Back to the Garden...or not.

[Mr GLee]

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.

Sin is transgression against the whole book of law. The bible (sola scriptura) .

Romans 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law (sola scriptura) .shall also perish without law: (sola scriptura) .and as many as have sinned in the law (sola scriptura) .shall be judged by the law; (sola scriptura) .

In all case bottom line it has to do with false prophecy adding to the word this time four words Neither shall you touch

I would offer when both Adam and Eve were deceived by the lust of the flesh it drew them to the center in that parable (the hidden tree )

When they looked with lust they fell

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.

Matthew 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Taking a bite proved they lusted after another voice (lying sign to wonder after) as if it was prophecy

 

[Arial]

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.

I noticed the same thing when I read the OP. It is what Adam and all mankind would get if they disobeyed, (the knowledge not only of good but also of evil) and why the serpent was attempting through deception to get them to disobey. He did so by convincing Eve that God was withholding something from them by deceiving them. "They would not die. They would be like God knowing things that God knows and they do not (good and evil)." And how could that be a bad thing?

I also think that the knowledge of evil is not simply knowing about it, but is having it become an inherent trait of their makeup. What is evil in God's eyes, and therefore truly evil, often is very desirable to the now corrupted humans.

 

[Arial]

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.

I will present another angle here. It is not that God cannot do something, in this case create a perfectly righteous man. I believe he did so for what he cannot do because it violates who he is (perfectly righteous) is create anything that is not perfect.

What he did do when he created man was to create him mortal---able to die---but also able to not die as long as he had access to the tree of life. And he created him corruptible, but not corrupted. We can see this when we read in 1 Cor 15 as to how the dead in Christ and those in Christ who are alive when Christ returns are changed. From mortal to immortal, from corrupted to incorruptible.

So the question then becomes, why did he do that, knowing what Adam would do before he created our world, and ordaining the fall? Purposely putting his arch enemy in the garden. I believe the answer is in the final result as we see in both Is 11 and Rev 21. Evil was already present before creation obviously. God had knowledge of it and Scripture tells us that Satan is the father of it---not as creator of evil (for evil is not a creation but the absence of good and God is the measurement of good) but as rebelling against God by wanting to take his place and gathering an army around himself.

I believe the picture is far bigger than us and our redemption. That is the means by which God is defeating and utterly destroying the presence of evil, killing its source and all who followed the serpent, through Jesus Christ, from this creation. That is why the suffering and substitutionary death of Jesus on the cross was his victory. That is where he conquered sin and death. It can no longer condemn those in him through faith because he purchased them with his own blood. And nothing can take them out of the Father's hand. In the meantime, while we wait patiently for his return, our voices carry the gospel to the four corners of the earth, the voice of Jesus and the power of God, gathering every last one of his sheep into the fold, as they hear and follow him.

And then will come the last enemy being put under his feet, and that enemy is death. And he will dwell with us and we will be his people and he will be our God. On a new earth, a restored creation.

 

[Josheb]

Welcome to the forum

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

Would you mind clarifying that, please.

• What that states is God did not want the humans He made innocent and sinless. Logically, that necessarily means God made what He did not want. He did NOT want innocence and sinlessness BUT that is what He made. He made what He did not want. And then He spent the rest of His revelation to humanity telling the formerly innocent and sinless humanity to be innocent and sinless. You are going to have to explain that (and support it with scripture) in order for that to have any merit.
• What was it God wanted? And why did that require Satan/the serpent be put in the garden? According to the op, we know God did NOT want innocence and sinlessness. Logically, that would mean God wanted guilt and sin. The righteous God wanted unrighteousness.
• Why was the fall necessary for God to elevate man? To what was man going to be elevated beyond the garden?
• The op states, "without the serpent, there will would have never come into conflict with God's will." How do you know that to be the case? If that were correct then it would be impossible for Adam and Eve (or, by extension, any other human) to ever sin. That, in turn, would necessarily mean the will of Adam and Eve was not able to make choices even remotely close to disobedience or sin. That, in turn, would necessarily preclude and contradict their being made in God's image.
• Do you think the good and sinless (Gen. 1:31) creation God made was righteous at the end of the sixth day? If so, then what this op is saying is that God made a righteous creation abut did not want a righteous creation; He made what He did NOT want and then provided the means for it to become something else He did not want - unrighteousness - with the intent of having unrighteous creatures become righteous by declaration and declaration only.

What are your sources for this outside of the Bible? In other words, aside from the Bible, who are what have you been reading or listening to that informs this opening post (op)? What are the sources we might examine to better understand what's stated and how you got there?

 

[Josheb]

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.

This forum is heavily populated by members of the Reformed Theology and Covenant Theology persuasians.* You should, therefore, prepare yourself for some conversations of disagreement and be willing to either hone your skills defending Dispensationalism and its many flaws, or be open to persuasion.

