John in bold print - we will have to clean this up next
time around, I think.
n a message dated 2/10/2005 6:26:07 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:The first Adam chose to do it without any propensity.
No he didn't. One is tempted and then sin occurs.
Eve was deceived, for Adam it was a rational choice; he chose to disobey.
Are you saying that Eve had a "fallen nature," not Adam? If not, why on earth would you make such a distinction?
No, I'm saying both of them were made in God's image which is pure, holy, and unblemished. Where do you draw the line on this "image of God thing. He is not only pure, holy and unblemished, He is also all powerful, omnipresent, and most important to our discussion - not capable of sinning. Eve took the bait and became deceived because she listened to the wrong voice. If Eve were in the image of God as according to you, she COULDN'T have "[taken] the bait." Adam chose to go down with her rather than obey God and take a stand for righteousness. Adam had a choice -- God does not. Adam and Eve justified what they were about to do; God is not capable of such activity. Not capable. So whereas they had been naked and unashamed before God in the garden, they were now full of guilt and shame and trying to hide and cover themselves.
He sinned exactly like all of us do. His nature was the same.
So Jesus was born full of guilt and shame of course not with the propensity to blame others, point the finger, and hide from God ? "propensity" you say - then I must agree According to the gospel of JD maybe but not according to God. In creation God said it was "very good" He did not create a "fallen Adam" Sure He did --------------- and I have no problem admitting this because the act of human creation did not end on the day God made man. Man was created a free moral agent ............................. something God is not. Your argument above is taken from the pages of the RCC and its teachings on original sin.
Understand that your entire argument here is a combination of two things: a put down of my argument (which is completely unnecessary but OK - obviously something you think you must do) and the subtle assertion that your logic on the matter is of spirit-filled proportions.
John how is it you never give me a well thought out argument from scripture - a very scriptural argument is coming in this post but you will ignore it and work to carry on this discussion without dealing with issues I bring up and why does it always turn personal (ad hominem) at some point? And what, pray tell, is ad hominem in my post to you? My argument has nothing to do with putting you or anyone else down; Judy, you simply do not write without put downs. Does not happen. I just happen to believe that you are wrong. I am making no assertions about anyone's logic my own included.
And I say "your logic on the matter" because you offer nothing else - simply "logic." No scripture. Just a reasoned position. In your mind, Judy cannot imagine a god who creates with anything less than perfection in mind. Therefore, Adam HAD to be perfect -- created with no capacity for sin.
If you want chapter and verse John then I will look them up for you when I get a spare moment. Do that, Judy. I always want scripture. God's creation was good and man was created (rather than procreated) in His image which is pure, holy, and separate from sinners. For some reason you have embraced a gospel that teaches that God's image is less than pure and holy both at the beginning in the Godhead and later in the person of Jesus. You have missed the point, entirely. I read the Genesis account, make note of what happened, in detail, immediately prior to the actual eating of the forbidden fruit, and draw my conclusions. About as scriptural as one can get. What we -- I guess I should say "I" -- what I see IN THE RECORD of Adam and Eve up until the time of the sin event is the character of two individuals AS THEY WERE CREATED.
You see, "capacity for sin" and "fallen nature" are the same in my mind. As we stand, face to face with the creation circumstance, we see it very differently. You see it as a completed task, on every level and I do not. The "day" in the Genesis record is not a 24 hour period of time, if for no other reason than the fact that it would never take God 24 hours to say "let there be light."
Capacity for sin and fallen nature are NOT the same John. Adam was created in God's likeness - Fallen mankind is the seed of satan (and in his likeness) the seed of the woman is Christ (God's likeness). I don't know why you would not think of a day as 24hrs when Genesis 1:5 says clearly "and God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day" (or the first day). How could it be more clear? Creation is a narrative account of the act of creation by God. The purpose of the creation story was the establishment of the 7th day rest. Moses is not arguing creation - he is arguing 7th day rest. If he were arguing for creation, itself (which he undoubtedly believed) he would have given more detail. But, again, that was not the purpose of his narration -- only the establishment of the 7th day rest. And Moses has given ample explanation for this purpose.
More than that, not a single creation [primary] event was completed on the same "day" it was presented. A careful reading of the text will varify this.
