The stumbling blocks of reformed doctrines

[Sinthesis]

Maybe Adam didn't trust God with Eve like Abraham did trust God with Isaac? Lack of faith.

You're very perceptive, because I am interpreting this Adam/Eve episode in light of the Abraham/Isaac episode.

 

[Deborah13]

I wouldn't be so sure. I happen to think, Eve ate first and that her eyes were open first. She therefore would have had the confidence to sway Adam, that what the serpent had said was true.

I just go by what the scripture says. And 'their' eyes were opened and 'they saw that they were naked'.
If Eve's eyes had been opened she would have seen they were naked before she gave the fruit to Adam. That was a shock to them. Believe me she wouldn't have been calming saying, here honey, try it.

How does one believe God is a liar and not be deceived?

I don't remember it saying that Adam thought God was a liar.

 

[Deborah13]

You're very perceptive, because I am interpreting this Adam/Eve episode in light of the Abraham/Isaac episode.

A light bulb turned on, thanks for flipping the switch.

 

[ivdavid]

It's funny how we all look at things differently. I've never thought I would have done any better than Eve did, just always been glad I wasn't in her position.

Neither was I referring to any particular person's response to God - just the opportunity of such objections even being raised. If one sees the Garden scenario as a test of freewill, and given that each of us are different from each other, shouldn't each of us be given the opportunity to exercise our own freewill there and then be concluded under a sinful nature if we'd failed the test? Where is justice here if there is scope for at least one individual to have even a possibility to choose correctly in the garden scenario and to be denied that?

But if there is the guarantee that none will fare better than the other, how do you explain that if not for irresistible corruption that overcomes our freedom - that then needs an irresistible grace to set us free again and to safeguard against such corruption?

If all what you say is true. Then He created them to sin. And they weren't created in the likeness and image of God. But now we are suppose to be changed into the image of Christ, who is God? Wow, now I'm really confused.

Now I'm really confused over what you're confused about.
What do you think Gen 1:27 refers to - that man was created identical to God?
God is spirit - Man is created in the flesh. Is that the image of God? Why didn't God order spiritual before natural instead of 1Cor 15:46? Why didn't God create the incorruptible instead of the corruptible initially itself instead of at the end(1Cor 15:42,53)?

And quite obviously God's purposes wouldn't have directly willed man to sin - His purposes would have factored the inevitable fall on course to realizing His plan - and that is to gather a people for Himself in Christ, who have true knowledge of Him in love through faith. Is it your belief that God somehow was surprised with the fall of man into sin and that He had to improvise then?

 

[MarkT]

I don't see much difference in depravity and evil except that depravity precedes evil. Yes, Jesus didn't exclude himself when he said God alone is good which means he wasn't depraved. Or to rephrase, Jesus knew God intimately and that God is the goodness in mankind and therefore he was not depraved. Consequently men who don't know God intimately and count Him as their goodness are depraved and subsequently evil.

You could say the wicked are depraved in their thinking and in their mind. 1 Tim. 6:5

But Jesus didn't say we are depraved. He said we are evil. Mt. 7:11 We do evil. We are capable of doing evil. Otherwise, if you take it to mean depraved, then how could we hear and understand and be saved? A twisted mind can not hear and understand. So it is accurate to say man is evil. I would not say depraved.

Even Jesus disputed the notion he was good. Mark 10:18

God is good in all cases; he makes it rain on the evil and the good. Mt. 5:45 Jesus, on the other hand, is eternal life to those who believe in him and eternal damnation to those who do not believe. Reward and punishment.

In total agreement here. My only issue is purely semantic. That is, while Jesus certainly was tempted, was he actually tempted as in was the temptation working?

Jesus responded. That proves the temptation was working.

Again I agree as per your relevant scripture. However the issue for me is again semantic in nature. That is Christ was flesh and blood and yet he was not evil. Nor did he seek to do his own will, but the will of his Father. Putting on Christ is a change from serving sin in the flesh to serving God in Truth. That is what I take away from your post, and I concur.

He did not say he was evil. He did not say he was good either. Jesus did the will of the Father.

But essentially I was saying you must be born again and the reason for it. In Christ you can enter the kingdom. Flesh and blood can not enter. 1 Cor. 15:50

 

[childeye]

I just go by what the scripture says. And 'their' eyes were opened and 'they saw that they were naked'.

