Part 2:
.
Adam was carnal before he sinned or he would not have sinned.
Let's examine that statement.....
The
first problem
inherent in "
Adam was carnal before he sinned or he would not have sinned," is the fact
a word nowhere found in scripture is being used. You do not get to take a non-existent word and tell
anyone that's what scripture teaches. Doing so is a mistake - but because I know we've had this conversation many times before I know that this dross is posted knowing it's not true. That makes it a lie, not just a factual error.
The
second problem inherent in "Adam was carnal before he sinned or he would not have sinned," is the abject ignoring of the context of ALL of scripture after Genesis 3:7.
EVERYTHING after Genesis 3:7 is different. That means every single mention of "
flesh," (Hebrew =
basar; Greek =
sarx)
occurs in that context unless otherwise stated in the text itself. Ignoring the context of scripture and asserting a word non-existent in scripture to the neglect of what is stated in scripture is bad exegesis. And because I know we've had this conversation many times before this is the second lie asserted in this thread. Unless scripture itself states it's talking about pre-Gensis 3:7 conditions....
IT IS NOT TALKING ABOUT PRE-GENESIS 3:7 CONDITIONS!
The
third problem inherent in "
Adam was carnal before he sinned or he would not have sinned," false equivalence
and a false cause follows from the first to mistakes: ignoring what is actually stated and asserting a word nowhere found in scripture, AND ignoring the before/after conditions explicitly stated in scripture, a false equivalence is asserted wherein in just because Adam was made of flesh before and after he sinned his flesh must be the same in some way, must be the cause of his disobedience. False equivalence and false causes are
both logical fallacies. And, again, because we have had this exact same discussion many times before I know you're posting these fallacies
knowingly. Known fallacy is knowingly posted into the board in hopes others will subscribe to this dross, "
Adam was carnal before he sinned or he would not have sinned."
The
fourth problem inherent in, "
Adam was carnal before he sinned or he would not have sinned," is the false dichotomy between flesh and spirit in a pre-disobedient man in a pre-disobedient world. Prior to Gensis 3:7 Adam, the Adam made of good and sinless flesh, is reported to walk with God
and have full liberty, power, and authority to eat from the tree of life any time he wanted as many times as he wanted. Neither was hindered by any sin because no sin existed in his flesh or anywhere in the world. The dichotomy that's been asserted
FOR YEARS is a false dichotomy. And, once again, because we've had this conversation
many times, I know you know the problems to be solved. You've come into CCAM and posted claims you already know to be problematic for many reasons and haven't solved a single one of the long-running problems
inherent in "
Adam was carnal before he sinned or he would not have sinned."
And then, having ignored what was previously posted
and when the request for attending to that content is made the response, "
Why are you telling what to do and not to do? Is the Spirit telling you to say that to me?" is thought a cogent and correct response.
Put on your big boy panties and address the problems in this dross you're posting or ignore my posts. EVERYONE will understand the silence for what it is.
It is just that without the law one is not held accountable for his choices.
That does not matter because from the time of Adam until Moses sin reigned (
Romans 5:14). It does not matter whether sin was held in account or not by one law or another because it was still reigning -
once it occurred. The problem is
THERE WAS NOT SIN IN ADAM'S FLESH PRIOR TO GENESIS 3:7. There is, therefore
NOTHING FOR WHICH TO ACCOUNT! However, another mistake has been made.
There was a law by which his actions were held accountable (and responsible and culpable)!!! God gave Adam
two commands: 1) Be fruitful, multiple, subdue and rule, and 2) Don't disobey Me. Most folks focus on the "
Do not eat the forbidden kiwi," but the larger whole-scripture truth is that if Adam had been obeying the first command, the first law, the one about subduing and ruling, he'd have never broken the
second command.
And he was held accountable.
He was held accountable according to those two commands. This is plainly stated in Romans 5 (see Rom. 5:12-19). So saying, "
It's just that without law one is not held accountable..." that is an enormous red herring. There were laws by which Adam was held accountable and pretending that is not the case is a huge mistake. And because we've had this conversation many times before I know the statement is made consciously knowing it is not true.
It's a falsehood posted as a red herring.
It is when the law entered the picture we see that Adam broke it and was held accountable.
Uber Fail.
That fails to discriminate the laws given in Eden from the Law given at Sinai..... and the
fact THERE WAS NO SIN IN ADAM OR THE WORLD PRIOR TO GENESIS 3:7! Because there was NOTHING for which to account prior to Genesis 3:7 the appeal to the supposedly post hoc Law is another red herring.
There's no such thing as carnal in scripture.
and when one gives into the carnal mind one sins.
There's no such thing as carnal in scripture. The word for flesh in Greek is sarx, not carnal. When one gives into the mind of flesh/sarx pleasing God is impossible.
That is what Romans 8 teaches.
That is what it plainly states. That passage is explicitly written about a world in which sin already exists. The Romans 8 text is part of a larger narrative that began five chapters earlier. Ripping one verse out of the text, ignoring its inherent, explicitly stated context, AND adding a word to it nowhere existent in the Greek is.....
sin.
It is not sound exegesis.
It is not sinning that makes one carnal
There is no such thing as carnal in scripture.
Sin is the transgression of the law...
That is partly correct. Sin is much more than transgression of the law. 1 John tells us sin is transgression of the Law but there are at least three other definitions of sin found in the Bible. Making one verse definitive is bad exegesis. Furthermore, you've argued sin can't be held in account where there is no law so..... Adam wasn't held accountable for any non-existent sin he committed. The laws of God do not simply and solely make sin accountable; they
define sin and make it known. BUT even where there is no law specifying a given act of disobedience, defining it as sin, there are extra-legal measures. It's a (another) huge mistake to define sin ONLY as the breaking of the law. This is what is known as a construction error, the assumption that what is true one part is true of the whole (or, in reverse) what is true of the whole is true of all constituent parts). Construction errors are logical fallacies.
Scripture does not contain logical fallacies, particularly thouse of construction.
God does not teach His people to employ fallacy in 1) their exegesis or 2) their teaching.
And because I have had this conversation with you many times before I KNOW you know this stuff and have, therefore consciously and willfully chosen to post this same dross without solving any of the many, many problems in this god forsaken idea, "
Adam was carnal before he sinned or he would not have sinned."