Since this op is not specifically about Dispensationalism, I refer you to several ops I have written critical of Dispensational Premillennialism Here, Here, Here, Here, Here and Here. Many of us are former Dispensationalists. It is, therefore, common for the non-Reform-minded members of the forum to feel controlled, (mis)judged, and ganged upon. Those perceptions usually coincide with flagrant violations of the forum's rules, so make sure those are read and practiced. Keeping the posts about the posts and not making it about the posters will avoid a lot of rancor and hassle. You're not going to like what I wrote in those ops. The impulse to dissent is understandable. Make sure your arguments are exegetical and logical.




Getting back to this op and its subsequent supporting posts...... I read several mistakes. Are these mistakes made unwittingly and thereby easily corrected? Or are these mistakes a product of bad teaching, which may or may not be easily corrected? Or are they mistakes attributable to ideological allegiance to doctrinal positions that aren't easily shed? The posters who've weighed in so far come from a variety of povs, and each of them has brought something different to bear on this op. None of them find the op wholly correct. You've got your hands full.

Breathe


This forum can be a great place of learning, but it can also be a great place to hone your apologetic skills.




* I can recommend some Dispensationalist forums or forums where Dispensationalists have dedicated boards, if you like.
.

 

[Josheb]

Just so you don not think I am only critical.....

A perfect enironment.

Yep. that is correct.

A sinless pair of human beings in fellowship with God and given responsibilities from God to care for the Garden.

Yep, that is correct.

(Gen. 2:15) Perfect bliss between God and man.

Probably true, but the command to go out and subdue the earth foreshadows potential conflict between the Creator and the creature.

...a will not in harmony with God's will, is sin.

That is correct.

In fact it was the first sin in the universe. (Is. 14:12-15)

That is one possibly correct reading of the text but you're making an unsupported inference.

And when we get to Heaven our wills, will never come into conflict with God's will.

Yep, that is correct.

Thus the fall of man was part of God's plan for what He wanted man to be.

Perhaps.

As righteous as He.

Yes, God wants His human creatures to be righteous as He is righteous.

In other words, it is ours by declaration only, not ours in and of ourselves.

That is true of the post-disobedient condition. It is not true of the pre-disobedient, good, and sinless condition. The two should never be conflated.


Those are the correct portions of the op. Unblessedly, there are several incorrect statements, a couple of unsupported inferences, a few errors in logic, and a lack of exegesis. So, make the time to address these things. If you do it well, then this thread will last many days. If well-rendered scripture is the ruling measure, then we'll all also come to a consensus with God.

 

[Lees]

I will present another angle here. It is not that God cannot do something, in this case create a perfectly righteous man. I believe he did so for what he cannot do because it violates who he is (perfectly righteous) is create anything that is not perfect.

What he did do when he created man was to create him mortal---able to die---but also able to not die as long as he had access to the tree of life. And he created him corruptible, but not corrupted. We can see this when we read in 1 Cor 15 as to how the dead in Christ and those in Christ who are alive when Christ returns are changed. From mortal to immortal, from corrupted to incorruptible.

So the question then becomes, why did he do that, knowing what Adam would do before he created our world, and ordaining the fall? Purposely putting his arch enemy in the garden. I believe the answer is in the final result as we see in both Is 11 and Rev 21. Evil was already present before creation obviously. God had knowledge of it and Scripture tells us that Satan is the father of it---not as creator of evil (for evil is not a creation but the absence of good and God is the measurement of good) but as rebelling against God by wanting to take his place and gathering an army around himself.

I believe the picture is far bigger than us and our redemption. That is the means by which God is defeating and utterly destroying the presence of evil, killing its source and all who followed the serpent, through Jesus Christ, from this creation. That is why the suffering and substitutionary death of Jesus on the cross was his victory. That is where he conquered sin and death. It can no longer condemn those in him through faith because he purchased them with his own blood. And nothing can take them out of the Father's hand. In the meantime, while we wait patiently for his return, our voices carry the gospel to the four corners of the earth, the voice of Jesus and the power of God, gathering every last one of his sheep into the fold, as they hear and follow him.

And then will come the last enemy being put under his feet, and that enemy is death. And he will dwell with us and we will be his people and he will be our God. On a new earth, a restored creation.

Adam was sinless. But he was not perfectly righteouss with the righteousness of God. Yes, there are some things God cannot do. God cannot sin. God cannot create another God. God cannot allow a sinner into His presence just by saying it is ok. His righteouss nature would destroy such an one immediately. And, God cannot create one as righteouss as He. If he could have, wouldn't He have? He however can declare one as righteouss as He, based only on the finished work of Christ.

Are you sayiing evil was present before creation in the person of Lucifer? (Job 38:7) indicates the fall of Lucifer had not taken place when God created the earth. (Ezekiel 28:15) says Satan was perfect in his ways until iniquity was found in him. (John 8:44) says Satan was a murderer from the beginning.

Yes, you are correct, the picture is far bigger. But that is the way it is with God and anything He does. With one movement of His hand, He does many things. Accomplishes many tasks, but all work towards their intended goal.

Indeed: Come Lord Jesus.

Lees

 

[Lees]

Welcome to the forum

Would you mind clarifying that, please.

