The Controlled Fall

[calvin]

Major posted:

I think that it would be helpful to understand that man was created INNOCENT but not RIGHTEOUS.

What then is RIGHTEOUSNESS? It is "innocense" that has been maintained in the presence of temptation.

Gen 15:6. "And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness."
Rom 4:23 But the words "it was counted to him" were not written for his sake alone,
Rom 4:24 but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord,
Rom 4:25 who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.

Prior to the fall, there is no evidence that Adam or Eve did not believe the LORD....none at all.
Righteousness is a standing we could have if we did not sin; if we were fully obedient to the commands of the LORD. Prior to the fall, Adam and Eve were.
Until Eve took a bite, she too was believing the LORD when He commanded 'don't eat of it'. Why then at the very least would righteousness be not imputed to this couple because of their belief? Because Righteousness can only imputed where there would otherwise be none. In other words, if Adam and Eve had a righteous standing, through perfect obedience to the LORD, they would need no imputation of righteousness.
It is only Satan who places temptation in the way in order to destroy a righteous standing.
Satan it was who persuaded Eve to stop believing the LORD.
Satan could not destroy something that does not exist in the first place.
Up until the fall, Adam and Eve were flawlessly obedient to the commandments of God......Scripture teaches no different. Prior to the fall, Adam and Eve had a righteous standing before the LORD, that did not need to be restored by imputation. That is not to say that they were intrinsically righteous as is the LORD.

 

[calvin]

Major, et.alil. From "Christian Theology" by Millard J Erickson. ISBN 0-8010-3433-7 page 955
"In order to understand justification it is necessary first to understand the Biblical concept of righteousness, for justification is a restoration of the individual to a state of righteousness. In the Old Testament the verb 'צָדְקָ ' (tsadaq) and its derivatives connote conformity to a norm. Since the character of the individual is not so much in view as is his or her relationship to God's law, the term is more religious than ethical in nature. The verb means "to conform to a given norm"; in the Hiphil stem it means "to declare righteous or to justify". The particular norm in view varies with the situation. Sometimes the context is family relationships. Tamar was more righteous than Judah, because he had not fulfilled his obligations as her father-in-law.( Gen 38:26. ) And David, in refusing to slay Saul, was said to be righteous ( 1 Sam 24:17. ; 1 Sam 26:23. ) for he was abiding by the standards of the monach-subject relationship. Clearly righteousness is understood to be a matter of living up to the standards set for a relationship. Those who fulfill the requirements of the relationship in which they stand are righteous." italic emphasis added.
Adam and Eve, up until their disobedience did indeed fulfill the requirements of their relationship with the LORD.
Therefore, they started out in a righteous standing before the LORD.

 

[netchaplain]

Why you would stoop to such a childish slur is beyond comprehension.

I apologize for anything you may think I have done wrong, but I still don't know what you meant by the above quote. Also, I cannot correspond with those who choose to be distraught by my replies. If you're offended it's unintentional.

 

[Major]

Major posted:
Gen 15:6. "And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness."
Rom 4:23 But the words "it was counted to him" were not written for his sake alone,
Rom 4:24 but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord,
Rom 4:25 who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.

Prior to the fall, there is no evidence that Adam or Eve did not believe the LORD....none at all.
Righteousness is a standing we could have if we did not sin; if we were fully obedient to the commands of the LORD. Prior to the fall, Adam and Eve were.
Until Eve took a bite, she too was believing the LORD when He commanded 'don't eat of it'. Why then at the very least would righteousness be not imputed to this couple because of their belief? Because Righteousness can only imputed where there would otherwise be none. In other words, if Adam and Eve had a righteous standing, through perfect obedience to the LORD, they would need no imputation of righteousness.
It is only Satan who places temptation in the way in order to destroy a righteous standing.
Satan it was who persuaded Eve to stop believing the LORD.
Satan could not destroy something that does not exist in the first place.
Up until the fall, Adam and Eve were flawlessly obedient to the commandments of God......Scripture teaches no different. Prior to the fall, Adam and Eve had a righteous standing before the LORD, that did not need to be restored by imputation. That is not to say that they were intrinsically righteous as is the LORD.

