Featured Could the Fall have been Avoided as per Arminian Theology?

Yes, if they had used their freewill not to eat the fruit, not to sin.

 

You have asked the wrong question. How did Adam sin without a sin nature? How can a good tree give evil fruit?

Calvinism teaches man is a slave to his nature. If so, how did Adam sin?

Please explain how Adam with a good nature gave evil fruit.

 

You have to understand the nature of sin. Sin is flies in the apothecary. It spoils the whole.

Sin enters and spoils the whole.

Adam, like good apothecary, was pure before sin entered him through the serpent (via Eve).

Once sin entered, Adam's whole nature was corrupted by it so that no good could come from it.

Furthermore, Adam knew NEITHER good NOR evil before he partook of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

That means he did not know "good."

You are mistakenly assuming Adam was morally good before the fall. You make this error because you don't understand what "good" is. You think good is simply "not bad." That is wrong and, as with many of your mistakes, an elementary understanding of a doctrinal issue too big for you. But that's to be expected by someone who thinks God talks to him and tells him how to understand Scriptures without doing the hard work of language, culture, contextual, authorial, historical redemptive, genre and theological study.

Adam was morally pure just as a tree was morally pure (it was not tainted by sin).

But also like a tree that existed before the fall, he was not morally "good" either.

Moral goodness is more than not doing bad or not ever having done bad.

It is knowing good and doing it.

He did not know good so he could not do it any more than a tree could or an eagle could.

 

Lousy answer. Most Calvinists teach Adam and Eve were morally pure;

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/bcof.htm#part6

The Baptist CoF teaches man's nature was originally righteous. So how could the serpent corrupt Adam's nature? Their nature was righteous, so how could they sin in the Calvinist view?

See, you guys are NEVER consistent, you talk out of both sides of your mouth. You want your cake AND to eat it too.

And if you have to have knowledge to be morally good or evil (I actually agree with you here), then how can newborn babies and very little children be morally evil?

 

That's what I said.

Further proof that you wrongly think that good is absence of bad.

A TREE is not morally bad. Does that make it morally good?

 

When God created Adam and Eve he created them upright, or righteous, fully capable of freely choosing between obedience to God or disobedience to God. Scripture tells us:

Ecclesiastes 7:29, NKJV
29 Truly, this only I have found: That God made man upright, But they have sought out many schemes.

Ecclesiastes 7:29, KJV
29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

************************************************************

Thomas Boston [a Scottish Presbyterian of the 17-18th centuries] in Human Nature in Its Fourfold States [page 37] expounds on the nature of man as created by God as follows:

“God hath made man upright. By ‘man’ here we are to understand our first parents; the archetypal pair, the root of mankind, the compendized world, and the fountain from which all generations have streamed; as may appear by comparing Genesis 5:1,2, In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him: male and female created He them; and blessed them and called their name Adam. ..... In this sense, man was made right [agreeable to the nature of God, whose work is perfect], without any imperfection, corruption, or principle of corruption, in his body or soul. He was made ‘up-right,’ that is, straight with the will and law of God, without any irregularity in his soul. By the set it got in its creation, it directly pointed towards God, as his chief end; which straight inclination was represented, as in an emblem, by the erect figure of his body, a figure that no other living creature partakes of. What David was in a gospel sense, that was he in a legal sense; one ‘according to God's own heart’, altogether righteous, pure, and holy. God made him thus: He did not first make him, and then make him righteous, but in the very making of him, He made him righteous. Original righteousness was created with him; so that in the same moment he was a man, he was a righteous man, morally good; with the same breath that God breathed into him a living soul, He breathed into him a righteous soul.”

***************************************************************

And then John Gill comments as follows:

Ver. 29. Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright,

"The first man Adam, as the Targum and Jarchi interpret it; and not Adam only, but Eve also with him; for these were both made by the Lord, and on the same day, and in the same image, and had the same common name of Adam given them, Ge 1:27 5:2; And they were both made "upright"; which is to be understood, not of the erectness of their bodies, but of the disposition of their minds; they were

