Back to the Garden...or not.

[Lees]

A perfect enironment. A sinless pair of human beings in fellowship with God and given responsibilities from God to care for the Garden. (Gen. 2:15) Perfect bliss between God and man.

Enter the serpent. Why did God let/put the serpent into the Garden? Some may say in order for man to exercise his will. But, God would already know how man's will would respond. And, a will not in harmony with God's will, is sin. In fact it was the first sin in the universe. (Is. 14:12-15) And when we are all in Heaven with a glorified and sinless body, will we ever will contrary to God's will? For to do so is sin.

So, doesn't that take us back to the place where Adam and Eve were concerning their exercising of their will? In other words, without the serpent, there will would have never come into conflict with God's will. And when we get to Heaven our wills, will never come into conflict with God's will.

Why then did God let/put the serpent in the Garden? It seems He had what He wanted. But did He? Apparently not. Else He never would have let/put the serpent in the Garden.

A sinless couple in the Garden was/is not what God was after. A sinless couple stand in their own sinlessness. In their own righteousness. Without sin, but in their own righteousness. Sounds good, except God knows their righteousness is nothing to His righteousness. And man will never be able to 'obtain' that righteousness of God. And neither can God create man with it. Can He? If He could, I believe He would have when He created Adam and Eve.

Thus the fall of man was part of God's plan for what He wanted man to be. As righteous as He. But so impossible is it to make man as righteouss as God, God makes it that man is as righteouss as He, 'by declaration' only. (Philippians 3:9) As understood in the doctrine of imputation.

In other words, it is ours by declaration only, not ours in and of ourselves. Can we maintain it? How? It's ours by declaration only. Can we take away from it? How? It's ours by declaration only. What is the ramification of this in eternity? Are we still in 'declared righteousness only'? I believe so. Forever.

So, innocent and sinless man is not what God wanted. And to get to what God wanted, the serpent was let/put in the Garden. The fall of man was necessary to elevate man far beyond what he was in the Garden.

My opinion.

Lees

 

[makesends]

A perfect enironment. A sinless pair of human beings in fellowship with God and given responsibilities from God to care for the Garden. (Gen. 2:15) Perfect bliss between God and man.

Enter the serpent. Why did God let/put the serpent into the Garden? Some may say in order for man to exercise his will. But, God would already know how man's will would respond. And, a will not in harmony with God's will, is sin. In fact it was the first sin in the universe. (Is. 14:12-15) And when we are all in Heaven with a glorified and sinless body, will we ever will contrary to God's will? For to do so is sin.

So, doesn't that take us back to the place where Adam and Eve were concerning their exercising of their will? In other words, without the serpent, there will would have never come into conflict with God's will. And when we get to Heaven our wills, will never come into conflict with God's will.

Why then did God let/put the serpent in the Garden? It seems He had what He wanted. But did He? Apparently not. Else He never would have let/put the serpent in the Garden.

A sinless couple in the Garden was/is not what God was after. A sinless couple stand in their own sinlessness. In their own righteousness. Without sin, but in their own righteousness. Sounds good, except God knows their righteousness is nothing to His righteousness. And man will never be able to 'obtain' that righteousness of God. And neither can God create man with it. Can He? If He could, I believe He would have when He created Adam and Eve.

Thus the fall of man was part of God's plan for what He wanted man to be. As righteous as He. But so impossible is it to make man as righteouss as God, God makes it that man is as righteouss as He, 'by declaration' only. (Philippians 3:9) As understood in the doctrine of imputation.

In other words, it is ours by declaration only, not ours in and of ourselves. Can we maintain it? How? It's ours by declaration only. Can we take away from it? How? It's ours by declaration only. What is the ramification of this in eternity? Are we still in 'declared righteousness only'? I believe so. Forever.

So, innocent and sinless man is not what God wanted. And to get to what God wanted, the serpent was let/put in the Garden. The fall of man was necessary to elevate man far beyond what he was in the Garden.

My opinion.

Lees

Well, here I agree with you, except for your means of arriving at your conclusion. But your premise and conclusion are good. Your presumptions are not.