• What that states is God did not want the humans He made innocent and sinless. Logically, that necessarily means God made what He did not want. He did NOT want innocence and sinlessness BUT that is what He made. He made what He did not want. And then He spent the rest of His revelation to humanity telling the formerly innocent and sinless humanity to be innocent and sinless. You are going to have to explain that (and support it with scripture) in order for that to have any merit.
• What was it God wanted? And why did that require Satan/the serpent be put in the garden? According to the op, we know God did NOT want innocence and sinlessness. Logically, that would mean God wanted guilt and sin. The righteous God wanted unrighteousness.
• Why was the fall necessary for God to elevate man? To what was man going to be elevated beyond the garden?
• The op states, "without the serpent, there will would have never come into conflict with God's will." How do you know that to be the case? If that were correct then it would be impossible for Adam and Eve (or, by extension, any other human) to ever sin. That, in turn, would necessarily mean the will of Adam and Eve was not able to make choices even remotely close to disobedience or sin. That, in turn, would necessarily preclude and contradict their being made in God's image.
• Do you think the good and sinless (Gen. 1:31) creation God made was righteous at the end of the sixth day? If so, then what this op is saying is that God made a righteous creation abut did not want a righteous creation; He made what He did NOT want and then provided the means for it to become something else He did not want - unrighteousness - with the intent of having unrighteous creatures become righteous by declaration and declaration only.

What are your sources for this outside of the Bible? In other words, aside from the Bible, who are what have you been reading or listening to that informs this opening post (op)? What are the sources we might examine to better understand what's stated and how you got there?

Thanks.

No, I believe God made exactly what He wanted. It's just that that is the beginning of His work. Not the end. After the fall, God did not expect any to be innocent and sinless. Instead the Law was given to find man guilty. (Rom. 3:19-20) God expected man to come to Him by the way He describes.

I believe I explained what God wanted. I believe I have explained why the fall was necessary.

As to, if Adam and Eve would ever sin without the serpent tempting, I said, that remains a question. And how could we know? Well...yes, if the serpent were not in the garden as the tempter, and Adam and Eve were sinless, then their will would never come into conflict with God's will. When the believer gets to Heaven, does he have a will? Can he will to rebel against God?

So, why did God put/let the serpent in the Garden?

I believe the creation was good as God says.

Why are you interested in 'outside sources'? I haven't seen you produce any. Why are you interested in how I got there? Have you declared how you got there? We have the Scripture. Let that prove what we say.

Lees

 

[Lees]

This forum is heavily populated by members of the Reformed Theology and Covenant Theology persuasians.* You should, therefore, prepare yourself for some conversations of disagreement and be willing to either hone your skills defending Dispensationalism and its many flaws, or be open to persuasion.

Since this op is not specifically about Dispensationalism, I refer you to several ops I have written critical of Dispensational Premillennialism Here, Here, Here, Here, Here and Here. Many of us are former Dispensationalists. It is, therefore, common for the non-Reform-minded members of the forum to feel controlled, (mis)judged, and ganged upon. Those perceptions usually coincide with flagrant violations of the forum's rules, so make sure those are read and practiced. Keeping the posts about the posts and not making it about the posters will avoid a lot of rancor and hassle. You're not going to like what I wrote in those ops. The impulse to dissent is understandable. Make sure your arguments are exegetical and logical.




Getting back to this op and its subsequent supporting posts...... I read several mistakes. Are these mistakes made unwittingly and thereby easily corrected? Or are these mistakes a product of bad teaching, which may or may not be easily corrected? Or are they mistakes attributable to ideological allegiance to doctrinal positions that aren't easily shed? The posters who've weighed in so far come from a variety of povs, and each of them has brought something different to bear on this op. None of them find the op wholly correct. You've got your hands full.

Breathe


This forum can be a great place of learning, but it can also be a great place to hone your apologetic skills.




* I can recommend some Dispensationalist forums or forums where Dispensationalists have dedicated boards, if you like.
.

Yes, I am aware. When something in dispensationalism comes up I have no problem discussing it. But thanks for the warning.

Yes, there is something about being a 'former' that is supposed to lend some credit to the 'former one'. But to me it doesn't. All is still based upon the Scripture. Thanks but no thanks to your anti-dispensatioal articles. I am willing to wait till it becomes part of our conversation.

With all this advice are you some sort of administrator, moderator, or owner?

Why would you recommend a dispensational forum? Would you like me to leave? Don't worry, I'm sure you can do your best to have me banned if that becomes necessary.

If you want to discuss dispensationalism or some aspect of it, start a new thread. I promise I will participate.

Lees

 

[Josheb]

Thanks.

No, I believe God made exactly what He wanted. It's just that that is the beginning of His work. Not the end. After the fall, God did not expect any to be innocent and sinless. Instead the Law was given to find man guilty. (Rom. 3:19-20) God expected man to come to Him by the way He describes.

Then understand two things: 1) a very poor job articulating that was posted, 2) you need to clarify things further, and 3) you've just demonstrated something very commendable: the ability to self-correct without rancor. Do more of that.

Adam and Eve were a beginning, not a fixed and final creation. I agree.

