't they stop glowing or something? Saw that on the "Noah" movie.

Tuc-

Animals don't sin so I would say the flesh itself did not become sinful because the flesh is not what makes us human; however the flesh and spirit/soul is so entwined that the flesh suffered the effects of sin, both in the sense of deterioration and response to stimuli (e.g.lust and other physiological responses)

Todd, animals don't sin? What about fornication. :-)

RE: /// Before they sinned they did not have a sinful nature.
So after they sinned did their flesh become sinful?///

The phrase "sinful nature" is not in the Scriptures.

I am not convinced that the Bible teaches that the flesh is sinful in and of it's self , It seems from my research to be an idea that Augustine came up with in trying to understand his own sinfulness.

Here is what Paris Reidhead had to say about Augustine and this doctrine :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHgsZv1JyJE

I believe that The infant is born naked and unaware. I believe that they are born pure and innocent.

Are Men Born Sinners?
by Alfred T. Overstreet
Excerpts from Charles G. Finney's Sermon
THE EXCUSES OF SINNERS :
http://www.gospeltruth.net/menbornsinners/mbs23.htm

Proudpapa, you wrote: "I believe that the infant is born naked and unaware. I believe that they are born pure and innocent.”

Romans 8:7 says:
"Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.” (KJV)

My question:
So, when and how does the baby subsequently acquire this carnal mind?

RE:/// My question:
So, when and how does the baby subsequently acquire this carnal mind?///

I believe :
The infant does not yet have an understanding of right from wrong.
We often refer to it as not yet attaing an age or state of accountability
the Bible says it this way : "persons who do not know their right hand from their left"

The definition of sin according to Scripture is : " the transgression of the law."

The infant is born pure and innocent in the fact that they are born without : "guilt"
That is both obvious as well as Scriptural

They have not transgressed any law because as an infant they have no law.

"where no law is, there is no transgression."

Paul said it this way in Romans 7:9 For I was alive (as an infant) without the law once (before understanding right from wrong): but when the commandment came (understanding law), sin revived, (from the previous generation to the next ) and I died( in Adam all die)
(died to innocence)(guilt entered in)

edit add "I believe"
clarity

RE : ///That would mean you think Jesus died for what men do rather than who they are.///

I do believe that Jesus is the : "the propitiation for our sins"

Having said that, I also believe that what men do : defines whom they are.

Would people in nations today and throughout history who have not heard about our true God and who have absolutely no knowledge of God's law be considered "innocent" because
"where no law is, there is no transgression."

RE : /// Would people in nations today and throughout history who have not heard about our true God and who have absolutely no knowledge of God's law be considered "innocent" because
"where no law is, there is no transgression."///

The first 3 chapters of Romans : Paul spends a great deal of time proving that all are under sin.

Paul specifically answers your question :

14For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

All men reach a state of accountability by which they understand that somethings are right and somethings are wrong. When they fail their own standard they become guilty
add : "all men of normal minds that live long enough will die of innocence"

Brother I absolutely agree with every word you've taken care to post in this thread, and not only is it directly in line with my own personal findings (even down to where/when/who brought this doctrine into the church) from probably the single most extensive study of any one topic in the scriptures I've ever personally done. That in itself doesn't make it "right" but it is very encouraging to me to kno I'm not the only person who came to this conclusion after mining the scriptures. It came to my attention some time ago that this is in opposition to most "orthodox" confessions of faith and often those who maintain this position are often branded heretics.

You are obviously more than capable to handle your own regarding this topic tho' I'd like to share the scripture that (for me) sealed the deal.
It's found in the prophecy of Jesus coming as messiah found in the 7th chapter of Isaiah verse 16a

"For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good,"

for any who may be interested in reading in context it makes a strong case for a proverbial "age of accountability".
Tho' there are (for me) several scriptural premises illustrating this principal that flow in context with the whole of the word as well common sense examples of this as a factual basis of truth, at this point in the discussion it would only serve to create strife for me to press the point-

Having said that, this is one of the 3 big misunderstandings that came about that has undermined the very foundations of the church for some 1700 years. (From my research)

As for brother Tuc's OP question, did our flesh change?
Yes
"The wages of sin is death"
"Thru sin, death entered the world"

I am sure God loves every baby and God loves every one of us. For God so loves the world! He loves us with an everlasting love.