Good point. May I ask you, if they had been righteous, they would not have been kicked out of Eden?

 

[calvin]

I apologize for anything you may think I have done wrong, but I still don't know what you meant by the above quote. Also, I cannot correspond with those who choose to be distraught by my replies. If you're offended it's unintentional.

From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary: re 'distraught'

1: agitated with doubt or mental conflict or pain <distraught mourners>
2: mentally deranged : crazed

Dare I ask which of these you consider I have chosen to adopt? Never mind attempting a reply as 'composed' would have been a more apt adjective for you to have used.
It is clear from your post that you do not consider that you have done any wrong. Indeed it is clear that you accept absolutely no responsibility for what you say. Therefore you words of apology are to be viewed as nothing more than a study in Condescension.

 

[calvin]

Good point. May I ask you, if they had been righteous, they would not have been kicked out of Eden?

My mind raced off to another possibility Major. Why kick 'em out, why not just remove the tree of life from the garden? Why not just let them watch the garden deteriorate with time?
To get back to your point, I think that you question is somewhat self answering. We know from the scriptures that they were not expelled from the garden until after they disobeyed the commandment, until they became unrighteous. So for so long as they remained obedient to the law of the LORD,(don't eat from the center of the table ) there was no reason to expel them. I know of no scripture that would show that they would have been kicked out even had they remained obedient. But they did not remain in obedience, they did disobey, so all scripture from that point on is a consequence of that.
Some of, most of, if not all of scripture tells us that thanks to the Grace and Mercy of the Lord, and the shed blood of Christ Jesus, we will have that lost residence in paradise restored.

 

[Major]

My mind raced off to another possibility Major. Why kick 'em out, why not just remove the tree of life from the garden? Why not just let them watch the garden deteriorate with time?
To get back to your point, I think that you question is somewhat self answering. We know from the scriptures that they were not expelled from the garden until after they disobeyed the commandment, until they became unrighteous. So for so long as they remained obedient to the law of the LORD,(don't eat from the center of the table ) there was no reason to expel them. I know of no scripture that would show that they would have been kicked out even had they remained obedient. But they did not remain in obedience, they did disobey, so all scripture from that point on is a consequence of that.
Some of, most of, if not all of scripture tells us that thanks to the Grace and Mercy of the Lord, and the shed blood of Christ Jesus, we will have that lost residence in paradise restored.

Amen brother. I just wanted to get your thoughts. As usual we are very close in them.

The more I think about it, the idea of leaving them in the garden and let them watch it deteriorate makes a lot of sense.
That way, they would be reminded every day of what they had done. That sounds like hell doest it?

 

[calvin]

Sure does sound like Hell.
The good thing is though, while I would have left them there stewing in their own juice so to speak, the Lord didn't. Removing Adam and Eve from the garden, gave them a new start. Not restoration, but some goals to aim for. Sure they had to work hard, but they were able to see progress toward regaining something of what was lost. Not salvation, but food on the table. So I'd say the Gracious intervention of the Lord at that point was just what Adam and Eve needed to be able to push forward. With every new garden bed dug and every other mile-stone reached, they had something to focus hope on.

 

[netchaplain]

Dare I ask which of these you consider I have chosen to adopt?

My intention for distraught is "agitated with conflict", which I see much of with some who are usually unconcerned when they often accuse others of wrongfulness. Regardless your reactions, I will never bear animosity towards you.

 

[calvin]

Regardless your reactions, I will never bear animosity towards you.

Nor I you. However whenever confronted with what I believe to be 'off colour' theology or teaching I feel compelled to respond and challenge it for the sake of truth. Even if it could be shown that my zeal is misplaced, condescension is not an appropriate or effective response.
BTW, I was at no time looking for, requiring or expecting an apology.

 

[netchaplain]

Thanks for what you've posted and may our correspondence maintain kindness in our disagreements. The Lord can take us farther in revealing truth that way!

 

[th1bill]

I do not believe Satan transferred sin to Eve that wasn't already resident within her and Adam. Their disobedience was evidence of possessing a sin nature prior to the act. I believe the Enemy did not inject something but rather revealed something preexisting.