``right and innocent before him,''

or in the sight of God, as the Targum; which is best explained by their being made in the image and likeness of God, Ge 1:26,27; and which, according to the apostle, lay in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, Eph 4:24 Col 2:3; agreeably to which Plato {o} make likeness to God to be righteous and holy, with prudence: for this likeness of Adam and Eve to God; lay not in the shape of their bodies, for God is a spirit, and not a corporeal being, as the Anthropomorphites imagined, and so fancied men to be made like unto him in this respect; but in their souls, and it consisted of knowledge; of the knowledge of the creatures, their nature, use, and ends for which they were made, and put under their government; and of God, and his perfections, as made known in the creatures; and of his mind and will, and manner of worshipping him, he revealed unto them; and they might know the trinity of Persons in the Godhead, who were concerned in the making of them, though they seem not to have known Christ, as Mediator and Saviour, which was not necessary previous to their fall; nor evangelical truths suited to a fallen state: also this image lay in righteousness and true holiness, which was original, natural, and created with them; it was with them as soon as they were; not acquired, but infused; not a habit obtained, but a quality given; and this not supernatural, but natural; it was perfect in its kind, and entirely agreeable to the holy, just, and good law of God; it had no defects in it, yet was but the righteousness of a creature, and loseable, as the event showed; and so very different from the righteousness of Christ, man is justified by. Likewise, this uprightness is no other than the rectitude of human nature, of all the powers and faculties of the soul of man, as they were when he was created; his understanding clear of all errors and mistakes, either about divine or human things; his affections regular and ordinate, no unruly passion in him, no sinful affection, lust, and desire; he loved God with all his heart and soul, and delighted in him, and communion with him; the bias of his will was to that which is good; the law of God was written on his heart, and he had both power and will to keep it; and, during his state of integrity, was pure and sinless; yet he was not impeccable, as the confirmed angels and glorified saints are; nor immutable, as God only is; but being a creature, and changeable, he was liable to temptation, and subject to fall, as he did. Now Solomon, with all his diligent search and scrutiny, could not find out the infinity of sin, the boundless extent of it among mankind, the exceeding sinfulness of it, which he sought after, Ec 7:25; yet this he "found" out, and this "only", the fountain of all sin, the origin of moral evil; namely, the corruption of human nature through the fall of Adam: this he found by reading the Scriptures, the three first chapters of Genesis; and by consulting human nature he found some remains of the image of God, and of the law that was in man's heart; whereby he perceived that man was once another man than he is now; and that this corruption is not owing to God, who is not the author of any thing sinful, he made man upright; but to himself, his own sin and folly: and this he found confirmed by sad experience; in himself and others, and by observing the history of all ages, from the times of the first man; and as this was notorious, it was worth knowing and observing, and therefore he calls upon others to take notice of it; lo, behold, consider it, as well as what follows;'

****************************************************************

Typical of expositors in those days they are a little "wordy", Gill much more so. Gill was also loathe to use the "period" [I found one.] but used the semicolon instead!

That being said, I am not inclined to disagree with either of these old Saints, at least not on this matter!

 

Wow Old Regular, gotta give you a Hoorah for a good college try at wresting scripture.

First, you found two Calvinists who both interpreted Ecc 7:29 to be speaking only of Adam. That is akin to finding two fellas who wear cheese on their heads in Green Bay, Wisconsin.



Next, it is the second half of Ecc 7:29 that gives you Calvinists a problem.

Ecc 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

The first word that gives you Calvinists trouble is "they". This points back to the word "man" in the first half of the verse showing this is speaking of more than one man. So, it cannot be speaking of Adam only.

I noticed this was not lost on your two fine Calvinist theologians, so they both say "they" refers to both Adam and Eve. Slick move, I would have said the same thing.

The problem is the word "many" that comes next in the second half of the verse. This shows men fell because of MANY inventions. This verse is not speaking of a single event that happened one time in the garden, it shows this verse is speaking of many different men falling in many different ways.

So, it was a nice try, it really was. Those folks who want to hold to Calvinism will believe your eisegesis, simply because that is what they desire to believe, regardless of what the scriptures are really saying.

Those folks who are interested in what the scriptures really say may not be on board with you.

Nice shot though.

 

Winman your comprehension is so poor you cannot understand when someone is trying to help you! {Ref. your post #5} Sorry about that!

 

I wish you didn't care about me so much boss.

 

I believe you are "assuming facts not in evidence"!

 

But how did Satan sin if he was created perfect?

Eze 28:15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

If a person is a slave to their nature, then how could Satan sin?

And how did the other angels and Adam and Eve sin if they were "very good"?

Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Everything God had made was very good, so how could anyone sin?

Perhaps this view that a person is enslaved to their nature is false?????

 

God exists immutably perfect but all creatures are only created in a mutable state of perfection. That is they are experientially sinless, innocent of sin while acedemically mentally aware of sin and its consequences. Thus prior to the fall both man and Satan were not immutably righteousness or unrighteousness but were in a mutable innocent state. After the fall their hearts came into bondage under the indwelling law of sin and in immutable state of bondage to sin.