Of course it does say that. It also says the woman ate first. And it also says the woman said something to the man that convinced him to eat. Genesis 3:17. Whether that which was said happened before they both ate or after the woman ate yet before the man ate is unclear. It certainly happened before the man ate. The important issue is was Adam deceived when he ate. But of course the issue is about the question of God being a liar and worse which for anyone to believe, they must be deceived.

If Eve's eyes had been opened she would have seen they were naked before she gave the fruit to Adam. That was a shock to them. Believe me she wouldn't have been calming saying, here honey, try it.

I agree it wouldn't be calming, rather quite the opposite,.as in a shock to see how naïve they were. It therefore doesn't mean Eve thought it a bad thing to give to her husband unless Eve hates her husband. I don't believe that, therefore I believe Eve thought it was a good thing to give to her husband. And since scripture doesn't say exactly what Eve said to Adam, I am left to assume that Adam thought it was something good he was receiving from Eve, and what she had said that Adam had listened to was something along those lines. Since Adam trusted the woman just as Eve had trusted the serpent, Adam was deceived.

I don't remember it saying that Adam thought God was a liar.

If Adam didn't believe he would die when he ate, he is not believing God told him the truth. That would make God a liar. The only other alternative is that Adam believed God was telling the truth, and he wanted to die. Is that your position, or am I missing something?

 

[MarkT]

Eve was deceived, but Adam willingly disobeyed.

The Bible says she gave some to her husband. Gen. 3:6 That's it. Perhaps he didn't know it was the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. All we know is she gave him the fruit and Adam was punished for listening to her voice. Gen. 3:17 Why do you suppose Satan chose Eve instead of Adam? Maybe he knew it was the only way to get Adam to eat.

 

[childeye]

You could say the wicked are depraved in their thinking and in their mind. 1 Tim. 6:5

But Jesus didn't say we are depraved. He said we are evil. Mt. 7:11 We do evil. We are capable of doing evil. Otherwise, if you take it to mean depraved, then how could we hear and understand and be saved? A twisted mind can not hear and understand. So it is accurate to say man is evil. I would not say depraved.

I believe we are as usual on these forums, arguing semantics. I have no problem with calling men evil. Therefore the evil in Matthew 7:11 is in comparison to God. To that end an evil person does have a twisted mind. The term evil is a relative term. Some are more evil than others.

Even Jesus disputed the notion he was good. Mark 10:18

God is good in all cases; he makes it rain on the evil and the good. Mt. 5:45 Jesus, on the other hand, is eternal life to those who believe in him and eternal damnation to those who do not believe. Reward and punishment.

Yes, Jesus is judgment. The question then becomes what does believing entail?

Jesus responded. That proves the temptation was working.

Again semantics. What I meant is that Jesus' responses indicate that the temptations were not working. Matthew 4:4, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God". Matthew 4:7, "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." Matthew 4:10,"Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve."

He did not say he was evil. He did not say he was good either. Jesus did the will of the Father.

Exactly. All Glory goes to God.

But essentially I was saying you must be born again and the reason for it. In Christ you can enter the kingdom. Flesh and blood can not enter. 1 Cor. 15:50

Understanding that in Christ means to be in His Spirit, wherein you said put on Christ. Yes being born again requires the acknowledging of the need of a rebirth of the spirit. The flesh is just a vessel. I think we agree on all these things.

 

[childeye]

The Bible says she gave some to her husband. Gen. 3:6 That's it. Perhaps he didn't know it was the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. All we know is she gave him the fruit and Adam was punished for listening to her voice. Gen. 3:17 Why do you suppose Satan chose Eve instead of Adam? Maybe he knew it was the only way to get Adam to eat.

That is plausible. However, what did she say? Why would God punish Adam for listening to her voice? I feel she must've said something that should have not been heeded, of course. But is it simply, "here, eat this"..?

 

[ivdavid]

The only other alternative is that Adam believed God was telling the truth, and he wanted to die. Is that your position, or am I missing something?

I'm not presuming to answer on behalf of Deborah13 - just my own beliefs on this. Why cannot there be yet another alternative where Adam is not thinking at all about what God told? He sees Eve hand over the fruit - knows she's eaten the forbidden fruit - is blinded to the truth of God's command with all his focus drawn to why she gets to do something and he shouldn't. Perhaps, if one were to interrupt Adam's train of thoughts and asked him what he believed about God's command - he might have cited the truth and come to his senses. But as it is, he was consumed by his own corruption of rebellion that blinds him to the truth in favour of simply responding to his lusts that were triggered by Eve's act of disobedience.

