Change of man's MORAL nature in the Fall

[The Biblicist]

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

No problem, I understand now.

 

[The Biblicist]

Why stop speculating now!? jk

As of yet, no one has demonstrated that I offered any speculation.

 

[JonC]

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.

My entire point is that you are merely stating your theory and tossing a few verses around. The proof is obvious (Scriprure does not state Adam died spiritually; Adam had two natures; salvation is a renewal to Adam's original state made immutable....etc).

 

[JonShaff]

Deleted, too much speculation

 

[JonC]

As of yet, no one has demonstrated that I offered any speculation.

I can.

None of your conclusions are actually made in the passages you have provided. You have speculated that Adam being created "upright" means with a different nature. You speculated that we will be like Adam was originally except immutable. You speculated that Adam was created "spiritually alive". You speculated that righteousness is primarily (or exclusively) a moral issue.

 

[JonC]

Deleted, too much speculation

Your post (without the speculation....I was reading and when I went to reply the above came up) did make sense.

Here are a few things to ponder:

Scripture does not relate Adam's removal from the Garden with his sin. Instead Adam had become like God knowing good and evil and was removed from the Garden so as not to eat of the fruit of the tree of life and live forever. Without speculation (which we could go on concerning the tree of life), we can say that Scripture does not frame this removal as a "spiritual death".

Something I find interesting is ANE religious thought. They often envisioned a Garden temple (typically with literal or symbolic rivers flowing from the temple into the garden). Man was placed in the Garden, not Eden "proper" (which would be, figuratively, "behind the veil"). Anyway, I find it interesting.

 

[JonShaff]

Your post (without the speculation....I was reading and when I went to reply the above came up) did make sense.

Here are a few things to ponder:

Scripture does not relate Adam's removal from the Garden with his sin. Instead Adam had become like God knowing good and evil and was removed from the Garden so as not to eat of the fruit of the tree of life and live forever. Without speculation (which we could go on concerning the tree of life), we can say that Scripture does not frame this removal as a "spiritual death".

Something I find interesting is ANE religious thought. They often envisioned a Garden temple (typically with literal or symbolic rivers flowing from the temple into the garden). Man was placed in the Garden, not Eden "proper" (which would be, figuratively, "behind the veil"). Anyway, I find it interesting.

Thanks for the reply. I probably would have kept it up if i was more precise with my word choices. I believe there is something going on with physical death and the removal of God's presence that you won't find being discussed in your traditional baptist sunday school .

Adam is the Natural Man.
Christ is the Spiritual Man.

What can we learn from Adam concerning Godly Character (moral uprightness--i would rather call this practical righteousness)? Pretty much nothing.

The Law came and exposed the realities within actions and character. But it still did not teach on Godly virtues as something to "put on".

And Christ came and brought grace and truth. Now giving us the ability to "live out the practical righteousness of God"--righteousness and true holiness.

Adam was natural, and his image continued on until Christ. Christ brings the spiritual, the eternal purposes of God.

 

[MB]

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?

It seems to me reading into the text is what your post is all about. This is all your opinion.
When Adam sinned God came looking for Adam. Strange indeed if Adam was separated and now dead in spirit. How did he hear God since he could not hear or understand because of his so called fall? This is what God said to Adam;
Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
Gen 3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
Gen 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Not only did God speak to Adam and Adam heard God speak. but in the next chapter he also spoke to Cain after he killed Able .
I mean here are these spiritually dead men hearing God imagine that. So much for the inability of man.

Adam was created with a sin nature because he did what was natural and sinned. A man up right as you call it but with a sin nature. I believe this was God's plan all along. The reason is because God would never have man love Him if there was no other choice for man. Forced love is not love at all. Love can only be love if the lover is free to do so.
MB

 

[JonC]

It seems to me reading into the text is what your post is all about. This is all your opinion.
When Adam sinned God came looking for Adam. Strange indeed if Adam was separated and now dead in spirit. How did he hear God since he could not hear or understand because of his so called fall? This is what God said to Adam;
Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
Gen 3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
Gen 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Not only did God speak to Adam and Adam heard God speak. but in the next chapter he also spoke to Cain after he killed Able .
I mean here are these spiritually dead men hearing God imagine that. So much for the inability of man.

Adam was created with a sin nature because he did what was natural and sinned. A man up right as you call it but with a sin nature. I believe this was God's plan all along. The reason is because God would never have man love Him if there was no other choice for man. Forced love is not love at all. Love can only be love if the lover is free to do so.
MB

I was thinking along the same lines.

Certainly reconciliation was needed and men would die physically. But God didn't seem to disappear or withdraw Himself from Adam.

I think the issue is one of spiritualizing Scripture to a point Scripture cannot stand on its own without man creating a narrative for support. The problem is that @The Biblicist 's presentation is barely dependent on Scripture at all. His theories can stand on moral philosophy apart from the Bible.

 

[The Biblicist]

I can.

None of your conclusions are actually made in the passages you have provided. You have speculated that Adam being created "upright" means with a different nature. You speculated that we will be like Adam was originally except immutable. You speculated that Adam was created "spiritually alive". You speculated that righteousness is primarily (or exclusively) a moral issue.