You look at this, in spite of the nod to the afterlife, from the POV of the self-determinist, who esteems this life as worthy of its own existence independent of its purpose --the next life. Adam and Eve did not stand in their own righteousness before the fall. All righteousness --in fact, all good-- is from God. They were as incomplete persons as we are, until we are completely glorified IN HIM.

A note: It is curious that you cite the doctrine of imputation. Most of your ilk reject the imputation of Adam's sin to our account, claiming that it is not fair to hold an individual responsible for another's sin. Do you only allow for the imputation of Christ's righteousness, but deny the imputation of sin, or do you redefine the term, imputation, in that case? Also, do you deny God the right to do what he will with what is his, to include the destruction of defective vessels (a la Rom 9)?

 

[Lees]

Well, here I agree with you, except for your means of arriving at your conclusion. But your premise and conclusion are good. Your presumptions are not.

You look at this, in spite of the nod to the afterlife, from the POV of the self-determinist, who esteems this life as worthy of its own existence independent of its purpose --the next life. Adam and Eve did not stand in their own righteousness before the fall. All righteousness --in fact, all good-- is from God. They were as incomplete persons as we are, until we are completely glorified IN HIM.

A note: It is curious that you cite the doctrine of imputation. Most of your ilk reject the imputation of Adam's sin to our account, claiming that it is not fair to hold an individual responsible for another's sin. Do you only allow for the imputation of Christ's righteousness, but deny the imputation of sin, or do you redefine the term, imputation, in that case? Also, do you deny God the right to do what he will with what is his, to include the destruction of defective vessels (a la Rom 9)?

That's fine. You will have to specifically point out my presumtions you disagree with for me to respond to them.

I don't understand your statement, "you look at this, in spite of the nod to the afterlife".

I disagree that all righteousness is good. Man's righteousness is as filthy rags. (Is. 64:6) Not his sins, but his righteousness is as filthy rags. Yes Adam and Eve and mankind were incomplete in that they were not righteous. They were sinless but without the righteousness of God.

I would say yes, the final completion will be in that day when we are glorified In Him. But I will also say, as far as our being as Righteous as God, that occurred the day we were born-again. We were then 'declared' righteous by God. And, in my opinion, we will never improve or take away from it. For all eternity, we are declared righteouss. In other words, 50 million years from now when we are in heven, nothing of our experience there for all that time, will have added anything to the righteousness we were declared to be in, when we received Christ as our Lord and Saviour.

I assume 'my ilk' means dispensationalists. I am not aware of any dispensationalist teaching that teaches against the doctrine of 'imputation'. But I do not keep up with it all. If any do, then I would certainly disagree with them.

I see three great imputations by God. 1.) The imputation of Adam's sin to the human race. 2.) The imputation of the human race's sin to Christ. 3.) The imputation of Christ's righteousness to us.

As to your last question, my view is as (Rom. 9:18). "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth."

Your phrase, "do you deny God the right to do what he will with what is his" when "to include the destruction", deserves some discussion. We are talking about people and not pottery. Pottery simply representing the people. So it should read, "to include their destruction".

When you say, 'to do what he will with what is his', I would say the only people who are 'his' are those made unto mercy and honor. And those people of wrath and dishonour, are not his, though they be of the same lump of clay. (Rom. 9:21) Meaning that those fitted for destruction are not 'His', not the people of God.

Lees

 

[Tambora]

A perfect enironment. A sinless pair of human beings in fellowship with God and given responsibilities from God to care for the Garden. (Gen. 2:15) Perfect bliss between God and man.

Enter the serpent. Why did God let/put the serpent into the Garden? Some may say in order for man to exercise his will. But, God would already know how man's will would respond. And, a will not in harmony with God's will, is sin. In fact it was the first sin in the universe. (Is. 14:12-15) And when we are all in Heaven with a glorified and sinless body, will we ever will contrary to God's will? For to do so is sin.

So, doesn't that take us back to the place where Adam and Eve were concerning their exercising of their will? In other words, without the serpent, there will would have never come into conflict with God's will. And when we get to Heaven our wills, will never come into conflict with God's will.