 

[MarkT]

That is plausible. However, what did she say? Why would God punish Adam for listening to her voice? I feel she must've said something that should have not been heeded, of course. But is it simply, "here, eat this"..?

I don't believe Adam knew the fruit came from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. I say it because I don't believe he would have eaten if he knew. He ate to please her. I think Satan was working through her to get to Adam. He ate. The LORD said in the day you eat of it you shall die. I take it as a warning. Now perhaps punished is the wrong word. God didn't want them to eat, and he knew if they did they would die. I don't think God took any pleasure in proving himself true.

 

[childeye]

I'm not presuming to answer on behalf of Deborah13 - just my own beliefs on this. Why cannot there be yet another alternative where Adam is not thinking at all about what God told? He sees Eve hand over the fruit - knows she's eaten the forbidden fruit - is blinded to the truth of God's command with all his focus drawn to why she gets to do something and he shouldn't. Perhaps, if one were to interrupt Adam's train of thoughts and asked him what he believed about God's command - he might have cited the truth and come to his senses. But as it is, he was consumed by his own corruption of rebellion that blinds him to the truth in favour of simply responding to his lusts that were triggered by Eve's act of disobedience.

Okay the key here is Adam thinking, "why she gets to do something he doesn't". The inference is that Adam is already rebellious which makes Adam in sin before he eats.

 

[childeye]

I don't believe Adam knew the fruit came from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. I say it because I don't believe he would have eaten if he knew. He ate to please her. I think Satan was working through her to get to Adam. He ate. The LORD said in the day you eat of it you shall die. I take it as a warning. Now perhaps punished is the wrong word. God didn't want them to eat, and he knew if they did they would die. I don't think God took any pleasure in proving himself true.

Well Mark T, for what it's worth, I think your take on it is plausible. Your take doesn't make Adam a bad person which I also want to believe.

Certainly it was a warning, and the way it is said at least in the translation we see, it appears as if God knows the day will come when Adam eats. The day you eat you shall surely die sounds prophetic.

Also, it makes sense that Satan used the woman to get to the man. Moreover he used the man to get to God. In other words, since Adam is made in the image of God, Satan could raise doubts in heaven about God Himself, through tarnishing Adam. If this is Satan's intention, then to say Adam was disobedient and unfaithful deliberately, would work unto that end. Or perhaps Satan was jealous of Adam being content in his lowly station under God, while Satan was not content in his high station under God. Therefore Satan wanted Adam to know he was a lowly created being. Satan tends to want to be worshipped as God. Was Adam bait for the devil? Job 41:2.

Still, it puzzles me as to what the woman said, but scripture does not say.

 

[MarkT]

What father wants his children to die? Did the LORD just make up this rule so that his children would die? Of course not. To cite this as an example of freewill is outrageous.

 

[childeye]

What father wants his children to die? Did the LORD just make up this rule so that his children would die? Of course not. To cite this as an example of freewill is outrageous.

You're outrage is noted. I edited my post #312. I would be interested in your take on what is said there. Try to keep it short if possible.

 

[ivdavid]

The inference is that Adam is already rebellious which makes Adam in sin before he eats.

Of course. I suppose Newton's 1st Law holds good there too - that what is good would remain good and what is evil would remain evil until acted upon by an external trigger. (I've obviously paraphrased it.)

God created everything good.

The trigger for satan to become corrupted with self-pride was God making him the best among the angels(Eze 28:12-14). That wouldn't have happened if God had created all angels alike, but so wouldn't have God's purposes to create diverse creatures according to His pleasure.

The trigger for satan manifesting that self-pride in plotting to deceive and lie was God creating Adam, a man little lower than the angels(Heb 2:7) and yet giving him dominion over all the prized garden. That wouldn't have happened if God had given His chief angel this dominion, but so wouldn't have satan's self-pride manifested itself to self-convict him under God's righteous judgement.

The trigger for Eve to disobey is satan's lie and deception that brings forth her lusts and sin. That wouldn't have happened if satan had not been permitted in the garden, but so wouldn't have mankind known that the flesh is weak against the corruption of deception.