Yeah, all that hot air without one exegetical based reason really makes your point. Can something die which is not alive???

 

[The Biblicist]

When Adam sinned God came looking for Adam. Strange indeed if Adam was separated and now dead in spirit. How did he hear God since he could not hear or understand because of his so called fall?

If you remember, as a direct result of their sin, Adam and Eve covered and hid themselves from God's physical presence. God did not ask where they were because He was ignorant and didn't know where they were. He wanted them to realize their sins separated them from him which was manifested by hiding themselves from his physical presence.

Secondly, He did not call them to Himself for fellowship but to judge them and cast them out of the garden.

Third, you are confusing hearing God's AUDIBLE voice which was intended for them to hear by their PHYSICAL ear in contrast with God's internal voice by his spirit which they had no awarness of because of their sins.

Fourth, the attempt to conceal their bodies by leaves and hiding in the Garden demonstrates a change in their moral nature as it appears that this physical fellowship with God had been the norm.

Try again.

 

[JonC]

Yeah, all that hot air without one exegetical based reason really makes your point. Can something die which is not alive???

Can one hold a corpse morally responsible? Can one kill something which is already dead?

You see, your theories do not hold up. Can someone who is not spiritually alive die physically? Better yet, can One who is Life experience a physical death?

You seem to have somehow spiritualized death to mean a "spiritual death" when historically (and biblically) it is a physical death and then the Judgment (which is Christ centered). The "second death" is where those who do not have spiritual life die (when hades and death are cast into the lake of fire).

 

[JonC]

If you remember, as a direct result of their sin, Adam and Eve covered and hid themselves from God's physical presence.

Yes, that is in the Bible.

He wanted them to realize their sins separated them from him which was manifested by hiding themselves from his physical presence.

This is not actually in the Bible. But sin does separate us.

He did not call them to Himself for fellowship but to judge them and cast them out of the garden.

Not in the Bible. They were cast out so they would not eat of the Tree of Life. But even afterwards we see God in fellowship with Adam, Able, and to an extent Cain. Later we will see this with Enoch and Noah and David. There are probably too many examples that disprove your theory to list in one thread.

in contrast with God's internal voice by his spirit which they had no awarness of because of their sins.

Again, not in Scripture.

the attempt to conceal their bodies by leaves and hiding in the Garden demonstrates a change in their moral nature as it appears that this physical fellowship with God had been the norm.

Not in the Bible.

Try again.

 

[The Biblicist]

Not in the Bible.

It most certainly is in the Bible as it takes up most of Genesis 3. He called them and confronted them with their sins and pronounced judgement on them:

9 ¶ And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
11 ¶ And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
14 ¶ And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
16 ¶ Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. {to thy … : or, subject to thy husband }
17 ¶ And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; {bring … : Heb. cause to bud }
19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.......

They were called,
They were confronted
They were judged
Try again!

 

[JonC]

It most certainly is in the Bible as it takes up most of Genesis 3. He called them and confronted them with their sins and pronounced judgement on them:

9 ¶ And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
11 ¶ And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
14 ¶ And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
16 ¶ Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. {to thy … : or, subject to thy husband }
17 ¶ And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; {bring … : Heb. cause to bud }
19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.......


Try again!

Yes. I granted that 5% of your post was in Scripture. I am talking about the 95% you made up.

Try again....but compare Genesis 3 to what you actually wrote first.

 

[The Biblicist]

Yes. I granted that 5% of your post was in Scripture. I am talking about the 95% you made up.

Try again....but compare Genesis 3 to what you actually wrote first.

I listed 5 points and you admitted 2 were in the Bible and you were wrong about a third point. That means I got 3 out of 5. Where did you learn math? You are about as good with math as you are with theology

 

[JonC]

I listed 5 points and you admitted 2 were in the Bible and you were wrong about a third point. That means I got 3 out of 5. Where did you learn math? You are about as good with math as you are with theology

I'm of the falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus mindset this evening. You were lucky to rate 5%.

 

[Iconoclast]

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.

A clear indication of that is found in Hebrews2:
5 For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak.

6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man that thou visitest him?

7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:

8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.

9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

Man was originally made lower than the Angels, but those in Christ are raised above them

1cor6:


1 Corinthians 6 King James Version (KJV)

6 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?

2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?

3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?

 

[The Biblicist]

I'm of the falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus mindset this evening. You were lucky to rate 5%.

That may pertain to foundations as a wrong foudation means everything built upon it is no better than the foundation. However, my foundations were solid and so were the inferences drawn from those foundations.

 

[Iconoclast]

Can one hold a corpse morally responsible? Can one kill something which is already dead?

You see, your theories do not hold up. Can someone who is not spiritually alive die physically? Better yet, can One who is Life experience a physical death?

You seem to have somehow spiritualized death to mean a "spiritual death" when historically (and biblically) it is a physical death and then the Judgment (which is Christ centered). The "second death" is where those who do not have spiritual life die (when hades and death are cast into the lake of fire).

Biblicist has correctly offered the texts and teaching on spiritual death when he was posting to Hank D