b) You have not addressed the valid argument showing that Adam was created mortal. Do you have any thoughts on that?
c) Consider the valid argument:
God alone is sinless --------------------very true
All other beings are not God--------------very true
All other beings are not sinless------------see later
denn wrote:
e) For Adam to continue not to sin is inconsistent with the logic above since it is shown that he was a being that had to be created not sinless.
Denn - this is a tautological statement. The fact that Adam was created without any (already) committed sin is what we read in Genesis. That he was created sinful would mean that his partaking of the Tree of Life would give him eternal sinful life. This obviously is contrary to the Will of God. Adam was created in a sinless state, with the capacity to choose to sin.
denn wrote:
To continue to not sin would be to equate him to Christ whom Adam could never be because Adam was created of the dust of the earth whereas Christ was born of the Spirit of God.
Denn- In addition to what you say here, let me add, from Ephesians, that Yahshua was 'slain' from before the foundation of the world - before Adam. It was anticipated - or even planned - that Adam would sin, otherwise there was no need for Yahshua to be slain before the sin.
denn wrote:
f) It does not suggest that God would be responsible for Adam's sin, for as we agreed, God created Adam with free choice. However it does say that God is responsible for Adam's created nature, which as we see logically had to be not sinless (or sinful).
Denn- Many people see that Adam could only have been created sinful, or sinless. Adam was created without sin, but with the capacity to sin. YES!, God is responsible. He is the only truly responsible being in - or out of - creation. "BLAME is for God and little children. God is not to be blamed. He takes full responsibility and will - in the future - right all wrongs. The final chapter has yet to be lived. We are still in the middle of the story.
denn wrote:
g) Again nowhere in the Bible does it explicitly or implicitly state that Adam was created with a sinless nature.
Denn, The implicit nature of Adam's sinless state of creation is in the option he had of eating from the Tree of Life, and living forever. This was an option God had given him. BUT, after Adam had sinned, God took action to deny that option to him. Adam was NOT to live forever in a sinful state. So, what changed God's actions from allowing to disallowing the option to eat from the Tree of Life? Adam's sin. Adam's sin changed his state from sinless (able to eat from the Tree of Life) to sinful (NOT able to eat from the Tree of Life). It is in this change from sinless to sinful that we see Adam had been created without sin, but with the capacity to choose and execute sin.
denn wrote:
h) You state that I confuse the obedience of sinless beings with faith ...etc. Yet as we see there can be no other sinless beings other than God. Therefore one must show that the logic is invalid before one can speak of ,other than God, sinless beings.
Denn, I think the balance here is that God alone has a nature NOT TO SIN, and then BECAUSE He had such a nature, NEVER sins. BECAUSE of His this nature, He will never sin. He does not sin. He never has sinned.
On another note, since, by your logic, only God can be a sinless being, Yahshua must be God because He led a sinless life. As God, He had no beginning. His Human existence did. He did not.
denn wrote:
i) Jesus said Jn 19:17 "And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God: ....etc" Here, Christ states no one other than God is good that included everyone even Adam.
Also in Matt 7:18-20 "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. ...... Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them "(every man). To say that any one at any time was good would equate them with God. To say that Adam was a good tree and then produced evil fruit is inconsistent with what Christ said and is illogical.
Denn- see above comments, please.
denn wrote:
j) I ,for one, cannot comment on how God deals with beings in another realm. For God created them in a higher order than man and therefore subject to a different set of circumstances. The Bible does not elaborate on these therefore to do otherwise would be conjecture.
Denn, I agree.
denn wrote:
k) And I do tell my friends of there need for Jesus as their Savior.
Thank you for your patience and efforts in maintaining the discussion. I am a Christian and have led others to Christ. This I think is rather apparent from previous posts. Not only is it inappropriate to suggest that I am hopefully saved and silly, it commits the logical fallacy of attacking the man. As far as questions, it has been correctly said that the only stupid (or in this case silly) question is the one not asked. I would rather hope that all Christians could follow Paul’s urging, Eph 4:2-3 “With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love. Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace”
a) I agree that there can be many uses of the same word. From the eyes of men, some may be seen more good than others, but from the eyes of God all men are seen as not good. That is why Christ can say there is none good but one, God. One of the main themes in the Sermon on the Mount is righteousness. Notice the chronology:
Matt 5:20 “For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven” Matt 5:48 “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect” Matt 6:33 “But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you” Matt1:17 “Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.”
To get into heaven one’s righteousness must exceed that of the most righteous of men. As a matter of fact one must be perfect even as God. Therefore since man cannot be perfect as God is to get into heaven, seek God’s righteousness. Even so every tree (all men not just the prophets) that is not good is not going to get into heaven but is cast into the fire. Just prior to this He did address false prophets but notice here He expands His teaching to include all men (even so every tree).
