Grace: potential or actual II

[convicted1]

That's not the point yet. The first point is that we begin with the universal principle laid down by Christ, and that is that a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, and neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

If Adam's act was a bad act, it could NOT have come from a uncorrupt heart.

Alrighty then. What caused Adam's heart to become corrupted prior to him eating the fruit? If his heart were corrupted before eating, then it wasn't the tree of knowledge of good and evil's fault. Sin is what causes corruption. What sin did Adam commit for his heart to have changed?

 

[Skandelon]

How was he corrupted? I can't figure out what it is you're trying to say.

Allow me to explain. They think of men kind of like we think of animals who have instinct. For example, the nature or heart of a Lion is created to desire meat, right? So, if you gave the Lion a "choice" between eating a salad or a slab of raw meat the Lion would always "choose" the meat, right?

This is the way they think God has created men. They think God created men with a nature where he will always choose according to instinctive type desires, like the lion who 'chooses' meat. We understand that is not really a 'choice' but merely a instinctive response, but they think that is all that is required for something to be considered a free morally accountable choice. Of course, in this system of thought, the only real difference in the lion and the man is that the man will suffer for eternity in hell for his instinctive responses and the Lion won't. Lucky lions!

 

[freeatlast]

Then you're left with the conclusion that Adam was good and pure, and that a diliberately sinful act sprang from a good and pure heart.

Jesus disagrees.

What exactly do you mean by a pure heart? Sinless? If so I agree, up until he sinned, he had a pure heart. However if you mean he was created with no ability to have personal desires you are incorrect. With those desires he could think, rationalize and choose, and he chose the Burgar King way.

 

[Amy.G]

I'm talking about Adam. The fall of angels is not something upon which there is a history written. Not an inspired one, anyway. Sure, many apply certain prophecies to the fall of angels, but it's a very subjective topic.

I'm saying that Adam, in an uncorrupted state, could do no sin. It was impossible, until he was corrupted.

You're all assuming his act was the corrupting force, instead of seeing it as the fruit of corruption.

Apparently you're saying that God corrupted Adam. But I have no idea.

The bible says Adam was good until he "became like us, knowing good from evil". His knowledge came from eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. So until that time, Adam was still good.

 

[Amy.G]

Allow me to explain. They think of men kind of like we think of animals who have instinct. For example, the nature or heart of a Lion is created to desire meat, right? So, if you gave the Lion a "choice" between eating a salad or a slab of raw meat the Lion would always "choose" the meat, right?

So according to this scenario, Adam ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil because it was his nature to rebel against God?


It would really help if Aaron would just come out and say what he believes. :BangHead:

 

[Aaron]

Allow me to explain. They think of men kind of like we think of animals who have instinct. For example, the nature or heart of a Lion is created to desire meat, right? So, if you gave the Lion a "choice" between eating a salad or a slab of raw meat the Lion would always "choose" the meat, right?

This is the way they think God has created men. They think God created men with a nature where he will always choose according to instinctive type desires, like the lion who 'chooses' meat. We understand that is not really a 'choice' but merely a instinctive response, but they think that is all that is required for something to be considered a free morally accountable choice. Of course, in this system of thought, the only real difference in the lion and the man is that the man will suffer for eternity in hell for his instinctive responses and the Lion won't. Lucky lions!

:laugh::laugh:
Let me ask you something. Is there anything you can do that does not fall short of the glory of God? Are you perfect in love?

 

[Aaron]

One thing this thread has done is reveal the host of unsubstatiated assumptions are being made about Adam, his innocence, corruption and fall.

 

[Amy.G]

One thing this thread has done is reveal the host of unsubstatiated assumptions are being made about Adam, his innocence, corruption and fall.

It hasn't however revealed your intention. I'm bored with this game. :sleep:

 

[Winman]

Alrighty then. What caused Adam's heart to become corrupted prior to him eating the fruit? If his heart were corrupted before eating, then it wasn't the tree of knowledge of good and evil's fault. Sin is what causes corruption. What sin did Adam commit for his heart to have changed?