The trigger for Adam to disobey is Eve's act of disobedience that corrupts him into blind rebellion which brings forth his lusts and sin. That wouldn't have happened if God had walked into the garden immediately after Eve ate and judged her, but so wouldn't have mankind known that the flesh is weak against the corruption of blinding rebellion too.

Everyone gets corrupted first, and then consequently the act of transgression.

 

[childeye]

Of course. I suppose Newton's 1st Law holds good there too - that what is good would remain good and what is evil would remain evil until acted upon by an external trigger. (I've obviously paraphrased it.)

God created everything good.

The trigger for satan to become corrupted with self-pride was God making him the best among the angels(Eze 28:12-14). That wouldn't have happened if God had created all angels alike, but so wouldn't have God's purposes to create diverse creatures according to His pleasure.

The trigger for satan manifesting that self-pride in plotting to deceive and lie was God creating Adam, a man little lower than the angels(Heb 2:7) and yet giving him dominion over all the prized garden. That wouldn't have happened if God had given His chief angel this dominion, but so wouldn't have satan's self-pride manifested itself to self-convict him under God's righteous judgement.

The trigger for Eve to disobey is satan's lie and deception that brings forth her lusts and sin. That wouldn't have happened if satan had not been permitted in the garden, but so wouldn't have mankind known that the flesh is weak against the corruption of deception.

The trigger for Adam to disobey is Eve's act of disobedience that corrupts him into blind rebellion which brings forth his lusts and sin. That wouldn't have happened if God had walked into the garden immediately after Eve ate and judged her, but so wouldn't have mankind known that the flesh is weak against the corruption of blinding rebellion too.

Everyone gets corrupted first, and then consequently the act of transgression.

Ezekial 31:8. Blinding rebellion. This phrase is what I would discuss with you. You don't say blind rebellion, you say blinding rebellion, as in the rebellion blinds. I would submit that blindness precedes rebellion. That blindness I am referring to is blind to Whom God is as a Person. Consequently rebellion is not possible when one knows that whatever God says is going to be beneficial for the person when obeyed, and detrimental to the person if not obeyed. Rebellion can only exist through a false image of god. Lusts are imaginary in that they are never satisfied. They are therefore an unending torment in opposition to contentment and thankfulness. They too can only exist through a false image of god. I'm saying the trigger for all sin is a false image of god.

Satan may have not just been allowed in the Garden. Some scripture suggests he was in the midst of the garden and is the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Ezekial 31:8.

 

[Deborah13]

If Adam didn't believe he would die when he ate, he is not believing God told him the truth. That would make God a liar. The only other alternative is that Adam believed God was telling the truth, and he wanted to die. Is that your position, or am I missing something?

I think you may be missing something.
First I need to apologize to the men on this forum who have made statements in past threads about this. They said things like, Adam loved Eve and didn't want to be without her. At the time I rejected those types of arguments because Adam blames Eve and God for what he did. But in retrospect I can see how his fear/terror of God's wrath could have caused him to say the first thing that came to mind, which he may later have regretted blaming her.

So what is Sinthesis pointing to, have you considered it? If someone cares deeply for someone else, or they are afraid that they may be left alone, it can be hard to trust someone else with that person's future. Was Adam willing to die for her? Was he willing to die with her? Did he think that he could somehow save her? I don't know, but it's pretty clear he wasn't willing to trust God to work it out. He lacked faith in God.
The reference in scripture of just the opposite, one who had complete faith in God, was Abraham when he obeyed God in offering up Isaac. Abraham believed that if he obeyed God, God would bless him and work things out to his benefit.
Adam took things into his own hands, rather than trusting God.

 

[childeye]

I think you may be missing something.
First I need to apologize to the men on this forum who have made statements in past threads about this. They said things like, Adam loved Eve and didn't want to be without her. At the time I rejected those types of arguments because Adam blames Eve and God for what he did. But in retrospect I can see how his fear/terror of God's wrath could have caused him to say the first thing that came to mind, which he may later have regretted blaming her.