I believe I explained what God wanted. I believe I have explained why the fall was necessary.

You did not. Both the facts and the reasoning in both are flawed (as I have already noted)

As to, if Adam and Eve would ever sin without the serpent tempting, I said, that remains a question.

It does not remain a question.

Rather than my explaining it to you, let me instead give you the opportunity to work through this collaboratively beginning with the reasons Jesus came into the world. What does scripture state are some of the reasons Jesus came into the world? I'll offer one to get us going. Jesus came to undo the works of the devil (1 Jn. 3:8). However, that is not the only reason Jesus was incarnated. If that were the only reason then that would make God dependent on sin, and that dependency would compromise God's omni-attributes and sovereignty. Does that make sense? It's also a post hoc explanation. There, therefore, must be other reasons for Jesus' incarnation and I believe you're on the right track with this op, but it's been poorly worded. Why else did Jesus come? Once the more encompassing reasons for the incarnation are known then the likelihood of sin's inevitability is better understood.

And how could we know?

Because we've read the whole of scripture and are not using various verses selectively apart from all else God's word has to say on the matter. That's how.

Well...yes, if the serpent were not in the garden as the tempter, and Adam and Eve were sinless, then their will would never come into conflict with God's will.

Neither Eve nor Adam needed Satan to disobey God. In point of fact Satan disobeyed God all on his own and, therefore, there exists a known precedent of someone sinning apart from an external influence. A similar condition exists with Adam. The serpent never spoke to Adam. Adam was influenced by Eve, not the serpent. Just as importantly as the lack of Satanic influence on Adam is the fact that the first command he disobeyed was NOT the eating of the forbidden kiwi, but the failure to rule over the serpent (Gen. 1:28).

When the believer gets to Heaven, does he have a will?

Yes, but that will s not free (meaning autonomous, or absent any and all controls).

Can he will to rebel against God?

No. It is because his will is freed that he cannot rebel. You might want to read the case Augustine made for this. The human will is not free on earth in its rudimentary state (which is what you are asserting: man was at an early stage in Eden). The human must attain his or her final state in God's final, concluded purpose to have complete freedom. Sin simply made the rudimentary state worse. In the resurrected and transformed state the human will is free to obey and comply, and not just free to comply and obey, but free to assert its will in complete unity with God's (just like Jesus did ).

So, why did God put/let the serpent in the Garden?

Not so fast. This is your op. Yours to assert, defend, correct, discard, or affirm as the discussions brought to bear on it give warrant.

I will say this: Satan is a minion. He is a created creature AND he is just as dead in and enslaved to sin as any other creature that disobeys God. Why did God put a sinful creature in the otherwise good and sinless garden in the otherwise good and sinless earth? One answer would be to ruled over and subdued by those God place on the earth for that purpose. It's not a good thing when the guards let the inmates run the show, is it? The eating of the fruit was the second command broken, not the first.

I believe the creation was good as God says.

And I agree.

Why are you interested in 'outside sources'?

I already explained that. If the readers hear know those sources, then we may be able to contribute MORE to this discussion. Or, another reason for knowing about any external source might be because some sources are known and well-established as flawed, perhps even heretical. If, for example, you were informed by LDS sources we'd all know something about this op that is not stated in the op, whereas if your source was the aforementioned Augustine, or and Arminian versus a Calvinist source then we'd have some insight into how creation and/or the human will is viewed. This entire thread will be different if you're asserting Universalism, and it is important for you to be forthcoming about that position if that applies. In other words, it might save us all some time to know any extra-biblical source for any opening post. My question is not unique to you. I happen to be diversely read so we might share some prior reading.

I haven't seen you produce any....................

The onus is not on me and every single time you try to shift the onus of this op away from yourself onto me or anyone else I will point out that fallacy. It is always best, for the sake of your own integrity, to simply answer any topical question anyone asks you as immediately, directly, succinctly as you can, even if the answer is "I do not know." On those occasions that would be the honest response and few if any here will slight you for being honest. A conversation moves more effectively when there's parity with questions and answers, but this op is yours, not mine. Not only is the onus on you to prove the op (or amend it as the conversations warrant) but there's always a greater burden on the author of an op because s/he has to field what everyone else brings to bear on it, while those of weigh in need take responsibility for what they contribute.

More importantly, the reason I haven't cited any extra-biblical sources is because I do not use any unless an extra-biblical source is the topic of the discussion. I can post from a variety of perspectives, but I deliberately choose to couch everything I post in well-rendered scripture.






I'll summarize: A few points in the op were poorly worded but you've clarified some of them and I agree (so far) with the clarifications. God did make what God wanted, but he wasn't finished with humanity. Adam and Eve were made within the six days of creation but they were not completed. God had more to do with them, and that completed state is tied to the work of Jesus. Eve sinned due to the direct influence of the serpent, but that's not the case with Adam and it is Adam, NOT Eve, by which sin entered the world and death comes to all men (Rom. 5). We also know it is possible to sin without the influence of the serpent (and by implication, any outside influence) because Satan sinned without cause and his sin, according to the posts supporting this op, is the same as our own as far as it pertains to our willing anything other than what God wills. The reasons God put the serpent in the garden are likely manifold but the reasons for God placing Jesus in the world may have absolutely nothing to do with the serpent or far exceed anything related to the serpent's presence (after all, there is no salvation for Satan).