Why then did God let/put the serpent in the Garden? It seems He had what He wanted. But did He? Apparently not. Else He never would have let/put the serpent in the Garden.

A sinless couple in the Garden was/is not what God was after. A sinless couple stand in their own sinlessness. In their own righteousness. Without sin, but in their own righteousness. Sounds good, except God knows their righteousness is nothing to His righteousness. And man will never be able to 'obtain' that righteousness of God. And neither can God create man with it. Can He? If He could, I believe He would have when He created Adam and Eve.

Thus the fall of man was part of God's plan for what He wanted man to be. As righteous as He. But so impossible is it to make man as righteouss as God, God makes it that man is as righteouss as He, 'by declaration' only. (Philippians 3:9) As understood in the doctrine of imputation.

In other words, it is ours by declaration only, not ours in and of ourselves. Can we maintain it? How? It's ours by declaration only. Can we take away from it? How? It's ours by declaration only. What is the ramification of this in eternity? Are we still in 'declared righteousness only'? I believe so. Forever.

So, innocent and sinless man is not what God wanted. And to get to what God wanted, the serpent was let/put in the Garden. The fall of man was necessary to elevate man far beyond what he was in the Garden.

My opinion.

Lees

I like the way you work through things using the formula of: If A is true then B must follow.

So I would like to join this conversation with some replacements of B for consideration.

You said:

So, innocent and sinless man is not what God wanted. And to get to what God wanted, the serpent was let/put in the Garden. The fall of man was necessary to elevate man far beyond what he was in the Garden.

"A" would be "innocent and sinless man is not what God wanted"
But one could change "B" from God putting the serpent in the garden to God putting the tree of knowledge in the garden.
For if God had not put the tree there then the serpent would have nothing to tempt Adam & Eve with.

 

[makesends]

That's fine. You will have to specifically point out my presumtions you disagree with for me to respond to them.

I don't understand your statement, "you look at this, in spite of the nod to the afterlife".

I disagree that all righteousness is good. Man's righteousness is as filthy rags. (Is. 64:6) Not his sins, but his righteousness is as filthy rags. Yes Adam and Eve and mankind were incomplete in that they were not righteous. They were sinless but without the righteousness of God.

"Man's righteousness" is not righteousness, except in man's own eyes. If it was truly righteousness, it would not be "filthy rags". That should be plain from common use of language. One might say, the term is almost tongue-in-cheek. It is only referring to what man considers righteous.

I would say yes, the final completion will be in that day when we are glorified In Him. But I will also say, as far as our being as Righteous as God, that occurred the day we were born-again. We were then 'declared' righteous by God. And, in my opinion, we will never improve or take away from it. For all eternity, we are declared righteouss. In other words, 50 million years from now when we are in heven, nothing of our experience there for all that time, will have added anything to the righteousness we were declared to be in, when we received Christ as our Lord and Saviour.

Agreed. "Already, but not yet".

I assume 'my ilk' means dispensationalists. I am not aware of any dispensationalist teaching that teaches against the doctrine of 'imputation'. But I do not keep up with it all. If any do, then I would certainly disagree with them.

No, I was referring to "free willers", or more to the point, synergists. You claim to be a four-pointer, failing only to agree with "Limited Atonement", but from what I have read of your posts, it seems you attribute the ability of man, unregenerate, to do something good and worthy in and of himself.

I see three great imputations by God. 1.) The imputation of Adam's sin to the human race. 2.) The imputation of the human race's sin to Christ. 3.) The imputation of Christ's righteousness to us.

That's good. Thank you.

As to your last question, my view is as (Rom. 9:18). "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth."

Your phrase, "do you deny God the right to do what he will with what is his" when "to include the destruction", deserves some discussion. We are talking about people and not pottery. Pottery simply representing the people. So it should read, "to include their destruction".

Is Romans 9 referring to pottery? No, it should read as it does. But yes it is using pottery (and the potter) as a figure, demonstrating the huge error that people have comparing themselves to God as if they are worthy of some respect as fellow sentient creatures or something.