And later in the story of the rich ruler:Matt 19 His question was What must I do to gain eternal life (get into heaven)? Christ responded If thou wilt be perfect …..follow me. And He told them why in verse 26 “But Jesus beheld [them], and said unto them, With men ( to obtain eternal life, get into heaven) this is impossible; but with God (His imputed righteousness by Christ to you) all things are possible.
In these two instances which I used before, the word good is equated with perfect, which is the required righteousness to get into heaven. Therefore in these instances the meaning is the same and not a range of meanings and is consistent with the discussion.
b) As far as verses showing that Adam had the inclination to sin, let’s consider a couple examples:
We know that all men are liars, lying is a sin. Then one that lies has a sinful nature.
Consider Eve’s response in Gen 3:3 “But of the fruit of the tree which [is] in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.” But that isn’t what God said. Either knowingly or unknowingly Eve told a lie. And that was prior to partaking of the tree. One that lies has a sinful nature. Now where did Eve get that nature? Gen 2:21-23 from the flesh of the man. Eve had the same nature as Adam. Eve’s nature was sinful therefore Adam’s nature was sinful.
Please also consider:
Corruptible (5349)-perishing, incorruptible (862)-immortal, imperishable
I Peter 1:23 “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever”. Corruptible seed from Adam, incorruptible from Christ. Thus consider:
To be incorruptible is to be always incorruptible
Adam sinned
Adam was not incorruptible
Adam was morally corrupt
You cannot go from incorruptible to corruptible. Adam started out corruptible. There are others if these are not sufficient.
denn
Steve, I ran out of lunch time, I hope to respond later. Generally I agree with much of what you said.
Eugene
I have noticed you placed the discussion under the topic of subtle misunderstanding. Let us consider that for a minute.
a) Generally, all people do not like to be misquoted, and will go to lengths to be clear in what they say. It is man’s nature that if he honestly misunderstands another, he can with integrity stand before that man and state he misunderstood him, feel bad about the misunderstanding, but still know in his heart that it was just that, a misunderstanding.
Consider the situation of Adam: Gen 3:10” and I was afraid because I was naked, so I hid” If Adam knew in his heart that it was truly a misunderstanding he would have said so, however he didn”t. What did he do? Instead he tried to shift the blame back to God, Gen 3:12 “The woman whom you gave me, she gave me some fruit from the tree and I ate it.” Adam knew he did wrong, it was not a case of misunderstanding. Also notice Eve’s response, she didn’t say, I misunderstood, rather she likewise tried to shift the blame to the serpent.
You as a teacher can relate to this. Consider : A teacher gives a test. After grading the tests, one student questions why you marked one wrong. If not for that one he would have gotten a hundred percent. You say he got the wrong answer. He replies, “I just misunderstood the question, you should have made it perfectly clear, so I really should get a hundred”. Upon hearing this rest of the class say,” yeh we all misunderstood all these questions and shouldn’t have flunked, and its and your fault”. Does the teacher have no recourse? Of course not, because if he is a quality teacher, he makes the questions fair and understandable.
Now consider it from God’s position: Not only could Adam have used the same excuse of misunderstanding to prevent getting kicked out of the garden, but then all men would be able to use the same excuse of misunderstanding to prevent, at the judgment, getting kicked out of heaven. The burden is upon God to prevent this type of scenario and He does. He makes it perfectly clear to not only Adam and Eve, but to all men. As Paul writes Rom 1:19 “….because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.”
Adam and Eve knew clearly what God said. Notice that Eve did not say, “I think God said, or I believe God said, or Perhaps God said. But rather she said “God hath said ’. Pro 30:6” Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. And this is just the case, Eve was found a liar for adding to God’s word and that was prior to partaking of the tree. Eve had a sinful nature and so did Adam.
The Jewish teaching remains consistent with the Bible and with logic up to the point of the solution. It is there that they go awry.
Steve
Have not forgotten about you but only have little time. We know that an argument can be valid in form but still false, yet it can still be valid in form and true. Please consider the following which was taken off a web site but obviously can be found in any logic book.
We can summarize these results as a "truth table" for implication. The symbol "=>" denotes implication; "A" is the premise, "B" the conclusion. "T" and "F" represent true and false respectively.
Truth Table for Implication
Premise Conclusion Inference
A B A => B
false false true
false true true
true false false
true true true
· If the premises are false and the inference valid, the conclusion can be true or false. (Lines 1 and 2.)
· If the premises are true and the conclusion false, the inference must be invalid. (Line 3.)
· If the premises are true and the inference valid, the conclusion must be true. (Line 4.)
So the fact that an argument is valid doesn't necessarily mean that its conclusion holds -- it may have started from false premises.
If an argument is valid, and in addition it started from true premises, then it is called a sound argument. A sound argument must arrive at a true conclusion.