Is that a fair summary of this op and your point of view thus far?

 

[Arial]

Adam was sinless. But he was not perfectly righteouss with the righteousness of God. Yes, there are some things God cannot do. God cannot sin. God cannot create another God. God cannot allow a sinner into His presence just by saying it is ok. His righteouss nature would destroy such an one immediately. And, God cannot create one as righteouss as He. If he could have, wouldn't He have? He however can declare one as righteouss as He, based only on the finished work of Christ.

We aren't meant to be as righteous as God otherwise we would be him. Though I am not sure exactly what you mean. Righteous is who God is, not just an attribute. We are made in his image and likeness, which means we are to reflect his moral qualities in all we do as he gave us dominion over the creation. And our dominion is not equal to or instead of his dominion. We are under him. It simply means he charged us with tending to and caring for the creation in interpersonal relationships, always reflecting his image.

To say there are things that God cannot do is simply to say that he cannot be other than who he is. "He cannot create one as righteous as He. If he could have, wouldn't He have?" (Your words.) To me, that is a convoluted statement that I do not believe has any bearing on anything we have in Scripture. Followed by a speculation of what God would have done if he could have done it.

The righteousness of Christ is his full and complete obedience to God according the the moral law of God and the Sinai covenant Law. Being perfectly obedient is what we as fallen in Adam cannot do. It is his righteousness counted as ours by imputation (reversing the imputation of sin we get from Adam)and for forgiveness of our own sins (because they were all laid on Christ as our substitute on the cross, therefore no further penalty is due that we have to bear ourselves.) We are judged as righteous by the just judge and reconciled to him. even though in this flesh we are still in Adam and therefore still do sin, but sit under the constant sanctification of the Holy Spirit). In the fullness of time we will be changed and actually righteous. It really has nothing to do with God making humanity as righteous as he is. It is a foreign concept.

Are you sayiing evil was present before creation in the person of Lucifer?

I don't know when evil was first present. I know it was present before creation because God put the serpent in the garden and he was already evil. There is a way to see what you say as perpetrating the idea, if unintentionally, that God invented sin for the purpose of making people as righteous as he is because it was the only way he could do it.

(Job 38:7) indicates the fall of Lucifer had not taken place when God created the earth

WHat does Job 38:7 even have to do with Lucifer?

(Ezekiel 28:15) says Satan was perfect in his ways until iniquity was found in him

It is debatable whether Ez 28 is referring to Satan as that section of prophecy is titled A Lament over the King of Tyre. There is a rather long (so I won't present it, it can be checked by anyone using study Bibles or the internet) possible interpretation that is being expressed through symbolic, perhaps hyperbolic, language. In which case "you were in Eden" might not even be referring to the serpent but Adam as representing God's crowning creation, and how far the king of Tyre fell from that ideal in his own actions and greed.

(John 8:44) says Satan was a murderer from the beginning.

Wouldn't that be a direct contradiction if use in the way you are using, it of Ez 28:15?

 

[Josheb]

Yes, I am aware. When something in dispensationalism comes up I have no problem discussing it. But thanks for the warning.

Yes, there is something about being a 'former' that is supposed to lend some credit to the 'former one'. But to me it doesn't. All is still based upon the Scripture. Thanks but no thanks to your anti-dispensatioal articles. I am willing to wait till it becomes part of our conversation.

Well then.... let's start with something that should be obvious to everyone but often escapes the Dispensationalist. Can you provide me with scripture that explicitly divides scripture up into dispensations? I am NOT asking for where the word "oikunomia" is mentioned. I am asking where scripture itself explicitly marks or divides itself up as a this or that dispensation? Just one will do, but if you have three then that would be better.

If none are known but you think one might exist then an honest "I do not know of any," is commendable and if there is no such scripture then a good, honest and forthcoming acknowledgment like, "There are none" will be appreciated. Any avoidance of the question will be treated as subterfuge.

Dispensationalism teaches the garden was a dispensation AND that dispensation does not necessarily have any continuity with other dispensations or the whole of scripture. I have already read where you acknowledge one point of departure with Dispensationalism, so parhaps you disagree with Dispensationalism here, too. Either way, it's op-relevant.

With all this advice are you some sort of administrator, moderator, or owner?

No, I simply want you to succeed the best you can.

Why would you recommend a dispensational forum?

Because you're self-reported as a Dispensationalist and Dispies often have a difficult time here at CCAM. Synergists have a more difficult time because of the many monergists here, but DPism is not the prevailing point of view here.

Would you like me to leave?

I've already answered that question. You were welcomed here. So, your question brings up two concerns. First, this is now the second time you've asked me a question that was already answered. I assume you don't like it when folks do that to you. Second, asking questions that have already been answered typically indicates the posts weren't thoroughly read or, if read, what was read wasn't given sufficient thought. Again, if you don't want others to treat you that way then don't do it to others.