When you say, 'to do what he will with what is his', I would say the only people who are 'his' are those made unto mercy and honor. And those people of wrath and dishonour, are not his, though they be of the same lump of clay. (Rom. 9:21) Meaning that those fitted for destruction are not 'His', not the people of God.

Lees

In a certain respect, you have a point. However, what he made is his by right of Creator over what he made. He has the right to destroy what he made, for whatever reason he chooses to do so, and certainly, if the vessel is marred, even if the defect is part of the potter's intended design!

 

[Lees]

I like the way you work through things using the formula of: If A is true then B must follow.

So I would like to join this conversation with some replacements of B for consideration.

You said:

"A" would be "innocent and sinless man is not what God wanted"
But one could change "B" from God putting the serpent in the garden to God putting the tree of knowledge in the garden.
For if God had not put the tree there then the serpent would have nothing to tempt Adam & Eve with.

Perhaps. Placeing man under law with fallen man is a guarantee that the law will be broken due to his sin nature. With Adam and Eve in a sinless state, and if there were no tempter, and the law was given, do we know they would have sinned?

We do know they sinned due to the temptation of the serpent. And we know God let/put the serpent there for His purpose.

Lees

 

[Lees]

"Man's righteousness" is not righteousness, except in man's own eyes. If it was truly righteousness, it would not be "filthy rags". That should be plain from common use of language. One might say, the term is almost tongue-in-cheek. It is only referring to what man considers righteous.

Agreed. "Already, but not yet".

No, I was referring to "free willers", or more to the point, synergists. You claim to be a four-pointer, failing only to agree with "Limited Atonement", but from what I have read of your posts, it seems you attribute the ability of man, unregenerate, to do something good and worthy in and of himself.

That's good. Thank you.

Is Romans 9 referring to pottery? No, it should read as it does. But yes it is using pottery (and the potter) as a figure, demonstrating the huge error that people have comparing themselves to God as if they are worthy of some respect as fellow sentient creatures or something.

In a certain respect, you have a point. However, what he made is his by right of Creator over what he made. He has the right to destroy what he made, for whatever reason he chooses to do so, and certainly, if the vessel is marred, even if the defect is part of the potter's intended design!

God called it our righteousness. (Is. 64:6)

Already what but not yet?

From what I understand of Tulip, the only disagreement I have is 'limited atonement'. I don't know what 'synergists' are. I can't account for what you 'seem' to think. You will have to point out what I have said.

You're welcome.

I don't like the word 'right', but yes, God does His will and none can stay His hand. The word 'marred' is not used in (Rom. 9). That is found in (Jer. 18:4). That marring concerns the nation of Israel whereas (Rom. 9) is addressing the individual. As to individuals they are either vessels of mercy or vessels of wrath in (Rom. 9:14-24)

Lees

 

[makesends]

God called it our righteousness. (Is. 64:6)

Yes. The language refers to what the reader considers righteousness, but obviously not what God considers righteousness.

Already what but not yet?

In the context of what we were discussing, already righteous, in Christ, yet not to be compared to the glory that will be revealed in us. The phrase refers to many other things in scripture.

From what I understand of Tulip, the only disagreement I have is 'limited atonement'. I don't know what 'synergists' are. I can't account for what you 'seem' to think. You will have to point out what I have said.

You're welcome.

I don't like the word 'right', but yes, God does His will and none can stay His hand. The word 'marred' is not used in (Rom. 9). That is found in (Jer. 18:4). That marring concerns the nation of Israel whereas (Rom. 9) is addressing the individual. As to individuals they are either vessels of mercy or vessels of wrath in (Rom. 9:14-24)

Lees

By right, in the context in which I used it, I meant simply that none has any complaint to lodge against God, even beyond the question of whether each absolutely deserves (from a human POV) the condemnation he receives. In fact, in the context of imputation, if God imputes Adam's sin to each, the fact that each did not do the sin, but Adam did, is irrelevant to God's right to impute each with that sin.

