Change of man's MORAL nature in the Fall

[The Biblicist]

How many on this thread beleive that proper interpretation of Scripture will always agree with proper application of exegesis to any given text in its context?

How many believe that eisegesis is reading into a text what it does not teach?

How many believe that in order to disprove someone's interpretation of a text you should employ exegesis to do that? How many will commit to do that instead of just giving a personal opinion?

 

[JonShaff]

How many on this thread beleive that proper interpretation of Scripture will always agree with proper application of exegesis to any given text in its context?

How many believe that eisegesis is reading into a text what it does not teach?

How many believe that in order to disprove someone's interpretation of a text you should employ exegesis to do that? How many will commit to do that instead of just giving a personal opinion?

Proper interpretation hinges on proper exegesis. Proper application hinges upon proper interpretation. All within its immediate context, book context, testamental context, and Biblical context.

 

[The Biblicist]

What you assert is correct, it is vital. And to say that redemption is about a restoration of man's nature *plus* it being immutable is to misunderstand what happened in the Garden and to misunderstand what is the Purpose of Christ's work.

Restore man's nature to what? Is there more than two kinds of righteousness? Does God possess two different types of holiness? Righteousness is righteousness nothing less and nothing more! Adam was created righteous - and the new man is created in true righteousness and holiness. They are not different as there are not two different types. The difference is one is mutable and can be lost, perverted, and was lost and perverted but the other cannot be either lost or perverted due to grace alone in Christ. Hence, what we have in Christ is NOT A RETURN TO THE FORMER STATE OF RIGHTEOUSNESS but to a superior state.

 

[JonShaff]

How many believe that in order to disprove someone's interpretation of a text you should employ exegesis to do that? How many will commit to do that instead of just giving a personal opinion?

Yes, i will do my best to commit to that. Maybe i cannot get past the terms "Moral" (i know you addressed it already) and "restoration plus immutable" (and this you also addressed)? I'm sure we agree on a lot more than what we disagree.

If i understand you correctly, then if Adam just ate the tree of Life he would have possessed all that you say Christ brings us through the new man?

 

[JonC]

There is a condition worse than blindness, and that is, seeing something that isn't there. - Thomas Hardy

 

[percho]

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: - Rom. 5:12

Sin and death "entered the world" by the act of one man - Adam. When God had finished his creation on the sixth day, there was no sin, death and Satan in that world or else he could not say everything was "very good" (Gen. 1:31). Lucifer the unfallen angel existed on that day. Man in the image of God existed on that day.

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. Gen 1:3-5

At that moment was it already foreordained, Christ as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Would shed his precious blood for redemption? --------------------Why?
At that moment how was Christ the Son of the living God going to be manifested in order to shed blood for redemption?

What is the primary purpose for the Son of God being manifested?

1 John 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.


Will redemption destroy the works of the devil?



But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

 

[JonShaff]

Solomon says "God MADE man upright" and that term "upright" is a moral description of righteousness as it is translated "righteous" 9 times in scripture. So, how can you deny Adam was originally "righteous" by God although mutable in nature??

I believe my hang up here is what you describe above--here are my thoughts--in his natural state (spirit, soul, body), Adam was righteous--in a right and proper standing with God. God made him "Good". However, in that same state, he willfully sinned. This is obviously not God's fault. Adam chose sin. So, Adam's Spirit man died and the presence of God was cut off from humanity, particularly the inner sense of being right with God. Because Adam's spirit man died (Cut off from the presence of God--shame towards God), he is led by soul and flesh. Zero cognizance internally of God's presence or will. We too, born dead in our spirit, have a soul and body who lead the way.

Would you agree with any of this?

Edit to add...

How come you do not quote the entirety of Ecclesiastes 7:29? ...but they have sought out many inventions.

Is Solomon describing Adam's original "state" or is he observing how his contemporaries seem to "go".

 

[percho]

I believe my hang up here is what you describe above--here are my thoughts--in his natural state (spirit, soul, body), Adam was righteous--in a right and proper standing with God. God made him "Good". However, in that same state, he willfully sinned. This is obviously not God's fault. Adam chose sin. So, Adam's Spirit man died and the presence of God was cut off from humanity, particularly the inner sense of being right with God. Because Adam's spirit man died (Cut off from the presence of God--shame towards God), he is led by soul and flesh. Zero cognizance internally of God's presence or will. We too, born dead in our spirit, have a soul and body who lead the way.

Would you agree with any of this?

