The stumbling blocks of reformed doctrines

[childeye]

Jer 18:8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.
Jer 18:9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;
Jer 18:10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.

God gives alternatives. It is part of His foreknown plan.

Sure He gives alternatives as part of His foreknown plan. And He also knows the reason why someone will choose the way they go. Therefore there must be alternatives so that He can show what was in them or not in them that made them choose which path they took and the outcome of each. I Look at Jeremiah 18:10 "obey not His voice". That means to me good happens to those who obey God's voice and that logically concludes that evil happens to those who don't obey God's voice. How could it not be so if He is the Truth? Faith, Love and hope in God is going to be the prerequisite for obedience. The fact that alternatives exist doesn't change the fact that God can use disobedience unto His own end. Pharaoh had alternatives, that doesn't necessarily mean that he could take them.
Romans 9:17
For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth

 

[childeye]

But couldn't we say man is evil?

Jesus said, 'If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him! Mt. 7:11

Does Jesus' statement exclude us? No.

Jesus said, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. Mark 10:18

Jesus didn't even exclude himself.

So what makes man evil? His desire is for money, for example, which is the root of all evil. He is untrustworthy, disobedient, willful, unfaithful, arrogant, a lover of self, a hater of God. So the cause of sin is desire.

Yes the cause of sin is wicked desire, but why is it there? That becomes the question, and the answer is depravity. The depraved mind doesn't know God nor understand God.

 

[Deborah13]

The fact that alternatives exist doesn't change the fact that God can use disobedience unto His own end.

That is true.
NASV
13Then the LORD said to Moses, "Rise up early in the morning and stand before Pharaoh and say to him, 'Thus says the LORD, the God of the Hebrews, "Let My people go, that they may serve Me. 14"For this time I will send all My plagues on you and your servants and your people, so that you may know that there is no one like Me in all the earth. 15"For [if by] now I had put forth My hand and struck you and your people with pestilence, you would then have been cut off from the earth. 16"But, indeed, for this reason I have allowed you to remain, in order to show you My power and in order to proclaim My name through all the earth. 17"Still you exalt yourself against My people by not letting them go.
http://biblehub.com/nas/exodus/9.htm

Is this thread still about reformed type doctrine or has it become something else?

 

[Deborah13]

Yes the cause of sin is wicked desire, but why is it there? That becomes the question, and the answer is depravity. The depraved mind doesn't know God nor understand God.

Adam and Eve did not have a corrupted, sinful nature (depraved mind) when they were created. Neither were they created spiritually dead.
And yet they could disobey God and they sinned. How and why were they able to do that?

 

[childeye]

Adam and Eve did not have a corrupted, sinful nature (depraved mind) when they were created. Neither were they created spiritually dead.
And yet they could disobey God and they sinned. How and why were they able to do that?

As you know Satan is the Father of sin and he is depraved for he has no Truth in him, John 8:44. As For Adam and Eve, they were innocent and probably didn't even know what a lie is. They were deceived into disobeying God.

 

[Sinthesis]

Eve was deceived, but Adam willingly disobeyed.

 

[childeye]

Eve was deceived, but Adam willingly disobeyed.

I suspect you will quote 1 Timothy 2:14. That is taken out of context. However Adam obviously did not willingly disobey. This is simple. Satan is a liar. If Adam heard the lie and believed the lie and willingly disobeyed he was deceived. I believe Adam followed the woman because he lacked confidence.

 

[MarkT]

Yes the cause of sin is wicked desire, but why is it there? That becomes the question, and the answer is depravity. The depraved mind doesn't know God nor understand God.

Jesus didn't exclude himself when he said God alone is good, and obviously he was not depraved. So I think it is more accurate to say man is evil rather than depraved.

Jesus partook of our nature, that is, he partook of the nature of the flesh.
Hebrews 2:14
Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same nature, that through death he might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil,

The devil tried to tempt Jesus because Jesus was flesh and blood and flesh and blood can be tempted. What I'm saying is man is evil because he is flesh and blood and the desire of the flesh is what makes him do evil. Paul writes, "Put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desire." Romans 13:14

James 1:14
but each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire.
James 1:15
Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin; and sin when it is full-grown brings forth death.

 

[ivdavid]

Is this thread still about reformed type doctrine or has it become something else?

Given that reformed doctrines form an entire worldview/belief-system in itself, I suppose pretty much everything we discuss would have to be explained by these. And since the doctrine of freewill is a distinctive point of difference too, I see we're pretty much on track discussing that.