 

[makesends]

God called it our righteousness. (Is. 64:6)

Already what but not yet?

From what I understand of Tulip, the only disagreement I have is 'limited atonement'. I don't know what 'synergists' are. I can't account for what you 'seem' to think. You will have to point out what I have said.

You're welcome.

I don't like the word 'right', but yes, God does His will and none can stay His hand. The word 'marred' is not used in (Rom. 9). That is found in (Jer. 18:4). That marring concerns the nation of Israel whereas (Rom. 9) is addressing the individual. As to individuals they are either vessels of mercy or vessels of wrath in (Rom. 9:14-24)

Lees

Synergists, besides asserting that their contribution (belief, faith, accepting Christ, whatever) adds to or completes what God has done, by virtue of their claims are seen to assume the ability of fallen (un-regenerate) man to do good in and of himself --in fact, that God must wait until they do so, before regenerating and saving them (or in their sequence, saving and regenerating them).

 

[Lees]

Yes. The language refers to what the reader considers righteousness, but obviously not what God considers righteousness.

In the context of what we were discussing, already righteous, in Christ, yet not to be compared to the glory that will be revealed in us. The phrase refers to many other things in scripture.



By right, in the context in which I used it, I meant simply that none has any complaint to lodge against God, even beyond the question of whether each absolutely deserves (from a human POV) the condemnation he receives. In fact, in the context of imputation, if God imputes Adam's sin to each, the fact that each did not do the sin, but Adam did, is irrelevant to God's right to impute each with that sin.

Synergists, besides asserting that their contribution (belief, faith, accepting Christ, whatever) adds to or completes what God has done, by virtue of their claims are seen to assume the ability of fallen (un-regenerate) man to do good in and of himself --in fact, that God must wait until they do so, before regenerating and saving them (or in their sequence, saving and regenerating them).

I believe the language is the Word of God. "All our righteousness are as filthy rags" (Is. 64:6) Certainly it is not God's righteousness, but it is man's righteousness.

Well, as I said, we who are born-again, are just as righteouss as we will ever be. We will never improve on it. We will never diminish from it.

As I said, I don't much care for the term 'rights' when speaking of God. God simply acts as God. He is under no law of rights to do what He does. And what He does is always just. If he saves 3000 people, He is just in doing so. If He kills 3000 people, He is just in doing so. What God does is just.

Well, I have never heard of 'synergists'. But, again, if you believe I have indicated in any way that I am one, then show me what I said to make you believe that.

Lees

 

[makesends]

I believe the language is the Word of God. "All our righteousness are as filthy rags" (Is. 64:6) Certainly it is not God's righteousness, but it is man's righteousness.

Well, as I said, we who are born-again, are just as righteouss as we will ever be. We will never improve on it. We will never diminish from it.

As I said, I don't much care for the term 'rights' when speaking of God. God simply acts as God. He is under no law of rights to do what He does. And what He does is always just. If he saves 3000 people, He is just in doing so. If He kills 3000 people, He is just in doing so. What God does is just.

Well, I have never heard of 'synergists'. But, again, if you believe I have indicated in any way that I am one, then show me what I said to make you believe that.

Lees

Do you believe that salvation hinges on the person deciding to receive Christ? Do you believe that regeneration is a result of the decision of man? Do you believe that salvific faith is produced by the will of the person having that faith?

Your answers to those should demonstrate where you stand on the question. But do a search on monergism vs synergism.

 

[Tambora]

Perhaps. Placeing man under law with fallen man is a guarantee that the law will be broken due to his sin nature.

Well, hold on a second.
Let's go back to before they ate from the tree of knowledge.
They were naked then but were not ashamed of their nakedness.
It was not until after they ate from the tree of knowledge that they were ashamed of their nakedness.
That could go along with the concept Paul gave us in:

Romans 5:13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.​

So, could one glean from that narrative that nakedness was sin both before and after they had knowledge, but it wasn't accounted to them until they did have knowledge????
Or another way to ask it: Is someone held accountable for their sin even when they don't know it's a sin?