So what is Sinthesis pointing to, have you considered it? If someone cares deeply for someone else, or they are afraid that they may be left alone, it can be hard to trust someone else with that person's future. Was Adam willing to die for her? Was he willing to die with her? Did he think that he could somehow save her? I don't know, but it's pretty clear he wasn't willing to trust God to work it out. He lacked faith in God.
The reference in scripture of just the opposite, one who had complete faith in God, was Abraham when he obeyed God in offering up Isaac. Abraham believed that if he obeyed God, God would bless him and work things out to his benefit.
Adam took things into his own hands, rather than trusting God.

Yes I have heard this before, Adam would rather die with Eve, than live without her. A romantic tragedy. I find it plausible only if Adam had no chance to stop her from eating. That would mean Adam would say something like, "what are you doing?, stop!". Still there is no scripture that leaves me with the impression that this is why Adam ate.

Abraham and Isaac is a somewhat different scenario. It is God asking for Abraham to sacrifice his treasured son unto God. If I am to believe that through Abraham and Isaac, scripture is trying to say that Adam should have trusted God by letting the woman die, I just don't get it. I still currently believe Adam was deceived, and the inconsistencies here are being caused by taking 1 Timothy 2:14 out of context.

I can appreciate your apology. You are not alone speaking about Adam blaming Eve. That is a common teaching, one I don't necessarily agree with. Some even say Adam was blaming God who gave him the woman. Only Adam and God knows for certain. If Adam was blaming Eve, as in trying to excuse himself, it seems to me God would have seen through the lie and said something to indicate that He knew Adam was lying. But instead God simply turns to the woman and asks why? Genesis 3:13. That therefore seems to be an acceptable thing that Adam has said. Why Adam would mention that God had given her to him is questionable. It may be he is bewildered that the woman did this and some people spin it to mean Adam is blaming God. I just don't know.

In the big picture, everything in scripture is ultimately about the Christ, the True Image of God sent to destroy the works of Satan. Hence Satan's works are sowing a false image of god. "Let us make man in our image". Genesis 1:26. It seems that there are powers wrestling over what that image is going to be. And that is what I see as the cause in the fall of man and the persecution of Christ and the inventing of a false gospel. The Christ says that the number one commandment is to Love God with all your heart mind and soul. It therefore figures that every lie ever invented is designed to undermine that commandment. And this is what I view Genesis and the fall of man as pertaining to. Revelation 13:8.

 

[Deborah13]

childeye
I said this....

Adam took things into his own hands, rather than trusting God.

Which reminds me that Sarah and Abraham took it upon themselves to get Abraham a son, Ishmael. That didn't work out so well.
And Rebecca and Jacob knew Jacob was to inherit, but instead of waiting on God to provide the way, they lied and deceived. Look what that mistake caused Jacob to go through.

But if there is the guarantee that none will fare better than the other, how do you explain that if not for irresistible corruption that overcomes our freedom - that then needs an irresistible grace to set us free again and to safeguard against such corruption?

Why do you think that Adam couldn't have chosen to obey?
You believe you were saved by an irresistible grace. So why are you not Always able to resist sin? Does God give irresistible grace for salvation and then take away that same grace and give another kind of grace?

And quite obviously God's purposes wouldn't have directly willed man to sin - His purposes would have factored the inevitable fall on course to realizing His plan - and that is to gather a people for Himself in Christ, who have true knowledge of Him in love through faith. Is it your belief that God somehow was surprised with the fall of man into sin and that He had to improvise then?

Why do you believe God could not have had a people for Himself if Adam had not sinned? He said go forth and multiply. Couldn't Adam and Eve have done that in the garden?
You seem to think that what man does, does not have anything to do with what God does. And yet scripture clearly tells us otherwise.
God says He plants and He plucks up and what man does determines whether God plants or plucks up.
God planted Adam and Eve in the garden and because of what they did, God plucked them up out of the garden and planted them outside in the thorns and thistles. That principle repeats itself through out the scriptures.
When God started the whole thing and created man in His image and likeness, a man who could think his own thoughts, feel his own feelings, and make his own decisions, God knew His creation and knew that eventually man would not choose correctly. Because man is not God. Man would need a Redeemer and a Lord that he could identify with, the Son of Man. God in the flesh. Who would stand up against temptation, and die in the flesh for man, and be resurrected for man. All of which glorifies God. We have an awesome, awesome God.
It is my understanding that God is in the business of restoration. When one is saved what are they being restored to? Is it the condition and relationship to God that Adam had before the fall? Not that sanctification (restoration) it will be completely achieved before one leaves this world.