Just to set some clarity again, when I deny freewill, it's not that I'm denying man his will itself. Of course, man has the ability to will - it's just not free to operate by itself, apart from the influences of sin in his flesh or of God in his spirit.

Adam and Eve did not have a corrupted, sinful nature (depraved mind) when they were created. Neither were they created spiritually dead.
And yet they could disobey God and they sinned. How and why were they able to do that?

While they were not created spiritually dead, they were not operating in the spirit either - man was first created in the flesh, with God's plan to rebirth him in the spirit after the fall by redemption in Christ - the natural comes first, then the spiritual(1Cor 15:46).

In that, I believe -
1. Adam and Eve had what we refer to as freewill in the flesh - in the sense that their flesh was not yet corrupted by Sin and they could make choices according to their Self and they were held responsible for the choices made by their Self(flesh-nature).

Also note the sequence of Eve's deception -
a) Eve had knowledge of the truth (Gen 3:2-3)

b) the serpent draws attention to God's commandment, probably emphasizing the "every/any tree" to instigate thought on why it wasn't uniform all across (Gen 3:1).

c) the serpent presents the lie (Gen 3:4). But Eve already had the truth, and this lie cannot replace it until that truth is corrupted.

d) the serpent mixes a lot of truth about how their eyes will be opened(Gen 3:7), how they shall be as gods knowing good and evil(Gen 3:22) with the deceptive corruption in the phrase "For God knows these will happen" - as if to suggestively imply that God, out of His own insecurity or vain desire to be pre-eminent, commanded them against eating of that tree(Gen 3:5).

e) Eve, in the flesh, couldn't resist the deception because the flesh/Self-nature was fed a reason that it relates to - and thus the truth was replaced by the lie, thereby removing the constraint of death in eating the fruit. But we act simply not out of the absence of negative constraints, but require the presence of positive impulses too.

f) And there were many positives to lust over - The tree was good for food(Gen 2:9), it was pleasant to the eyes(Gen 2:9) and it was desirable to become wise(Gen 2:9 - tree of knowledge) - and in that, she had the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life (1John 2:16). These lusts are of the flesh, and weren't aroused as long as it was restrained by the truth - but once the truth was corrupted with the lie, these lusts brought forth sin and consequently death(James 1:15).

g) Adam, though not deceived in the like manner of Eve, was blinded to the truth in the very knowledge of Eve having eaten the fruit. While Eve was corrupted into believing a lie, Adam was corrupted into rebelling against the truth - and in that, we see Sin's(deceiving nature of rebellion) overcoming them into bondage.

2. Therefore, the flesh is weak in itself to resist corruption - and to consequently stop lusting and sinning. This in essence depicts the overcoming of the flesh by Sin itself and bringing it into bondage(2Pet 2:19) - in order to cause it to make the choices that are against God. I don't believe Adam or Eve chose freely to disobey and in that, permit Corruption in them - I believe Corruption overwhelmed the flesh into bondage and consequently they disobeyed.

And this must necessarily be true for God to be Just, lest we question God's fairness in the doctrine of Original Sin, where each of us begin questioning why God didn't allow each of us to make our own free-willed choice in the Garden scenario instead of concluding us under sinful flesh by default. This objection is shut when man is shown the inevitable failure of the freewilled flesh against Corruption, and that each of us would face the very same verdict in the exact same way, thereby making Adam our federal representative.

As to Why this must be so - as discussed earlier, God reveals His wondrous plans,purposes and gives us knowledge of His Holy attributes and leads us to obedience through faith in love - by contrasting the failure of our Self/flesh against the life in the spirit which He Himself works in.

 

[ivdavid]

First off, I must insist this remain in the moral purview of how we view and treat our fellow human beings. Let's take responsibility/blame (2) since that is what you would wish me to qualify as distinct from blame (1). I will make this statement which I feel, falls into the criteria for (2): There is no question that if I do something I did it.

This is most agreeable.

There is no question that if I do something I did it. Sounds good and reasonable, yet I already have a problem with this statement. Why? Because it is Love in me that does what is good, and it is sin in me that does that which is evil. My need to express that we are not in control as freewill proclaims, forbids me from accepting the statement. Because in all honesty, there is residing in my limited understanding a legitimate question, as pertains to morality, whether or not when I do something I actually did it apart from any other spiritual entity.
The semantics become impossible as I try to gauge what percentage of my actions, if any, 'I' actually control.