I would just say that there are many things we do not really understand now. Eternity I am sure will reveal how little we have understood about so many "other things”. In the final analysis, the only thing that really matters for us now is the knowledge of the glory of the cross and the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and in all our conversations and discussions that surely must stand out bold and clear at the bottom line.

We thank God for His tender mercies with which the Sunrise from on high has visited us to shine upon us who sit in darkness and the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace (Luke 1:78-79)

RE : /// What is sinful "flesh"? ///

I believe :

"sinful flesh" is flesh that has been tainted by sin ,

Jesus Flesh was only in : "likeness of sinful flesh" He never personally sinned

"For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin."

If it is a sinful nature that causes people to to sin and Jesus did not have a sinful nature than it would stand to reason that Jesus was not tempted in all points like we are.
But the Scripture says that He was : " in all points tempted like as we are"

______________

Edit add : RE: ///So was Jesus Christ, who was the last Adam. Was His "FLESH" any different from the first Adam's "FLESH"?///

That is a good question, I do not have that one thought through :
Did Adam age ?
Did Jesus age ?

Tuc-

Perhaps if you would define what you mean by "flesh" we could avoid talking past each other.

To me, flesh is simply our tissues and bones and organs; our bodies and only our bodies.

If that is what you mean when you use the term "flesh" then I would argue that sin "infected" our flesh in the sense that it was now subject to decay, etc. The fall started this chain reaction because all human flesh has aged and decayed since then.

Even Jesus aged and I am sure at age 33 when he died his body would have shown signs of some wear and tear in the joints, etc.

That being said, I agree with PP that babies are sinless. They will sin some day, likely at a very young age, but babies are not guilty of sin. They don't need to be baptized to remove the stain of original sin as the RCC teaches.

Adam's flesh was created. The flesh of Jesus Christ was Fathered by God, The body prepared for Him through Mary's seed. Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

That body was prepared for Him for the work He was to do. The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Hebrews 10:7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

Adam did not have the will to do of God His will, he was to obey and did not. There is a difference between a created body and a birthed body, the birthed body has the DNA of the Father (no sin in Him) in Him merged with the seed of its nature through Mary. Adam created nature, Jesus Birthed nature. Adams offspring by a created nature along with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil when eaten became sinful created man. Jesus with the Life of God was and is God in man birthed by God the Father Himself. This is the whole of all that man is, that God might birth a Son of Man who was all God and All Man, perfect in all His ways, Jesus Christ the Son of God. He is now birthed in our spirit and we are now spiritually son's of God, and in resurrection we will be just like Him. A new creature A new building A new creation. A Godly re-birthed being, just like His only begotten Son

Hebrews 10:9-10 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Strong's Greek Dictionary (creature)
2937. κτισις ktisis
Search for G2937 in KJVSL
κτισις ktisis ktis'-is
from 2936; original formation (properly, the act; by implication, the thing, literally or figuratively):””building, creation, creature, ordinance.

2Co 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
Ga 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ : nevertheless I live ; yet not I , but Christ liveth in me : and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God , who loved me , and gave himself for me .

God birthed by Christ in you the hope of glory>

In Christ: No longer I who live but Christ liveth in me: In the Flesh by faith, in spirit by birth.

Phillip

I agree.

If Jesus's flesh had been examined at the cellular and molecular level he would have been found to be human.

What inhabited the flesh is the distinction.