I agree with you. Adam choose to sin. However I ask Did God think he would choose anything else but to sin. Was God through the sin of Adam going to destroy the devil and his works, through the Son of Man, the Son of God?

 

[JonShaff]

I agree with you. Adam choose to sin. However I ask Did God think he would choose anything else but to sin. Was God through the sin of Adam going to destroy the devil and his works, through the Son of Man, the Son of God?

I believe we tend to focus on Adam too much here. The Focus is Christ...regardless of whether or not Adam did/didn't, coulda/woulda/shoulda ...God's eternal purpose was to Birth an Eternal Creation through His Son Jesus Christ. His plan was never for a physical creation. His plan was always focused on an eternal, spiritual Creation that would Worship and Enjoy the King of Kings forever.

 

[percho]

For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope;

And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

When was that creation subjected to futility, in Hope.

thou shalt not eat of it: Did that command by God subject the creation to futility?

because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

 

[The Biblicist]

Yes, i will do my best to commit to that. Maybe i cannot get past the terms "Moral" (i know you addressed it already) and "restoration plus immutable" (and this you also addressed)? I'm sure we agree on a lot more than what we disagree.

If i understand you correctly, then if Adam just ate the tree of Life he would have possessed all that you say Christ brings us through the new man?

I don't want to speculate about "if" he did this or that because he didn't.

 

[The Biblicist]

I believe we tend to focus on Adam too much here. The Focus is Christ...regardless of whether or not Adam did/didn't, coulda/woulda/shoulda ...God's eternal purpose was to Birth an Eternal Creation through His Son Jesus Christ. His plan was never for a physical creation. His plan was always focused on an eternal, spiritual Creation that would Worship and Enjoy the King of Kings forever.

This thread is about the moral change of Adam's nature and so, the focus must be on Adam.

 

[Yeshua1]

There is a condition worse than blindness, and that is, seeing something that isn't there. - Thomas Hardy

How about refusing to accept what is plainly being stated though?

 

[The Biblicist]

Well, it appears we have again come to an impasse. The impasse is not because I have not furnished sufficient scripture to support my position. The impasse is not because I have not defended my use of scripture adequately. The impasse is because everything has been dealt with and no more objections have been offered.

Thus, it seems this thread has served its purpose and needs to be closed.

 

[percho]

I believe we tend to focus on Adam too much here. The Focus is Christ...regardless of whether or not Adam did/didn't, coulda/woulda/shoulda ...God's eternal purpose was to Birth an Eternal Creation through His Son Jesus Christ. His plan was never for a physical creation. His plan was always focused on an eternal, spiritual Creation that would Worship and Enjoy the King of Kings forever.

According to scripture was the creation of the physical man necessary to the destruction of the devil and his works?
Was, the death, necessary for that to happen?
What would be needed to bring about, the death?
What is sin?
The death of just anything or the death of one without blemish and without spot?
Would life have to be given again to that which had died for that to be accomplished?

 

[JonC]

How about refusing to accept what is plainly being stated though?

The problem is comments like "but it is plainly taught in Scripture" because such claims typically means the person why says them cannot fathom how other people possibly came to their conclusions. This also means those types of people cannot grasp how their interpretations came about. That is what they believe so it must be what is "plainly" taught.

But what if Scripture in and of itself is sufficient without imposing our conclusions on the text (without pretending we know what is implied or what the authors of Scripture were really thinking when they wrote?

What if the reason God did not breath into Scripture itself the idea Adam had a "pre-Fall" nature and a "post-Fall" nature is because it is a false idea?

 

[JonShaff]

According to scripture was the creation of the physical man necessary to the destruction of the devil and his works?
Was, the death, necessary for that to happen?
What would be needed to bring about, the death?
What is sin?
The death of just anything or the death of one without blemish and without spot?
Would life have to be given again to that which had died for that to be accomplished?

All of this would be under the scope of "God's Plan to Give His Son an eternal Love-Gift".

 

[JonShaff]

This thread is about the moral change of Adam's nature and so, the focus must be on Adam.

My apologies, i was addressing his comment. i didn't mean to derail.

 

[The Biblicist]

There is a condition worse than blindness, and that is, seeing something that isn't there. - Thomas Hardy

Amazing that you can even make that quote when you have provided absolutely nothing, and I mean NOTHNG but hot air to prove the reverse.

 

[JonShaff]

I don't want to speculate about "if" he did this or that because he didn't.

Why stop speculating now!? jk