Don't worry, I'm sure you can do your best to have me banned if that becomes necessary.

If you want to discuss dispensationalism or some aspect of it, start a new thread. I promise I will participate.

Lees

What I want is for you to make the case for your own op.

• Where I read content that is consistent with God's word, I will affirm that content.
• Where I read content that is either unclear or I do not understand it, I will ask questions.
• Where I read content that is inconsistent with God's word, I will refute it.

Isn't that something to which we can all agree? Is that not what I have actually practiced thus far? Is not THE best case any of us can present to our fellow forum members.....


a polite and respectful, reasonable and rational, cogent and coherent topical case of well-rendered scripture?


If so, then get busy because a few things need to be clarified and corrected in this op, and I am not the only one who's said so. I just happen to be the most exacting one. Your basic thesis seems to be that humanity is a work in progress. I think everyone here agrees. Implied within this op are elements of Christology, soteriology, hamartiology, ecclesiology, and eschatology that haven't yet been articulated. That's okay we'll get to them.


Why did God create humans? What do you think is His purpose doing that? What scripture supports your answer? Is that a fair place to start?

 

[Lees]

Then understand two things: 1) a very poor job articulating that was posted, 2) you need to clarify things further, and 3) you've just demonstrated something very commendable: the ability to self-correct without rancor. Do more of that.

Adam and Eve were a beginning, not a fixed and final creation. I agree.

You did not. Both the facts and the reasoning in both are flawed (as I have already noted)

It does not remain a question.

Rather than my explaining it to you, let me instead give you the opportunity to work through this collaboratively beginning with the reasons Jesus came into the world. What does scripture state are some of the reasons Jesus came into the world? I'll offer one to get us going. Jesus came to undo the works of the devil (1 Jn. 3:8). However, that is not the only reason Jesus was incarnated. If that were the only reason then that would make God dependent on sin, and that dependency would compromise God's omni-attributes and sovereignty. Does that make sense? It's also a post hoc explanation. There, therefore, must be other reasons for Jesus' incarnation and I believe you're on the right track with this op, but it's been poorly worded. Why else did Jesus come? Once the more encompassing reasons for the incarnation are known then the likelihood of sin's inevitability is better understood.

Because we've read the whole of scripture and are not using various verses selectively apart from all else God's word has to say on the matter. That's how.

Neither Eve nor Adam needed Satan to disobey God. In point of fact Satan disobeyed God all on his own and, therefore, there exists a known precedent of someone sinning apart from an external influence. A similar condition exists with Adam. The serpent never spoke to Adam. Adam was influenced by Eve, not the serpent. Just as importantly as the lack of Satanic influence on Adam is the fact that the first command he disobeyed was NOT the eating of the forbidden kiwi, but the failure to rule over the serpent (Gen. 1:28).

Yes, but that will s not free (meaning autonomous, or absent any and all controls).

No. It is because his will is freed that he cannot rebel. You might want to read the case Augustine made for this. The human will is not free on earth in its rudimentary state (which is what you are asserting: man was at an early stage in Eden). The human must attain his or her final state in God's final, concluded purpose to have complete freedom. Sin simply made the rudimentary state worse. In the resurrected and transformed state the human will is free to obey and comply, and not just free to comply and obey, but free to assert its will in complete unity with God's (just like Jesus did ).

Not so fast. This is your op. Yours to assert, defend, correct, discard, or affirm as the discussions brought to bear on it give warrant.

I will say this: Satan is a minion. He is a created creature AND he is just as dead in and enslaved to sin as any other creature that disobeys God. Why did God put a sinful creature in the otherwise good and sinless garden in the otherwise good and sinless earth? One answer would be to ruled over and subdued by those God place on the earth for that purpose. It's not a good thing when the guards let the inmates run the show, is it? The eating of the fruit was the second command broken, not the first.

And I agree.

I already explained that. If the readers hear know those sources, then we may be able to contribute MORE to this discussion. Or, another reason for knowing about any external source might be because some sources are known and well-established as flawed, perhps even heretical. If, for example, you were informed by LDS sources we'd all know something about this op that is not stated in the op, whereas if your source was the aforementioned Augustine, or and Arminian versus a Calvinist source then we'd have some insight into how creation and/or the human will is viewed. This entire thread will be different if you're asserting Universalism, and it is important for you to be forthcoming about that position if that applies. In other words, it might save us all some time to know any extra-biblical source for any opening post. My question is not unique to you. I happen to be diversely read so we might share some prior reading.

The onus is not on me and every single time you try to shift the onus of this op away from yourself onto me or anyone else I will point out that fallacy. It is always best, for the sake of your own integrity, to simply answer any topical question anyone asks you as immediately, directly, succinctly as you can, even if the answer is "I do not know." On those occasions that would be the honest response and few if any here will slight you for being honest. A conversation moves more effectively when there's parity with questions and answers, but this op is yours, not mine. Not only is the onus on you to prove the op (or amend it as the conversations warrant) but there's always a greater burden on the author of an op because s/he has to field what everyone else brings to bear on it, while those of weigh in need take responsibility for what they contribute.