You are being "too careful" John because God can use any timeframe he wants to and none of us were there were we? I have no idea what your point is, here. My point is simple: what He began on one was completed on another day -- a clear narrative account of creation process. No it wouldn't take God the Word 24hrs to make a statement. Amen. However you don't know how long it took God the Spirit to bring it to pass do you? We can only know what has been revealed, the secret things belong to the Lord. I completely agree.
So why is the creation of Adam any different. I believe in the "fall." I do not believe in a fallen nature. Adam was always going to sin. Christ was always going to come to his rescue. And that is why I believe that to disbelieve in the eternal Sonship of the Christ is to deny what was destined to happen, appointed to happen, provided for in the creation of Adam before the worlds were.
Then you have embraced a gospel very similar to that of Mormonism. So what? I don't see a whole lot of difference. You are in effect making God responsible for the fall and saying it was appointed and predestined all along. Well, I suppose, in some ways, one could say this. Life in Christ is a predetermined concept in the mind of God. But Judy, if God is in control of the world, I guess we could blame Him for all that occurs. No wonder you are so hung up on this eternal sonship doctrine. I use different words to picture what I believe.
When we say, "God is not finished with me yet," we speak the very thing that was true for Adam and Eve.
This is heresy John. Adam and Eve were complete; they were innocent and pure, naked and unashamed. And where did I say otherwise? When God plopped them down onto this earth as man and woman, they were without sin. But they had a sin nature. That is clear from the biblical text of the their actions immediately prior to the sin event. They fellowshipped with God in the cool of the day and needed absolutely nothing; their job was to be good stewards over what God had already given them. Of couse they did. The saying "Be patient with me God is not finished with me yet" is an excuse for our offences toward Him and others because of our own sin, selfishness, and unbelief which is our problem, not God's. This is so anti biblical, I scarsely know where to begin. It can be an excuse. But, in fact, it is also very true. Our sin, selfishness and unbelief are not our problem any longer. All of this has been covered by the flow of the blood. I will leave it at that.
At the moment of their creation, they were in need of the resurrected Christ. The creation event, for man, is not completed outside the reception of the Christ,
Heresy. Stop with "heresy" Judy. It means absolutely nothing coming from you. And I could care less about such nonsensical statements. They needed nothing before the fall John, Christ included because they were already in complete and full fellowship with Him since He is God the Word who spoke them into existence and who they fellowshipped with every day in the garden. The reason we need Christ today is because there is a breach between us and God which we have no ability in and of ourselves to mend. Certainly. No one denies this. What you do not understand is that with Adam and Eve, the sin event WAS GOING TO HAPPEN. It was just a matter of time. But we need to trim this discussion down a bit. There are so many issues of disagreement here that neither of us can do any of them justice. Would you choose one issue and we can go from there?
His ministry of reconcilition and the spirtual process we know as "growth" resulting in a spiritual home with God in Christ. The "fall" makes this conclusion irresistable. But the "fall" did not mark the beginning of a different kind of existence for Adam, himself.
It most certainly did mark the beginning of a different kind of existence for Adam and for the whole creation along with him, all of which had known only life but now had to cope with the advent of death and destruction spiritually, mentally, and ultimately physically. Adam was not immortal - thus the tree of life. He was not without the capacity for sin -- thus sin was going to occur, given enough time.
Look at the record of the fall. See there in its pages, the very same processes we, you and I, go through before a sin event. We have the association with evil influences, an intellectual openness to the consideration of sin, the act of justification, the sharing of evil opinion with others, the denial of the truth of God ("you will surely die"), the reaching out for sin, the act of taking into your possession the very opportunity for sin (plucking the fruit from the tree) all before the actual sin event. How is all this possible if they did not have the same capacity for sin, the same human nature, as we?
The example of how it is possible is in all four gospels where the second Adam, the Lord Jesus Christ - "just said NO" using the sword of the Spirit against the voice of the enemy. The first Adam could have done the same but unfortunately he chose differently, but the second Adam left us an example so that we can follow in His steps. I gave you biblical argument based upon a review of the Genesis record and you do what? You completely ignored my review and substituted your own argument. This is what you do when backed into a corner. Ignore and procede.