You have already agreed that the first two premises of my previous argument were “very true” therefore the conclusion must be true. The premises showed only two natures, that of God (sinless) and that of other beings (sinful). In these regards there are only these two natures. Jesus had both these natures: born of the Spirit of God (sinless) and born of the flesh of the woman (sinful)
Thus as Jesus said Jn 3:6 “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”Again only two natures, one sinful and one sinless. The Bible remains consistent and the Jewish teaching of yetzer hara remains consistent with the Bible.
Running out of time will hopefully discuss some of the other issues later.
Not only is it inappropriate to suggest that I am hopefully saved and silly, it commits the logical fallacy of attacking the man.
denn, I did not say that you were silly. I said 1) “I’m beginning to think of you as a prankster. You can’t possibly be serious.” 2) “Thanks for your last post. I believe you’ve added a lot of clarity to what you’ve said previously. And I will try to restrain myself from believing that you’re intentionally being silly in the things you’re saying.”
If you are offended by the rank “hopefully saved by grace”, I apologize. I come from the Seventh-day Adventist tradition and that church passes judgments on its own members without even giving those wrongfully accused the right to an open hearing. From my perspective, receiving a provisional rank of “hopefully saved by grace” is like a walk in the park. For me to warn others that you might be teaching a serious error is an acceptable judgment perfectly consistent with my theology. 1,2. If you have questions on this that require a more thorough explanation, you are very welcome to inquire in a more appropriate thread.
denn wrote:
I have noticed you placed the discussion under the topic of subtle misunderstanding. Let us consider that for a minute.
If you’re making a statement about that with an analogy, I don’t understand your point.
Why was the thread moved out of the Midheaven forums?
The Midheaven forums are reserved for answering questions and to teach truths that this ministry believes in. Your efforts are in the opposite direction. The Plain of Megiddo is the proper place for contention and disputes.
I believe you’re adding to God’s word (Prov 30:6) the presupposition that all of what God said to man concerning the prohibition on the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, is contained in one verse: Gen 2:17. There is nothing about the Genesis account that suggests that it’s a complete commentary. I’m sure that I can find a counterexample in the gospels to your methodology but prefer that Steve would chime in and answer your statement.
The real issue here is the character of God. By comparison, you believe that God created Adam and Eve to suffer with a perpetual diet and everlasting cravings for a food that they weren’t supposed to have. I believe that God is better than what you make Him out to be.
Posted: Wed Sep 18, 2002 1:35 am Post subject: Shubert’s Commentary on Genesis 3:1-19
1Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” 2And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, 3but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’ ”
Those who believe that Eve was lying to the serpent need to explain how it is that Eve didn’t lose her innocence until verse 7.
4But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
At this point I’m wondering if the woman realized that she was already going to die for all the sins that she has committed previously. But she couldn’t already know evil. She’s being tempted at this very moment to eat forbidden fruit to attain a God-like enlightenment — i.e., to know good and evil.
6So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. 7Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.
Here’s the first awareness of sin. Now I’m wondering why God put a prohibition on eating just one kind of fruit but not on lying.
Why would eating forbidden fruit bring an awareness of evil when all the evil acts of Eve couldn’t create enlightenment?
And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. But the LORD God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?” And he said, “I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself.” He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?”
Why is God harping about a forbidden tree? Didn’t God notice the lie Eve told the serpent? Maybe their enlightenment came from something else. Why is God assuming that Adam’s awareness of nakedness is the result of eating forbidden fruit?
The man said, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.” Then the LORD God said to the woman, “What is this that you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”
Isn’t it odd that Adam and Eve, now aware of their nakedness, only confess to eating forbidden fruit? Why does the Biblical account persistently focus on that?
The LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,
cursed are you above all livestock
and above all beasts of the field;
on your belly you shall go,
and dust you shall eat
all the days of your life.
I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel.”
To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you.”
And to Adam he said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife
and have eaten of the tree
of which I commanded you,
‘You shall not eat of it,’
cursed is the ground because of you;
in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;
and you shall eat the plants of the field.
By the sweat of your face
you shall eat bread,
till you return to the ground,
for out of it you were taken;
for you are dust,
and to dust you shall return.”
Eugene
Thank you for your response and for those questions which certainly should be addressed. Hopefully we’ll be able to answer them. Thank you for consideration for my feelings, however no offense was taken. I do not envy you being out there in cyberworld where you are subject to all types of encounters. Hopefully God will limit the unpleasant ones.
a) Let’s consider some definitions first that might help
innocence
1.The state, quality, or virtue of being innocent, as:
a.Freedom from sin, moral wrong, or guilt through lack of knowledge of evil.
b.Guiltlessness of a specific legal crime or offense.
c.Freedom from guile, cunning, or deceit; simplicity or artlessness.
d.Lack of worldliness or sophistication; naiveté.
e.Lack of knowledge or understanding; ignorance.
f.Freedom from harmfulness; inoffensiveness.