More importantly, the reason I haven't cited any extra-biblical sources is because I do not use any unless an extra-biblical source is the topic of the discussion. I can post from a variety of perspectives, but I deliberately choose to couch everything I post in well-rendered scripture.






I'll summarize: A few points in the op were poorly worded but you've clarified some of them and I agree (so far) with the clarifications. God did make what God wanted, but he wasn't finished with humanity. Adam and Eve were made within the six days of creation but they were not completed. God had more to do with them, and that completed state is tied to the work of Jesus. Eve sinned due to the direct influence of the serpent, but that's not the case with Adam and it is Adam, NOT Eve, by which sin entered the world and death comes to all men (Rom. 5). We also know it is possible to sin without the influence of the serpent (and by implication, any outside influence) because Satan sinned without cause and his sin, according to the posts supporting this op, is the same as our own as far as it pertains to our willing anything other than what God wills. The reasons God put the serpent in the garden are likely manifold but the reasons for God placing Jesus in the world may have absolutely nothing to do with the serpent or far exceed anything related to the serpent's presence (after all, there is no salvation for Satan).

Is that a fair summary of this op and your point of view thus far?

I clarified your error and gave you (Rom. 3:19-20) as proof. Nice ignore on your part. Save your commendations for someone else. They mean nothing to me. Same with your advice. Can you do more of that?

The purpose of this thread is not to give every reason Christ came. If you want to cover every reason Christ came start another thread. If you have something to offer or disagree with what I have said, show me where I am wrong.

Then show me what the rest of Scripture says pertaining to knowing Adam and Eve could have sinned without the temptor. Don't disregard the absence of the sin nature in Adam and Eve also.

Well, you say Adam and Eve didn't need Satan to tempt them to disobey God, Yet how do you know? If you say because of Scripture, show me the Scripture. There is nothing in (Gen. 1:28) to indicate Adam's first sin was failure to rule over the serpent.

Man does not have free will here either. You say when the believer gets to Heaven he does not have free will. You then say, because his will is freed he cannot rebel. So, which is it?

Again, why did God put/let the serpent in the Garden? I have presented why. To tempt Adam and Eve resulting in the fall. You disagree, so tell and show me why.

The onus is not on me to produce any outside sources either. As I already said, let Scripture be the proof.

Your summary is yours, not mine. I will stand by what I said, not what you summarize.

Lees

 

[Lees]

Well then.... let's start with something that should be obvious to everyone but often escapes the Dispensationalist. Can you provide me with scripture that explicitly divides scripture up into dispensations? I am NOT asking for where the word "oikunomia" is mentioned. I am asking where scripture itself explicitly marks or divides itself up as a this or that dispensation? Just one will do, but if you have three then that would be better.

If none are known but you think one might exist then an honest "I do not know of any," is commendable and if there is no such scripture then a good, honest and forthcoming acknowledgment like, "There are none" will be appreciated. Any avoidance of the question will be treated as subterfuge.

Dispensationalism teaches the garden was a dispensation AND that dispensation does not necessarily have any continuity with other dispensations or the whole of scripture. I have already read where you acknowledge one point of departure with Dispensationalism, so parhaps you disagree with Dispensationalism here, too. Either way, it's op-relevant.

No, I simply want you to succeed the best you can.

Because you're self-reported as a Dispensationalist and Dispies often have a difficult time here at CCAM. Synergists have a more difficult time because of the many monergists here, but DPism is not the prevailing point of view here.

I've already answered that question. You were welcomed here. So, your question brings up two concerns. First, this is now the second time you've asked me a question that was already answered. I assume you don't like it when folks do that to you. Second, asking questions that have already been answered typically indicates the posts weren't thoroughly read or, if read, what was read wasn't given sufficient thought. Again, if you don't want others to treat you that way then don't do it to others.

What I want is for you to make the case for your own op.

• Where I read content that is consistent with God's word, I will affirm that content.
• Where I read content that is either unclear or I do not understand it, I will ask questions.
• Where I read content that is inconsistent with God's word, I will refute it.

Isn't that something to which we can all agree? Is that not what I have actually practiced thus far? Is not THE best case any of us can present to our fellow forum members.....


a polite and respectful, reasonable and rational, cogent and coherent topical case of well-rendered scripture?


If so, then get busy because a few things need to be clarified and corrected in this op, and I am not the only one who's said so. I just happen to be the most exacting one. Your basic thesis seems to be that humanity is a work in progress. I think everyone here agrees. Implied within this op are elements of Christology, soteriology, hamartiology, ecclesiology, and eschatology that haven't yet been articulated. That's okay we'll get to them.


Why did God create humans? What do you think is His purpose doing that? What scripture supports your answer? Is that a fair place to start?

As I said, if you want to start a discussion on dispensationalism, start another thread. I will participate.

I have made the case for this thread. If you disagree, show me where I am wrong. Something you have yet to do.