With Adam and Eve in a sinless state, and if there were no tempter, and the law was given, do we know they would have sinned?

With that logic one would have to believe that one cannot sin unless someone else tempts them to sin, and that the tasty looking fruit itself could not possibly be enough to cause them to eventually take a bite.
I'm not willing to agree with that but will always listen if someone has an argument for it.

We do know they sinned due to the temptation of the serpent. And we know God let/put the serpent there for His purpose.

We know the woman blamed the serpent, but was the serpent to be blamed for the choice she made?
We know Adam blamed the woman, but was the woman to be blamed for the choice he made?

 

[Tambora]

I disagree that all righteousness is good. Man's righteousness is as filthy rags. (Is. 64:6) Not his sins, but his righteousness is as filthy rags.

I agree with you.

Yes Adam and Eve and mankind were incomplete in that they were not righteous. They were sinless but without the righteousness of God.

What did Adam & Eve need to gain the righteousness of God?



By the way, this is an excellent thread and you have brought up some profound questions to think about.

 

[Mr GLee]

We know the woman blamed the serpent, but was the serpent to be blamed for the choice she made?
We know Adam blamed the woman, but was the woman to be blamed for the choice he made?

I would offer mankind fell because Adam the husband who was used to represent Christ the high priest not seen. Failed to represent Christ to protect Eve the bride from false prophecy (neither shall you touch)

The priesthood is reckoned after Eve

Satan knowing she was designed as the weaker vessel. . Not the source of faith prophecy

Satan his only weapon added to the word violating the law not to add or subtract (Deuteronomy 4:2) False prophecy "neither shall you touch" from the father of lies

The false prophecy "neither shall you touch" by the lust of the flesh not seeing in the parable the tree hid in the center that lust drew them to the lust of the eye the two building blocks of false pride . . .they touched ate and died

1 John 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

He calls us the bride. (Eve) . . never (Adam) the husband.

A priesthood of the believers. A pattern given in Exodus 7

Moses represents the unseen Lord the source of prophecy. The same was used with Adam in the garden. Just as Aaron and Eve the bride the priesthood of believers

Exodus 7:1-2 And the Lord said unto Moses (Adam) , See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron(Eve) thy brother shall be thy prophet.;Thou shalt speak all that I command thee: and Aaron thy brother shall speak unto Pharaoh, that he send the children of Israel out of his land.

I think it is why He lovingly commandments husbands to wash their wives with the living water of the word (doctrines of Christ that fall like rain.). Just as he washes husbands

Ephesians 5:25-27Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

Husbands need much prayer not to fail

Not like Adam you could say . . threw out the wife with the water of the word.

 

[Lees]

Do you believe that salvation hinges on the person deciding to receive Christ? Do you believe that regeneration is a result of the decision of man? Do you believe that salvific faith is produced by the will of the person having that faith?

Your answers to those should demonstrate where you stand on the question. But do a search on monergism vs synergism.

(John 1:12-13) "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name. Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

That is what I believe. Seems pretty straight forward.

I don't believe I have written anything for anyone to think otherwise.

Lees

 

[Mr GLee]

(John 1:12-13) "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name. Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

That is what I believe. Seems pretty straight forward.

I don't believe I have written anything for anyone to think otherwise.

Lees

Amen, he gave the powerless saving power to become new. .born again creatures.

 

[Lees]

Well, hold on a second.
Let's go back to before they ate from the tree of knowledge.
They were naked then but were not ashamed of their nakedness.
It was not until after they ate from the tree of knowledge that they were ashamed of their nakedness.
That could go along with the concept Paul gave us in:

Romans 5:13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.​

So, could one glean from that narrative that nakedness was sin both before and after they had knowledge, but it wasn't accounted to them until they did have knowledge????
Or another way to ask it: Is someone held accountable for their sin even when they don't know it's a sin?




With that logic one would have to believe that one cannot sin unless someone else tempts them to sin, and that the tasty looking fruit itself could not possibly be enough to cause them to eventually take a bite.
I'm not willing to agree with that but will always listen if someone has an argument for it.