Sin is the transgression of the law. (1Jn 3:4)
Law [is] the knowledge of sin. (Rom 3:20)
Therefore to know the law is to know right from wrong. To sin is to know right from wrong and to choose to do wrong
And one last one:
Sin is not imputed when there is no law. (Rom 5:13)
Or, the transgression of knowing right from wrong is not charged to one’s account where there is no knowledge of right from wrong. Notice that the sin exists, however it is not imputed where there isn’t knowledge of it. And if existing unrighteousness is not imputed where there is no knowledgeof it , righteousness is imputed even though it is unrighteous behavior.
Consider an example:
The parent of a ,let’s say, two year old boy observes his son kicking the dog. It is the first time you’ve seen this. Now Spot is a good dog, doesn’t bark or bite, plays with the neighbor kids, goes outside to do his thing etc a good dog. To kick him is wrong. So what does most good parents do? Why they pick little Johnny up take him over to Spot, have him pet Spot, explain that Spot is a good dog, and that it’s bad to kick Spot…Does the child get punished? Now this may occur several times, and each time the parent does the same because he knows that Johnny is just learning and it takes time for the brain to grow and send the right signals to behave properly. However at some point the parent is going to observe Johnny kick Spot and say “John if I told you once I told you a thousand times, Don’t kick Spot! Now go write me a ten thousand word essay on why you shouldn’t kick Spot”
There is a time that bad behavior goes unpunished, and a time that the same bad behavior gets punished. As we see, the time of unpunishment is a time of innocence (freedom from guilt because of lack of knowledge). It doesn’t say he wasn’t bad, it says his bad behavior isn’t imputed to him. There is also a time of punishment. Once he knows right from wrong, his bad behavior is imputed to him. Also notice that the parent will for some time not credit bad behavior to Johnny’s account but won’t put up with that forever once he feels he understands right from wrong.
Is this not the same account in creation? God creates sinful man, not because He wants to but because He must. Man doesn’t know his sinful nature. God must have man aware of it. Being aware that he was created sinful there is nothing he could do about it. That since God did this only God therefore can and must take care of it.
Is this not what Paul was summing up in that great chapter of Romans when he wrote in 8:20 “For the creation was subjected to futility—not willingly but because of God who subjected it—in hope”
Hopefully this answers the questions of Eve’s innocence, their lack of knowledge of good and evil, the futility they were subjected to by God so that all men would inherently know right from wrong thereby knowing their own efforts are futile. The harping on the tree, as stated before , is by knowing right from wrong one places himself under its scrutiny. Once there one cannot ever be always righteous.
Sorry for the long post
denn
Posted: Tue Sep 24, 2002 12:42 am Post subject: Recall Notice
Recall Notice
The Maker of all human beings is recalling all units manufactured, regardless of make or year, due to the serious defect in the primary and in the original prototype units code named Adam and Eve, resulting in the reproduction of the same defect in all subsequent units. This defect has been technically termed, "Sub-sequential Internal Non-morality," or more commonly known as SIN, as it is primarily expressed.
Some other symptoms:
[a] Loss of direction
[b] Foul vocal emissions
[c] Amnesia of origin
[d] Lack of peace and joy
[e] Selfish, or violent behavior
[f] Depression or confusion in the mental component
[g] Fearfulness
[h] Idolatry
[i] Rebellion
The Manufacturer, Who is neither liable nor at fault for this defect, is providing factory authorized repair and service free of charge to correct this SIN defect.
The Repair Technician, Jesus, has most generously offered to bear the entire burden of the staggering cost of these repairs. There is no additional fee required. The toll free number to call for repair in all areas is: P-R-A-Y-E-R.
Once connected, please upload your burden of SIN through the REPENTANCE procedure. Next, download ATONEMENT from the Repair Technician, Jesus, into the heart component. No matter how big or small the SIN defect is, Jesus will replace it with:
[a] Love
[b] Joy
[c] Peace
[d] Patience
[e] Kindness
[f] Goodness
[g] Faithfulness
[h] Gentleness
[i] Self-control
Please see the operating manual, HOLY BIBLE, for further details on the use of these fixes. As an added upgrade, the manufacturer has made available to all repaired units a facility enabling direct monitoring and assistance from a resident Maintenance Technician, the Holy Ghost. Repaired units need only make Him welcome and He will take up permanent residence on the premises!
WARNING: Continuing to operate the human being unit without correction voids the Manufacturer's warranty, exposing the unit to dangers and problems too numerous to list and will result in the human unit being permanently impounded.
For free emergency service, call on JESUS.
DANGER: The human being units not responding to this recall action will have to be scrapped in the furnace. The SIN defect will not be permitted to enter Heaven so as to prevent contamination of that facility.
All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2
Page 2 of 2
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in