Lees

 

[Arial]

With all this advice are you some sort of administrator, moderator, or owner?

No he is not. The situation has been dealt with. Please don't be discouraged, and don't let the OP get side tracked into dispensationalism as it seems an attempt is being made to do so. It is sometimes best, because of personality conflicts, to not engage when that occurs.

 

[Lees]

We aren't meant to be as righteous as God otherwise we would be him. Though I am not sure exactly what you mean. Righteous is who God is, not just an attribute. We are made in his image and likeness, which means we are to reflect his moral qualities in all we do as he gave us dominion over the creation. And our dominion is not equal to or instead of his dominion. We are under him. It simply means he charged us with tending to and caring for the creation in interpersonal relationships, always reflecting his image.

To say there are things that God cannot do is simply to say that he cannot be other than who he is. "He cannot create one as righteous as He. If he could have, wouldn't He have?" (Your words.) To me, that is a convoluted statement that I do not believe has any bearing on anything we have in Scripture. Followed by a speculation of what God would have done if he could have done it.

The righteousness of Christ is his full and complete obedience to God according the the moral law of God and the Sinai covenant Law. Being perfectly obedient is what we as fallen in Adam cannot do. It is his righteousness counted as ours by imputation (reversing the imputation of sin we get from Adam)and for forgiveness of our own sins (because they were all laid on Christ as our substitute on the cross, therefore no further penalty is due that we have to bear ourselves.) We are judged as righteous by the just judge and reconciled to him. even though in this flesh we are still in Adam and therefore still do sin, but sit under the constant sanctification of the Holy Spirit). In the fullness of time we will be changed and actually righteous. It really has nothing to do with God making humanity as righteous as he is. It is a foreign concept.

I don't know when evil was first present. I know it was present before creation because God put the serpent in the garden and he was already evil. There is a way to see what you say as perpetrating the idea, if unintentionally, that God invented sin for the purpose of making people as righteous as he is because it was the only way he could do it.

WHat does Job 38:7 even have to do with Lucifer?

It is debatable whether Ez 28 is referring to Satan as that section of prophecy is titled A Lament over the King of Tyre. There is a rather long (so I won't present it, it can be checked by anyone using study Bibles or the internet) possible interpretation that is being expressed through symbolic, perhaps hyperbolic, language. In which case "you were in Eden" might not even be referring to the serpent but Adam as representing God's crowning creation, and how far the king of Tyre fell from that ideal in his own actions and greed.

Wouldn't that be a direct contradiction if use in the way you are using, it of Ez 28:15?

But neither Adam or Eve could be obedient, though they were sinless.

I would say the righteousness of Christ is the very righteousness of God.

My point is that God was going to have Adam and Eve just as righteous as He, but by declaration. And Adam and Eve in the Garden was just the beginning of that work. Adam and Eve sinless only is not what God wanted. For they stand there in their own righteousness, not God's.

I will say, as I have already said, we are just as righteous now as we will ever be.

Concerning (Job:38:7): it shows that the earth was created before the fall of Satan. You said in post #(23) evil was already present before creation.

I do believe (Ezekiel 28) is speaking of Satan. My question was, are you saying evil was present in the person of Satan before the creation? As to (John 8:44) and Satan being a murderer from the beginning, when would that beginning be? When God created the earth or Satan? I ask because I am not sure myself.

Lees

 

[Lees]

No he is not. The situation has been dealt with. Please don't be discouraged, and don't let the OP get side tracked into dispensationalism as it seems an attempt is being made to do so. It is sometimes best, because of personality conflicts, to not engage when that occurs.

Thanks. Good advice.

Lees

 

[Arial]

Adam and Eve sinless only is not what God wanted. For they stand there in their own righteousness, not God's.

You might be more accurate to use the word "intended" instead of "wanted". But they were not standing in their own righteousness if God made them righteous. He intended that they would sin or they would not have done so. Gen 3:15 is a declaration of war against Satan and evil in which Satan and evil will be destroyed. In the new heaven and new earth with God dwelling with us (Rev 21) we will be actually righteous---therefore by your same reasoning we would be standing in our own righteousness. We are declared righteous in this age, while we still have our sin nature and will still sometimes sin. But because we are declared righteous by the imputed righteousness of Christ, sin cannot again condemn us. As Paul says, it is not I who sin but sin that dwells in me. In the age to come, we will be actually righteous.

 

[Josheb]

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?

But neither Adam or Eve could be obedient, though they were sinless.

If they could not obey then we do know they would have sinned, thought they were sinless.

 

[makesends]

Lees said:
But neither Adam or Eve could be obedient, though they were sinless.

If they could not obey then we do know they would have sinned, thought they were sinless.

@Lees why do you say they could not obey? What are you talking about? How do you come to that conclusion?

Do you mean that as it turned out when they were tempted in this particular instance, the fact that they did not obey shows that they could have done no differently? I.e. that they were absolutely CAUSED to choose what they chose to do?

Or are you saying that they never obeyed at all, all along, because they could not, but only failed to disobey all the time until their temptation?

Or what?