We know the woman blamed the serpent, but was the serpent to be blamed for the choice she made?
We know Adam blamed the woman, but was the woman to be blamed for the choice he made?

Yes, it wasn't until after they ate of the fruit that Adam and Eve were ashamed of their nakedness. I don't believe that is compareable to (Rom. 5:13-14). Because though sin was not imputed from Adam to Moses because there was no law, death still reigned. (Rom. 5:14) They still sinned. And died. But Adam and Eve before they ate the fruit, were sinless and had no death sentence upon them.

I don't believe someone is held accountable for a sin when they don't know it's a sin. I think (Rom. 5:13) supports that.

I wasn't being dogmatic in that 'one cannot sin unless someone else tempts them to sin'. Which is why I ended with a question. Adam and Eve with no sin nature, and no tempter, do we know that they would have sinned? In other words, how can we know?

I am inclined to believe they eventually would. Just me thinking. I would like to use Lucifer as an example who sinned while in a sinless state, but he is an angel. And God did say he was a murderer from the beginning. (John 8:44) I would like to use (Matt. 26:41) to show the flesh is weak. But one would have to determine if the 'flesh is weak' prior to the fall also. Plus, in (Matt. 26:41) temptation seems to need a weakness in the one being tempted and a tempter. So, again, how can we know?

Of course the serpent is to be blamed. His intent was for Eve to make that choice. Yes, Adam blamed the woman, but also blamed God, which bears discussion also. The woman was to be blamed for her choice even though she was deceived. But Adam was not deceived, and his choice was his alone. The womans choice affected her only. Adam's choice affected his whole race.

It's my opinion that Eve, having ate, was in the most dangerous position of all. Because her 'head', Adam, had not yet fallen. Adam could have run to God and said, 'get me another one, for this woman has sinned against you'.

Lees

 

[Lees]

I agree with you.



What did Adam & Eve need to gain the righteousness of God?



By the way, this is an excellent thread and you have brought up some profound questions to think about.

Good to know.

They needed exactly what God gave in His plan of salvation. He must provide a way where in not only is His righteousness imputed to His people, but He is just in doing so. In other words, His righteousness is not offended in doing so. (Rom. 3: 25-26) "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forebearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus."

Praise God. I appreciate those encouraging words.

Lees

 

[makesends]

Well, hold on a second.
Let's go back to before they ate from the tree of knowledge.
They were naked then but were not ashamed of their nakedness.
It was not until after they ate from the tree of knowledge that they were ashamed of their nakedness.
That could go along with the concept Paul gave us in:
Romans 5:13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.
So, could one glean from that narrative that nakedness was sin both before and after they had knowledge, but it wasn't accounted to them until they did have knowledge????
Or another way to ask it: Is someone held accountable for their sin even when they don't know it's a sin?

Paul's discussion relates to the law of Moses. I don't know that it can be generally applied to just any law or command God gives.

God does look upon the heart to judge the deeds, but that doesn't mean that deeds done (whether by, or apart from, the law) are the only sin.

The sinful heart is still the sinful heart. Consciousness of sin is not what makes a deed sinful, though it does make it exceedingly sinful.

Nakedness was not sin even after they disobeyed. They only recognized they were naked after their changed heart was exposed. They were not just naked, but ashamed.

The theme of nakedness is further dealt with, and with it, the theme of what God had in mind in creating, when we see that we are the Temple and He is with us, all the way into the end of Revelation. This is covenant theology. Innocence is not what he was after, but redemption and its results. Rev 21 “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God." (See also Jn 17, and the many places where this unity is expressed, such as, "where I am, there you may be also", and "clothed in his righteousness". I think 2 Corinthians 5:2-4 and 1 Corinthians 15:53-54 are also about this, though it is more obscure there.)

 

[Mr GLee]

Paul's discussion relates to the law of Moses. I don't know that it can be generally applied to just any law or command God gives.

God does look upon the heart to judge the deeds, but that doesn't mean that deeds done (whether by, or apart from, the law) are the only sin.

The term law of Moses refers to the whole Bible