It puzzles me how anyone with small children can hold to a position that says mankind is morally neutral at birth or that denies an inherited bent toward evil...but for those who question if man is corrupt in his human nature even at birth, I found this to be a good start (if you can get past the theological persuasion of the ministry and look at the scripture provided): http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-is-the-biblical-evidence-for-original-sin

RE : /// It puzzles me how anyone with small children can hold to a position that says mankind is morally neutral at birth or that denies an inherited bent toward evil.///

I have several babies and very young children,

I find that Jesus was correct when He said of little children : "for of such is the kingdom of heaven."

I also believe that the Bible teaches that little children have angels pleading to the Father on there behalf :
"Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven."

With Augustines view of original sin came his view in the need of infant Baptism for the purpose of removing original sin.

The History of forced infant Baptism is a most bloody history,

add : http://homecomers.org/mirror/

I believe Romans 5 explains it quite well...

Wow Marc your ability for condescension is spectacular.

No one here is arguing that children will not sin. Of course they will. Humans have a "bent" toward sin, without exception.

That is far different from saying that infants are capable of sinning or that they are "evil." They most decidedly are not.

by awakened on 2016/9/8 7:15:30
What is the next logical step for those who agree with your doctrine...do you conclude that God sends all those evil babies to hell?

The brother already answered this in a prior comment...he doesn't believe that people are condemned to hell until they reach an age of accountability.

by marcmc on 2016/9/8 6:50:08
FTR I do not believe children are held accountable until the age of accountability. The two positions I hold on this are not at odds to me at all.

I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

~ Ephesians 4:1-6

Marcmc,

I tried to email you, but it bounced back. Perhaps you can reach out to me and provide a good email address?

Here is what i tried to email you:

Hey Brother,

I read some of your comments on the SI thread on 'the flesh of Adam' which became about 'original sin'. I wanted to encourage you that I largely agree with your position and I also sympathize with the experience of brothers who believe they have 'knowledge' and 'truth' on their side becoming quite abrasive and even combative (assuming an adversarial posture, and not a humble brotherly one in love).

As a matter of fact, I have been guilty of this myself quite often. How pride can blind us!

I find it wise that you chose to bow out of the thread, and I kind of hope you 'stick to your guns' regarding continuing to post on this topic, as I have seen Christians bite and devour each other on SI on account of doctrinal 'truth' and wholly neglect the reality of the unity we ought to have on account of the Person of Truth and our common love for Him and His ownership of us...

I just wanted to reach out and say 'Hi', and hopefully spark a friendship and a camaraderie in the Lord.

My name is Forrest and I currently live in California. I hope to hear back from you (Lord willing, that is).

Your brother in the Lord Christ (by His precious blood),

~ Forrest.

by awakened on 2016/9/8 7:43:09

Hi Marcmc,...

I also think for the sake of brotherly love you should clear up what you said about those who disagree with your doctrine of depravity, that they are without exception a "mess". None of us have the luxury of dropping that sort of stuff on the forum then walking away and washing our hands of it. I wish it were that easy lol:-)

I'm not too sure he has anything to "clear up"... He is stating his experience and opinion on a matter. It may offend you, but that does not necessarily mean the offense is due to a lack of love in him; if even a lack of understanding or truth...

What I am saying is this: it may be possible that he is wrong in his conclusion, or even unskilled in his presentation ("may be", I say, not that I am saying he is), but this does not mean that he is necessarily being proud or unloving. Just frank and truthful. Perhaps he could have used more tact and gentleness, but a mature brother should not stumble at such things.

I would tend to agree with him that there are certain foundational and wide-reaching aspects of truth that some who are ignorant of suffer spiritually as the result. Just saying this doesn't make me proud or arrogant - again, even if I am wrong in my position. It is just that, my position - and so long as it isn't clearly contradicted by God in scripture, I am entitled to both hold it and speak it (in love and for the edification of the body).

Here is a great article that I believe largely agrees with the brothers position by a man of God who operated in Christ's anointing: https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=30586&forum=34

And here is the sermon on the same topic on Youtube (preached from the Times Square Church pulpit in 2008, according to the OP on youtube, who I believe is the same person who share the article on SI and who also knew the brother personally and attended the church he was a pastor in): https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=30586&forum=34

There is not much to base the doctrine of original sin upon, other than the fact that all men, without exception (other than Jesus), sin. If there were not some element in human nature that is predisposed toward sin, it would be difficult to explain this universal phenomenon.