I read where you gave the Mods permission to remove this post but the truth is that if you believe this, it needs to be discussed because this is scripturally unsound and you need to exxamine it until you see that, you know, iron sharpening iron. If you go to the first chapter of Genesis and you will see that everything God/Jesus the son, created was Good. It took me a good five year study to understand that free will is always a good and a pure thing, but it is and there in lies the crux of this issue.

Without free will there is no possibility of love and we were created for fellowship, as is seen in God walking with Adam in the cool of the evening and the ultimate in fellowship is love for one another. The closest example I know to use on this earth was experienced by me on the field of combat in Vietnam, from June of '66 through November 25 of '69. My men and my Pilots did anything I told them to do and were scared to death I would get killed and every time I lost one of them I would try to drown the tears in 151 Rum. We were brothers, me the eldest, and we had love for one another but there were a number of times during those years they wanted to kill me and I have tod more than one of them that one more time and I would kill them.

I often put my life on the line and they for me and yet, though we loved one another better than brothers, we often sinned against one another. If you'll take the Naves and do the Love studies and the related you will spend a good deal of time on your knees and the Holy Spirit will begin to clear this up for you.

May God bless your study time.

 

[netchaplain]

I read where you gave the Mods permission to remove this post but the truth is that if you believe this, it needs to be discussed because this is scripturally unsound and you need to exxamine it until you see that, you know, iron sharpening iron.

Thanks T1B for your input. My concern wasn't so much with whether or not the thread was true but for the idea of posting it. I would be selfish if I post just to see if I'm right or wrong but my motive in sharing Scripture is always for truth's sake. I've also learned that by sharing with others who are concerned for truth you learn faster; as you've mentioned, ISI.

 

[Major]

Is it right for a Christian to hate or dislike religion?

I feel as though I should. More and more, I think of religion as something artificial --a covering-- between us and our God. When Jesus commisioned His apostles to take the Good News to the nations, did this not guarantee the formation of religious institutions? Religion is like a machine that has over millennia overpowered and absorbed its users. Correct?

Religion is a work of man, so therefore it suffers from human depravity.

Agreed Theo!

Christianity IS NOT A RELIGION........It is Christ!!

 

[Major]

I read where you gave the Mods permission to remove this post but the truth is that if you believe this, it needs to be discussed because this is scripturally unsound and you need to exxamine it until you see that, you know, iron sharpening iron. If you go to the first chapter of Genesis and you will see that everything God/Jesus the son, created was Good. It took me a good five year study to understand that free will is always a good and a pure thing, but it is and there in lies the crux of this issue.

Without free will there is no possibility of love and we were created for fellowship, as is seen in God walking with Adam in the cool of the evening and the ultimate in fellowship is love for one another. The closest example I know to use on this earth was experienced by me on the field of combat in Vietnam, from June of '66 through November 25 of '69. My men and my Pilots did anything I told them to do and were scared to death I would get killed and every time I lost one of them I would try to drown the tears in 151 Rum. We were brothers, me the eldest, and we had love for one another but there were a number of times during those years they wanted to kill me and I have tod more than one of them that one more time and I would kill them.

I often put my life on the line and they for me and yet, though we loved one another better than brothers, we often sinned against one another. If you'll take the Naves and do the Love studies and the related you will spend a good deal of time on your knees and the Holy Spirit will begin to clear this up for you.

May God bless your study time.

Yep !!! Free will is rooted in love and without it we would be nothing but robots.

"We love God because He first LOVED us!

 

[Major]

Nor I you. However whenever confronted with what I believe to be 'off colour' theology or teaching I feel compelled to respond and challenge it for the sake of truth. Even if it could be shown that my zeal is misplaced, condescension is not an appropriate or effective response.
BTW, I was at no time looking for, requiring or expecting an apology.

OK you two.........shake hands and lets move on!

 

[Major]

Major posted:
Gen 15:6. "And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness."
Rom 4:23 But the words "it was counted to him" were not written for his sake alone,
Rom 4:24 but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord,
Rom 4:25 who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.