I am quietly thrilled to be conversing about this with someone other than myself. Anyhow, to answer your questions -
1. Yes - God(Love) in us, that is in our spirit, is the cause of all our good. Sin in us, that is in our flesh, is the cause of all our evil.
2. No - You do not do anything apart from either the operating influence of sin in the flesh or God in the spirit.
3. No - the "I" as you mean it, does not control anything. The control percentage is 0%.

The "I" that you refer to, is the conscious soul of man. And just because we are consciously aware of the options available and perceive the contemplation involved in our choosing between these options, we tend to correlate this process of arriving at a final choice to be under our conscious control. And there is yet another assumption that we are responsible only for what is under our conscious control.

But what if man is created by God to be conscious soul within an operating nature - the two make up a person and not any one to the exclusion of the other. Here, the operating nature generates the desires, counsel and power behind all our acts and the conscious faculty is a passive spectator of this entire processing by our nature, with it perceiving thoughts and experiencing emotion.

Before I believed, "I" was my conscious soul within my flesh which was the Self operating nature. After I am regenerated, "I" am my conscious soul within my spirit, which is my new inner operating nature, driven by God Himself. Earlier, "I" was left as an individual entity in that I had my own Self nature, the flesh. Now, I am no longer by myself, but God Himself works out His nature in me. Earlier, "I" = soul + flesh/Self nature. Now, "I" = soul + spirit/God nature. Therein, "I" am responsible for the works of my flesh, not because I have conscious control but because my flesh is defined to make up the "I" itself.

And yet, the "I" finds new identity in the God-nature after regeneration - which is where we see Paul clarifying it is not the earlier "I" that he's referring to, but the new "I" which has God's nature operating us (Gal 2:20, 1Cor 15:10). Of course, the flesh that was part of me continues to be part of me until it passes away, but I no longer derive my identity from it - it's an external operating influence, now that I've denied the Self to God.

In conclusion, it is apt to say "I did it" when your flesh has worked out evil - and to say "I did it, yet not I, but Christ in me" when God has worked out good in your spirit.

 

[ivdavid]

I therefore being convicted of sin admit that I am not spotless and need a savior. However, in the sense that I am responsible for having sin and subsequently have acted out of that sin, I do not agree.

If you did agree with my previous post, you would understand me saying that "I" take responsibility for having sin, not because I had conscious control over it, but because my flesh that got corrupted by sin is a part of this "I" - and not because my flesh could have done anything about it either but because an independent Self entity is responsible for all outcomes that it is given charge over. That is pretty much the whole point of it - to set up man with an independent Self and to charge him with obeying God's commandments, to show him how that Self is weak against Corruption and how it inevitably falls, to get him to realize that he cannot exist good apart from God's continuous working in him. If man doesn't accept failure on his part and shrugs his shoulders to simply what the flesh did or what sin did apart from him, then he won't appreciate all that he's been forgiven for either.

You say unless you accept responsibility for your sins, you cannot be forgiven. This logically requires that others take responsibility for their sins before they are forgiven also.

That's not exactly what I said. I'm not talking about the person being forgiven - for him to accept or not. I'm talking of the person who is forgiving the other - he must know what he's forgiving the other of - and yes, he can forgive unconditionally without expecting the other person's response, but he must himself know what wrong he's forgiving the other of. That's what I meant by responsibility being placed before forgiving them. For instance, Stephen was referring to the specific act of those people murdering him and bearing false witness against him, after those having committed that act, to specifically forgive that act against him - instead of simply declaring them to be forgiven all sins from the get-go even before they had committed them.

In the no fault scenario I provided, I tried to show how someone could be forgiven without having done anything wrong.

I didn't see it that way. I saw Adam forgiving Eve for the wrong that he'd placed on her where she failed to reciprocate equally - and that she's not to be blamed(1) for the unavoidable circumstances that led to it. If Adam from the get-go never expected her to reciprocate equally, then he finds no wrong in anything she's done or not done, and hence has nothing to forgive.

Therefore the Spirit of Christ says from our cross about those who crucify us, "forgive them for they know not what they do." That is a pure forgiveness from the heart, knowing that they are not to be held responsible for the circumstances.