In Romans 7:14, Paul seems to bemoan the fact that, even though he desires in his mind to be obedient to God, yet he finds "a law" (a principle or a force) within his flesh that resists what his mind has chosen. This seems to speak of a mysterious element in human nature that is determined to sin, even when a man's rational powers are determined not to do so.

Of course, this does not prove that the "law" of sin is inside of man from birth. One might argue that, upon committing one's first act of sin, a person then becomes a slave to sin (as Adam apparently did), and is inclined that way forever thereafter.

The statement of scripture that comes closest to supporting the idea of people being born with a propensity to sin is Psalm 58:3: "The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies."

If one wished to refute the point, it could be pointed out that there surely is hyperbole in the statement, since no one really "speaks lies" the moment they are born! Also, the verse speaks only of "the wicked." It does not say that this is true of all men, including the "righteous"--a class which the Psalmist acknowledges as existing (v.10).

If a sin principle is indeed passed down from Adam to all his children (as I personally believe to be the case), it does raise the question of whether this is carried in the genes (and if so, which ones?), or whether it is a non-biological inheritance. If the latter, then it is a phenomenon unknown to science, unparalleled and unexplained anywhere in scripture. If such a strange thing is true, it is surprising that the scriptures would say nothing clearly about it.

I do believe in the inheritance of the sin-principle (meaning a propensity to self-gratification, rather than glorifying God), but I cannot prove it definitively. Many babies appear to be born surly, though others seem to be sweeter-natured. Nothing is proved by this observation, but it is an observation of interest.

In any case, it can hardly be a sticking-point among Christians as to whether people are born with a sin-nature or not. After all, it is our actual sins (not our nature) that bring condemnation--and we have all sinned since birth--making our state at birth a rather moot point.

It would seem only to be relevant to the case of infants who die at infancy. But then, if we believe in an age of accountability, even this case would render the question only academic, it seems.

If the sin of Adam is imputed (by God) prior to birth and therefore prior to a willful complicity, the salvation by grace would be an impossibility as it would necessitate that it (salvation) would be by justice....

Marcmc,

Thanks! I just dropped you a line (literally, one line) to begin a dialog. Thanks for your willingness to correspond, I look forward to hearing from you/emailing you a bit more in depth very soon.

A fellow member of Christ's body,

Marcmc,

I did not find your observations to be condemning at all. I took them as just what they seem: your observations. I was not offended at all - even though I am not a Calvinist nor do I hold to a "Calvinist definition of total depravity" (as one brother, Mark, has categorized your position for you). Nor did I even sense that you were presenting the "Calvinist" aspect of "total depravity" held by some Calvinists, that one is unable to repent and believe prior to regenerating grace and the new birth (even if this is what you believe).

And I do respect your resolve to back out of the thread and your apparent self-control to do just that in spite of at least one brother inviting (even "challenging") you to re-join it (contrary to what conviction, wisdom and apparently your conscience permits).

I give praise and thanks to Jesus for this.

_____________________________________________

Mark,

Why do you seek to entice the brother to act contrary to his convictions and conscience? And if you would, can you please explain how this brother sharing his observation can be considered "condemnation"?

If those who he seems to be referring to have faith in Christ and the witnesses of the Spirit and their own conscience/experience that they are not a mess (in spite of disagreeing with him), then not only do his observations not apply to them at all (as he likely hasn't had first hand 'experience' of them and their testimonies) - they could hardly be considered "condemning"...

In my opinion, he wasn't trying to convince those that disagree with him that they are a mess, just commenting that in his experience those that don't hold to what he perceives as a truthful and accurate view of the effects of 'original sin' on human nature have been 'a mess', spiritually speaking. He didn't say "lost", "hellbound", "condemned", "hated of God", "backslidden"...just "a mess." One can be a believer and still be an immature, carnal and disorderly Christian, no?