Good question! Nothing in the universe that God created was defiled by sin pior to the seventh day. Hence, sin originated from that which was "good" as nothing "evil" existed. James explains the mechanism of how sin occurs. There are natural "good" lusts/desires that were created in man and Lucifer. For example, it was natural Adam and Eve to lust/desire sexual fulfillment, each other, knowledge, wisdom as it was natural for both man and angels to desire to be LIKE GOD. These are all "good" lusts/desires but may become "evil" when joined with an temptation to abuse those desires. The temptation is not sin. Only when lust is married with a temptation that goes beyond the boundaries or vioaltes the boundaries of "good" does sin occur.

In the case of Eve, she was "deceived" into thinking that eating the fruit would make her like God. In regard to Adam he knew fully well that it was sin to eat the fruit for any reason. However, Adam was faced with another temptation and that was the loss of Eve due to her violation of God's Law. Eve is the only woman made directly by God and had to surpass the beauty and characteristics of any woman that has ever lived. Losing her was a real reality that faced Adam. His love for her was natural and good but would become "evil" if he would choose her over God's companionship. When God condemns Adam, he charged Adam with choosing to follow Eve rather than God. When Adam attempting to defend himself, he accused God for being the author of his sin because God gave her to him, indicating she was the temptation that he yeilded to rather than to God.

In the case of Satan, it was good for him to want to be "like" God but not in the sens of being either equal or superior to God. There is a fine line between desiring to be LIKE God in a good sense and be like God in the sense of competition. Satan was made more beautiful than any other creature. It was not evil to admire and recognize the beauty that God had made, but it is wrong to take pride in that beauty as though you should take the credit and glory for it. Evil originated out of good desires joined with evil temptations.

 

Jesus said that if he were to deny his Father he would be a liar. This shows that Jesus could change as well.

Jhn 8:55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.

This shows that Jesus did not sin by choice, not that he was unable.

You talk out of both sides of your mouth. You have repeatedly said God cannot sin because he has a good nature. You have repeatedly said the will is the slave of the nature. If so, neither Satan, the fallen angels, nor Adam and Eve could possibly sin because they all had "good" natures. There was no well for sin to arise from.

Jesus showed that a man could determine whether he was a good tree that produces good fruit, or a corrupt tree that produces corrupt fruit. This is the exact opposite of what you teach.

Mat 12:33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.

The words "either" and "or else" show that man has option. The word "make" shows man has ability. Jesus showed that men have both the option and the ability to determine what their nature is.

The scripture shows the will determines the nature. You falsely teach the exact opposite, that the nature determines the will.

Once again you teach the exact opposite of scripture.

 

Calvinists constantly teach that the will is the slave of the nature. If this were so, then Satan, the fallen angels, and Adam and Eve could not possibly have sinned, as all had "very good" natures.

This easily refutes Calvinism's false teaching. It is the will that determines the nature, not the other way around.

 

Our sin shows only God is good and we need Him for our righteousness. We sinned proves we are not God and Jesus is who never sinned who is God. Evil can't come from good who is God only what is not God. It teaches us we need Him for righteousness the only one who has been found to be good.

 

First, Jesus is asserting He is not like them - liars "if I should say....I shall be a LIAR like unto you.".

Second, you completely ignore his immediate response that proves the contary to what you claim: "But I know Him and keep His commandments"

Third, He is claiming to be God in the very next three verses and claims the the designation of IMMUTABILITY "I AM" or the impossibility of being able to lie as God who is the immutable "I AM' cannot lie.

Fourth, find ANY CREDIBLE RECOGNIZED COMMENTATOR that supports your total nonsensical interpretation of this text?????

 

You keep repeating this pure and absolute lie. You can produce no credible Bible scholar to support your pure imaginative interpretation of Matthew 12:33.

The words "either make" refers to their basis of judgement and is a rebuke of their inconsistency. In regard to themselves they say one thing and do another (Mt. 23:3) which proves they are evil "being evil" in regard to their heart and thus their works are evil. However, in regard to Christ whose words are consistent with his works, they judge him as "being evil" and under the power of Satan. Jesus is simply condemning their basis of judging themselves and others but God won't make that mistake (Mt. 12:35-37). You don't have a clue about the text or context and are completely incompetent as an interpreter and your nonsense makes that abundantly clear.

Mat 12:33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.

This is merely a rebuke of their inconsistency in making final judgments. To be consistent they need to "make" the tree good consistent with the fruits and they are inconsistent.