But God's will in stating thou shalt not bear false testimony and thou shalt not murder declares they are to be held responsible for the acts, notwithstanding what circumstances led to it. That is true justice and God is righteous. When one further renders a penalty based on such justice, it becomes judgement. But mercy(annulling the penalty) rejoices over judgement - and Christ has mercy upon these - not because they were entitled to forgiveness owing to circumstances, or were undeservingly being placed responsibility for these sins of theirs - but because God is merciful and would have His people practice the same without hypocrisy. His pure forgiveness is seen in Him forgiving them even before they realize their guilt - not because they bear no iniquity at all.

I have shared all my beliefs on this particular topic - and if and when necessary, I can clarify and elaborate on something I've already written thus far. But if all stands understood and we still do not agree on the semantics, let us simply set it aside - for I am convinced we believe the same in spirit.

 

[Deborah13]

I suspect you will quote 1 Timothy 2:14. That is taken out of context. However Adam obviously did not willingly disobey. This is simple. Satan is a liar. If Adam heard the lie and believed the lie and willingly disobeyed he was deceived. I believe Adam followed the woman because he lacked confidence.

But how did he do that if he didn't have a depraved flesh/soul or dead spirit.
Adam knew God said no, and he did it anyway.

 

[childeye]

But how did he do that if he didn't have a depraved flesh/soul or dead spirit.
Adam knew God said no, and he did it anyway.

Deborah13, if I may I say, I commend anyone's tenacity in seeking definitive answers. I apologize that my other post was inadequate to this end. I hope this one is more comprehensive. I apologize for the length.

Please keep in mind that I am working from a definition of depravity that is relative to the knowledge of God as pertains to the Character and trustworthiness of God.

Therefore I think your question is referring to two things, Adam believing the woman... and... Adam knew God had commanded to not eat of that tree. The first, I have already tried to explain how it is, that Adam, who is made in God's Image, yet proceeds in an act contrary to what God says to do; what Adam himself would have told himself, had he not been ignorant. Therefore I said I believe that Adam lacked confidence in himself and was therefore malleable to the woman. Consequently Adam is not depraved to begin with, yet because he lacks faith in his own persona, it doesn't do him much good. Adam simply displays that he is not yet capable of realizing and fully appreciating the gift he has been endowed with from the moment he was made. As a man, this to me is completely understandable.

The answer to the second part of your question is partly speculative and partly not. Because scripture doesn't exactly say whether or not Adam heard what the serpent said to Eve. We only know that Eve said something to Adam about the eating of the fruit that influenced him enough to eat. Genesis 3:17. We don't know whether Eve had eaten and Adam then wondered why she hadn't died. We don't know if Adam stood by and watched her eat, which you have expressed wonder about in prior posts. I know some people will say, God meant spiritually die. But we don't know if Adam knew this, nor if that is what God meant, since we all do physically die. Maybe God meant both. But for all we know Adam believed that if he ate he would physically die on the spot. We don't know how much time transpired from when Eve ate to when she gave some to the man and he ate. Therefore she could have eaten and her eyes were then open and she did not collapse, and she then enthusiastically gave it to her husband thinking she was giving him something wonderful. We just don't know for certain whether Eve ate and Adam then saw she did not die, and she had obtained some knowledge that left him wondering how this could be. I therefore have presented these thoughts as plausible possibilities.

Now Adam knows God has said not to eat of that tree. I think he was quite comfortable with that... until it came into question whether what God is telling him is actually true. This is the issue for Adam, is God telling the Truth? So, it really doesn't matter that Adam knows that God had told him not to eat, the issue is whether God is telling the Truth or not about why not to eat. In clear hindsight, the issue becomes what a man believes about God's Character. So that when Adam contemplates eating, unbeknownst to him, he is pondering accepting a false image of god into his subconscious. The situation conspired by the devil forces Adam to first ponder an assertion that seems reasonable, but only because it is based upon a hidden false pretense. And then in the uncertainty and doubt, eventually act through the coaxing of the woman unto disobedience. The false pretense is that Adam is not already like God. It is hidden in the statement, "ye shall become like gods". In psychology this is the fundamental basis for hypnosis. Subsequently, Adam was moved by a convincing false image of god complete with evidence and testimonial from his only other closest companion.