Mark, would you do me a favor and please examine yourself as to whether you are coming to your brother in meekness and humility and for his well being and that of the body of Christ...if you would (for Jesus' sake). Thank you, brother.

Forrest-

I appreciate your heart but when I told Marc that he had a spectacular ability for condescension it was not based on this thread alone. It is a repeated pattern of making very strong statements and intimating those that think otherwise are either stupid or less spiritual.

Perhaps you have not been aware of this, so you did not recognize his condescension in this thread for what it was.

Like you said this shouldn't offend a mature believer but it is irritating and perhaps offensive to younger believers.

Todd,

I am refreshed and encouraged by your spirit as well as your words. I believe Jesus is truly pleased with us when we walk in love and humility and that is what I perceive you have done. Please be encouraged that in my eyes at least, you have 'walked worthy of your calling' in your response to me and have glorified Jesus before many in doing so.

May His blessing fall on you even more brother (and on others through you and the humility and love that Jesus works through).

Your brother,

RE: /// I believe Romans 5 explains it quite well..///

Would you care to expound ?

///Would you care to expound?///

Have you re-read it? I'm sure you can see what I believe teaches "original sin"...no?

"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned””"

Spiritual death as the result of Adams sin...

"Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come."

The likeness of the transgression of Adam... Perhaps willful sin and without the necessity due to nature...? Willful vs. not willful sin, maybe? Either way, even those who didn't sin in the likeness of Adam's transgression are ruled by death (again, due to one man's sin).

"For if by the one man's offense many died..."

"And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation..."

"For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one..."

"Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation..."

"For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners..."

It's hard to try to get around those verses forest,

I see Cleary the oridgnal sin ,and the result ,which is literal death and spirtual death as a result of Adams sin ,

But also the result that all are made sinners ,, rather then all decided to sin when they turned 10 years old ,and lost their inherent purity ......

And the context Cleary speaks about all this happens are a result of judgment, not by free choice.......

I think when Romans speaks of death ,literal and spiritual death can't be separated ,,,,because all are made sinners ,the result was death spread to all people young and old , before the fall there was no death ,Adam was not made a sinner , but was pure , which was why the transgression was so great ,and God had no patients and judges him after the one sin ,

Yet Adams sons are shown mercy in there judgment ,and through faith can be reconciled back to God ,yet by his spirit rather then face to face ,which was more then what Adam recieved, in the context ,of the felowship he once knew , through Christs blood, we receive what we never could imagine was posable , the eye has never seen nor the ear here'd the things that God has prepared ,for those that love him!

Oridgnal sin and total depravity , and the sinfull birth ,only makes gods grace so much sweeter , once we can get our head around the depths of judgment and the height of gods love for us .."....

That is not how I personally understand Romans 5.
I personally do not believe that it teaches original sin but yes I understand why you believe that it does.

The phrase's "sinful nature" and "spiritual death" are neither one found in the Scripture.

I am fixing to leave for work now, But to better understand your position do you believe that you still retain a sinful nature after you where saved ?

edit : add

///...do you believe that you still retain a sinful nature after you where saved?///

The old man does. The old man is not improved upon, he is to be "put off" once in Christ. Jesus doesn't necessarily give me a "new nature"; He puts to death my "old man" and births a new one in me. He keeps the one dead by the life of the other. The command "walk in the Spirit" is the means to "mortify the deeds of the body", for if you walk in the Spirit you will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh.

And I don't mind if the Bible doesn't use a particular word or phrase - as long as it teaches the truth that we are conveying with the word or phrase.

"And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses..."
~ Colossians 2:13 (NKJV)

"And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

"But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)..."
~ Ephesians 2:1-5

There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.

And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.

Therefore, brethren, we are debtors””not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.

For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.
~ Romans 8:1-15

See the principle of "spiritual death"? I also believe the issue of whether believers have a "fallen nature" is touched on too...