Prior to the fall, there is no evidence that Adam or Eve did not believe the LORD....none at all.
Righteousness is a standing we could have if we did not sin; if we were fully obedient to the commands of the LORD. Prior to the fall, Adam and Eve were.
Until Eve took a bite, she too was believing the LORD when He commanded 'don't eat of it'. Why then at the very least would righteousness be not imputed to this couple because of their belief? Because Righteousness can only imputed where there would otherwise be none. In other words, if Adam and Eve had a righteous standing, through perfect obedience to the LORD, they would need no imputation of righteousness.
It is only Satan who places temptation in the way in order to destroy a righteous standing.
Satan it was who persuaded Eve to stop believing the LORD.
Satan could not destroy something that does not exist in the first place.
Up until the fall, Adam and Eve were flawlessly obedient to the commandments of God......Scripture teaches no different. Prior to the fall, Adam and Eve had a righteous standing before the LORD, that did not need to be restored by imputation. That is not to say that they were intrinsically righteous as is the LORD.

calvin...........does the fact that when they were tested, they failed the test, mean that there was a nature to sin already present in them?

Does Romans 3:23 apply to Adam and Eve?????...
"All have sinned and come short of the approval of God".

I ask that because when we read ahead in the Revelation 20.....we see that there are humans, born during the 1000 year rule of Christ where the sin curse has been remove. They are born and live where Christ rules in perfection.Then in verse 6-9 we see that Satan is released.

We must ask WHY??? Why realease the one who is chained and had ruined humanity.

I think it is to TEST the humans born who have not been tempted to sin. Isn't that exactly what happened to Adam and Eve and if those people in Revelation 20 are not tempted to sin.......then God would not be the same Yesterday, Today and Tomarrow????

 

[calvin]

calvin...........does the fact that when they were tested, they failed the test, mean that there was a nature to sin already present in them?

Only if they were created to sin by nature. Does the Lord create beings to sin by nature? Consider Eze 28:12 " Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty." Also
Eze 28:15. "Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. " Kjv regardless of who this entity is, the King of Tyre or Satan/Lucifer, was he created with a sin nature or was he created perfect until....
Can anyone show a scripture that tells us that Adam was created with a sinful nature?
We are born with a sinful nature (thanks Adam); the natural man. Adam was created with the ability to exercise free will, as are we, however that does not equate with a sinful nature. So, until Adam chose by an act of free will to rebel against the Lord he would not have had a sinful nature. But if free will = sin, then every time we make a choice, we sin....how silly is that?

Does Romans 3:23 apply to Adam and Eve?????...
"All have sinned and come short of the approval of God".

Romans was written a day or so after l'affaire Eden so yes it is a universal appraisal (Jesus excepted of course)

I ask that because when we read ahead in the Revelation 20.....we see that there are humans, born during the 1000 year rule of Christ where the sin curse has been remove. They are born and live where Christ rules in perfection.Then in verse 6-9 we see that Satan is released.

We must ask WHY??? Why realease the one who is chained and had ruined humanity.

I think it is to TEST the humans born who have not been tempted to sin. Isn't that exactly what happened to Adam and Eve and if those people in Revelation 20 are not tempted to sin.......then God would not be the same Yesterday, Today and Tomarrow????

Rev 20:6. "Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years." Interesting to note that those who will reign with Christ for the thousand years are those who are in the first resurrection. Reading Rev 19, there is blood and gore all over the place with the distinct implication that there is no one left standing, to go into Rev 20 and breed. Those who feature in the 1st resurrection are to be like the angels not marrying,....so no kids. If Rev 20 is parenthetical, then wouldn't the 1000 year reign also be parenthetical? What would that mean? where in the chronology of history would it properly belong?

 

[Kevin]

Interesting thread.

From the outset, I must say I disagree with the statement that man was created with a sinful nature. The reason I say this are simple.

1) Man was created by God's Spirit in His image.
2) All that God created was good.

Man was however created with a free will and was tested to show his obedience to God. Jesus was also born through the Spirit and was fully man yet He had no sin in Him. Jesus was also tested. Does this mean Jesus had a sinful nature? Absolutely not. Sin is not a tangible attribute which we can see, it is as a result of disobedience to God. Being tempted is not a sin, falling for temptation is a sin. Adam and Eve exercised their free will, tempted by Satan and fell into sinfulness. Did God know this would happen? Yes. Is God happy that this happened? No.