Christianity is about God sending His True Image unto mankind so as to believe in and be saved. That is His Christ, for which reason we call Him the son of God. The following is a fact. Whatever image of god/God we hold in our subconscious, determines our spiritual condition. It either purifies or perverts the Love that is inherent in our make-up. It defines our moral terms and predetermines our judgment of right and wrong. For since we judge according to what we think God would do or say, so it is that our image of god becomes who we are morally speaking. Therefore true belief in the Christ as how God truly is, and Who God truly is, is what changes a man from corruption to incorruption. That is how vital and intimate God is to mankind. We become pure when our Image of God is pure. Hebrews 10:22, Titus 1:15.

This is why I don't agree with the dictionary definition of freewill, wherein we are free and independent from God or divine force to make moral decisions. Our imagery of god/God is what actually pre-determines our moral choice. I believe the only truly free will, is one that has been set free from any and all false images of god, by the Truth found in the True Image of God, the Christ Jesus. 2 Corinthians 4:6.

 

[Sinthesis]

Eve was deceived, but Adam willingly disobeyed.

I suspect you will quote 1 Timothy 2:14. That is taken out of context. However Adam obviously did not willingly disobey. This is simple. Satan is a liar. If Adam heard the lie and believed the lie and willingly disobeyed he was deceived. I believe Adam followed the woman because he lacked confidence.

So let's supply the context:

1Ti 2:11 - Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
1Ti 2:12 - But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
1Ti 2:13 - For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
1Ti 2:14 - And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
1Ti 2:15 - Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.​

What we have here is a prescription that the follower remain subject to the leader (symbolized by the women subject to the man), and not presume to lead because of the tendency of followers to be taken in by deception. The leader knows better (Adam being instructed directly by God), thus his transgression was due to something other than deception.

But how did he do that if he didn't have a depraved flesh/soul or dead spirit.
Adam knew God said no, and he did it anyway.

Freewill does not depend upon a depraved flesh/soul or dead spirit. Adam was presented with a conundrum in which he willingly chose to follow Eve into sin rather than trust God because of his lack of faith.

 

[childeye]

Jesus didn't exclude himself when he said God alone is good, and obviously he was not depraved. So I think it is more accurate to say man is evil rather than depraved.

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.

Jesus partook of our nature, that is, he partook of the nature of the flesh.
Hebrews 2:14
Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same nature, that through death he might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil,

The devil tried to tempt Jesus because Jesus was flesh and blood and flesh and blood can be tempted.

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?

What I'm saying is man is evil because he is flesh and blood and the desire of the flesh is what makes him do evil. Paul writes, "Put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desire." Romans 13:14

James 1:14
but each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire.
James 1:15
Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin; and sin when it is full-grown brings forth death.

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.

 

[Deborah13]

Consequently Adam is not depraved to begin with, yet because he lacks faith in his own persona, it doesn't do him much good. Adam simply displays that he is not yet capable of realizing and fully appreciating the gift he has been endowed with from the moment he was made. As a man, this to me is completely understandable.

I can only think that because you are a man you look at Adam. Remember at both of them were created in the image and likeness of God and with the same dominion over the earth. satan was telling her, that God lied because He was holding something back from them and something she could to take. Eve believed that lie and through lust/coveting she convinces herself that she even had the right to take it. She already had dominance over the earth and all the animals, but she lusted after more, more power and more authority. 1 John 2:16

I know some people will say, God meant spiritually die.

I don't think He could have meant physical death because He said, 'this day' they would die and they didn't die physically that day.

Therefore she could have eaten and her eyes were then open and she did not collapse,

Their eyes were not opened until after Adam ate. Gen. 3:6-7

until it came into question whether what God is telling him is actually true. This is the issue for Adam, is God telling the Truth?

That would mean that Adam was deceived and he wasn't.

The false pretense is that Adam is not already like God.

I would agree with this about Eve.

In psychology this is the fundamental basis for hypnosis.

I do agree with this statement. I would say also, that when man seeks after power, rather than God, it can lead to all kinds of deception and delusions, even in the church.

What we have here is a prescription that the follower remain subject to the leader (symbolized by the women subject to the man), and not presume to lead because of the tendency of followers to be taken in by deception. The leader knows better (Adam being instructed directly by God), thus his transgression was due to something other than deception.

Agreed

Freewill does not depend upon a depraved flesh/soul or dead spirit. Adam was presented with a conundrum in which he willingly chose to follow Eve into sin rather than trust God because of his lack of faith.

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

 

[childeye]

So let's supply the context:

1Ti 2:11 - Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
1Ti 2:12 - But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
1Ti 2:13 - For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
1Ti 2:14 - And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
1Ti 2:15 - Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.​

What we have here is a prescription that the follower remain subject to the leader (symbolized by the women subject to the man), and not presume to lead because of the tendency of followers to be taken in by deception. The leader knows better (Adam being instructed directly by God), thus his transgression was due to something other than deception.

Freewill does not depend upon a depraved flesh/soul or dead spirit. Adam was presented with a conundrum in which he willingly chose to follow Eve into sin rather than trust God because of his lack of faith.

I grant you that the issue is faith for Adam, while for Eve it was an issue of being beguiled, as in being tempted with something tempting.

That doesn't change the fact that 1 Timothy 2:14 is being taken out of context. The spirit of this scripture is the man knows better than the woman. The scripture might just as well have said Adam was not the one whom Satan chose to speak to. Or, that the man shouldn't listen to the woman in lieu of his own judgment. It doesn't mean Adam wasn't deceived, or incapable of acting out of deception in the garden. After all, he listened to the deceived woman.

If men are not deceivable as per the woman, then this scripture would only apply to women. 2 Corinthians 11:3.

 

[childeye]

I can only think that because you are a man you look at Adam. Remember at both of them were created in the image and likeness of God and with the same dominion over the earth. satan was telling her, that God lied because He was holding something back from them and something she could to take. Eve believed that lie and through lust/coveting she convinces herself that she even had the right to take it. She already had dominance over the earth and all the animals, but she lusted after more, more power and more authority. 1 John 2:16

I look at Adam because I am a man, that is true.

I don't think He could have meant physical death because He said, 'this day' they would die and they didn't die physically that day.

That is plausible. However, God could've meant corruption would enter in that day and Adam would begin to die. But this is besides the point. The point is what did Adam think God meant, and on it's face it means you will cease to live.

Their eyes were not opened until after Adam ate. Gen. 3:6-7

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.

That would mean that Adam was deceived and he wasn't.

So Adam just simply decided he wanted to die? Personally, I am not convinced of this, despite 1 Timothy 2:14. The semantics in 1 Timothy 2:14 as they relate in context to the subject matter, could simply be saying Adam was not the one who was so vulnerable to the serpent. And this leads some people to abandon logic and apply it errantly to mean Adam knew perfectly well what he was doing when he followed the deceived woman. If anyone wants to conclude from this scripture that it means Adam was invulnerable to the serpents mechanisms, they should at least admit that Adam was vulnerable to the deceived woman's mechanisms. 1 Timothy 2:14 therefore doesn't mean Adam was invulnerable to the influence of the deceived woman. Genesis 3:17.

Consider these things. Was Adam party to the conversation between the serpent and Eve?... Or... did Eve convey in any way the exchange between the serpent and Eve to Adam? If so Adam was deceived when he trusted the deceived woman. If Adam was not deceived, then what is it that Adam hearkened to that he should not have listened to? What did Eve say? Did she simply say, "eat this fruit from the forbidden tree that you know will kill you, and so he did?" Isn't it more logical to suppose then, that If she told him to eat dirt, that he knows wouldn't kill him, he would do it? That would make Adam a moron made in the image of god. Adam therefore is massively dumber than the woman who at least had to be deceived to eat. So answer me this. How does one believe God is a liar and not be deceived?

 

[childeye]

I have shared all my beliefs on this particular topic - and if and when necessary, I can clarify and elaborate on something I've already written thus far. But if all stands understood and we still do not agree on the semantics, let us simply set it aside - for I am convinced we believe the same in spirit.

Yes the use of "I" and where it is applied is the only difference in our approaches. Independence therefore is also a word which brings with it an occasion to stumble.

Both your posts and my posts grapple with semantics. Semantic confusion exists, is unavoidable unless perhaps you're a genius, and It's no one's fault. I try to understand your use of terms so as to understand your sentiments regardless of how I might have used the same terms to convey even the exact opposite, although essentially we do agree. For what it's worth, in my view you are one of few on this forum who recognize the divisiveness brought about by semantic confusion. I can tell this because you also bend over backward to accommodate my use of terms so as to understand my sentiments in a mutual unselfish empathy. I appreciate that very much. I too am convinced we both serve the same spirit.

 

[Deborah13]

lest we question God's fairness in the doctrine of Original Sin, where each of us begin questioning why God didn't allow each of us to make our own free-willed choice in the Garden scenario

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.

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.