Adam and Eve were tempted and failed - hence the arrival of sin. Through Adam and Eve we inherit this sinfulnes and only through Jesus can we be freed from it.

God created man not with a sinful nature but with free will which means Man had the ability to sin. Satan has the same ability, he once was a great angel but exercised his free will and sinned against God. Sinfulness does not come from God, it comes from disobeying God. It is an amazing thing that we were created with free will, a creation which can separate itself (to its own destruction) from its creator or draw close and accept the love and authority of the creator.

In closing what I want to say is this.

Man was not created with a sinful nature but created with the ability to choose righteousness or sinfulness. Adam chose sinfulness (aided by Satan) and Jesus chose righteousness. Sinfulness comes from man not God. Sin entered the world through man not God. God created man with a responsibility because God chose man for a higher office than the rest of creation.
Rom 5:12
Therefore, even as through one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed on all men inasmuch as all sinned:
Rom 5:13
for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Rom 5:14

But death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is the type of Him who was to come;
Rom 5:15
but the free gift shall not be also like the offense. For if by the offense of the one many died, much more the grace of God, and the gift in grace; which is of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.
Rom 5:16
And the free gift shall not be as by one having sinned; (for indeed the judgment was of one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offenses to justification.
Rom 5:17
For if by one man's offense death reigned by one, much more they who receive abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by One, Jesus Christ.)
Rom 5:18
Therefore as by one offense sentence came on all men to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of One the free gift came to all men to justification of life.
Rom 5:19
For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of One shall many be made righteous.
Rom 5:20
But the Law entered so that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound,
Rom 5:21
so that as sin has reigned to death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

[Major]

Only if they were created to sin by nature. Does the Lord create beings to sin by nature? Consider Eze 28:12 " Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty." Also
Eze 28:15. "Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. " Kjv regardless of who this entity is, the King of Tyre or Satan/Lucifer, was he created with a sin nature or was he created perfect until....
Can anyone show a scripture that tells us that Adam was created with a sinful nature?
We are born with a sinful nature (thanks Adam); the natural man. Adam was created with the ability to exercise free will, as are we, however that does not equate with a sinful nature. So, until Adam chose by an act of free will to rebel against the Lord he would not have had a sinful nature. But if free will = sin, then every time we make a choice, we sin....how silly is that?Romans was written a day or so after l'affaire Eden so yes it is a universal appraisal (Jesus excepted of course)
Rev 20:6. "Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years." Interesting to note that those who will reign with Christ for the thousand years are those who are in the first resurrection. Reading Rev 19, there is blood and gore all over the place with the distinct implication that there is no one left standing, to go into Rev 20 and breed. Those who feature in the 1st resurrection are to be like the angels not marrying,....so no kids. If Rev 20 is parenthetical, then wouldn't the 1000 year reign also be parenthetical? What would that mean? where in the chronology of history would it properly belong?

Understood.

As for Rev.20.

You are under the understanding that there is no flesh left alive after Rev. 19 it seems.
So those who rule with Jesus fom the 1sr Resurrection are not human but are those with glorified bodies.
(Do not allow me to mis-state this).

I as well believe that the 1st Resurrection saints will rule with Christ for 1000 years.

I also believe that multitudes of Israel and Gentile nations who accepted Christ during the Tribulation perios will live through that Tribulation period and enter the Kingdom in natural bodies having not died.

These are the ones together with those who are born during the 1000 year rule who are tested during this millennial period.

Yes, there is a lot of blood and gore in Rev. 19, but I do not see what ALL of humanity is slain.

Seems that Jesus said some would survive also....
Matt. 24:13
"But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved".

Matt. 24:22
"And except those days be shortened, THERE SHOULD NO FLESH be saved".

That seems to indicate that some will live through the Tribulation IMHO.

Rev. 19:21 says that the "REMNANT" were slain with the sword of him tat sat on the horse"......but that is the LOST from verse #19 and 20.