You've got him Willis, it's just like evolutionists, take them back to the BEGINNING and they have painted themselves into a corner. And Calvinists, just like evolutionists do not like to go back to the beginning. We ALL know what the logical conclusion to your question is if Calvinism is true, but they will NEVER admit it.

Checkmate!

 

[convicted1]

One thing this thread has done is reveal the host of unsubstatiated assumptions are being made about Adam, his innocence, corruption and fall.

No Brother. The one thing that this thread has revealed is that you can not give a biblical answer to my question I have asked you TWICE. Now for the third time. What corrupted Adam's heart that caused him to sin prior to ingesting the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?


I will be waiting with baited breath............

 

[convicted1]

You've got him Willis, it's just like evolutionists, take them back to the BEGINNING and they have painted themselves into a corner. And Calvinists, just like evolutionists do not like to go back to the beginning. We ALL know what the logical conclusion to your question is if Calvinism is true, but they will NEVER admit it.

Checkmate!

Well, Bro. Aaron dug the hole. I am just giving him a bigger shovel......

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I will be waiting with baited breath............

YES....I can smell you all the way up here! Pew:laugh:

 

[convicted1]

YES....I can smell you all the way up here! Pew:laugh:

Well, I DID just get home from work. Now, where's that toothbrush? :laugh:

 

[Aaron]

No Brother. The one thing that this thread has revealed is that you can not give a biblical answer to my question I have asked you TWICE. Now for the third time. What corrupted Adam's heart that caused him to sin prior to ingesting the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?


I will be waiting with baited breath............

The point isn't the corrupting influence. The point is that Adam had to have been corrupted to disobey. I'm citing Christ on that premise. He said a corrupt tree brings forth evil fruit. You're saying evil fruit is what corrupts the tree.

Until you come to the realization that accepting Christ's premise undoes your heretofore unchallenged assumptions, discussing the corrupting influence is fruitless. (The pixilated postulations masquerading as exegesis in the "iniquity found" thread is enough to warn any man.)

So, do you agree with Christ? Is it a corrupt tree that brings forth evil fruit, or do you simply cling to your pet assumptions and insist that it is other than what Christ described?

 

[Aaron]

I'll cut to the chase. It was asserted that Adam had Arminian free will. That's false. If we accept the universal premises laid out in the Gospel, then we have no choice but to conclude that Adam's disobedience was the fruit of corruption, and once corrupted could not bring forth good fruit. He could do no other but disobey.

Now the question is, could Adam have prevented his own corruption? It's like asking if iron can prevent its own rust. Once Adam was introduced to a corrupting influence (whatever it was) corruption was inevitable. Just as exposing iron to oxygen corrupts iron.

 

[glfredrick]

I'll cut to the chase. It was asserted that Adam had Arminian free will. That's false. If we accept the universal premises laid out in the Gospel, then we have no choice but to conclude that Adam's disobedience was the fruit of corruption, and once corrupted could not bring forth good fruit. He could do no other but disobey.

Now the question is, could Adam have prevented his own corruption? It's like asking if iron can prevent its own rust. Once Adam was introduced to a corrupting influence (whatever it was) corruption was inevitable. Just as exposing iron to oxygen corrupts iron.

Aaron, it is possible that it is you who have missed the point of the fall of Adam.

Adam was "cursed" by God for his willful sin. Before his fall into sin, he was a "free man" not a slave to sin as those born after him, nor a slave to Christ because of a regenerated, reconciled heart. He was the sole member of the human race (and Eve with him) who ACTUALLY had a choice. That is not an Arminian thought and we dare not pin every example of free expression of will on Arminian doctrine -- such is not the case -- the Scriptures have some things to say on the subject that we, even in holding God's sovereignty as our prime directive, must consider. You are "eisegeting" Arminian concepts back into a biblical picture well before they were ever considered by man or beast.

God clearly said that man was "very good" on the day He created humankind. You are saying that God created a corrupt being instead of pronounced a curse of corruption on the whole earth because of the fall into sin of one man. While it is true that Adam had the capability to sin by his actions/choices, that does not, in and of itself, equal a corrupt creation. Also, we should note that Christ was not speaking "in context" of Adam when he noted the bad tree/bad fruit in His teaching. He was comparing "good trees/good fruit" with "bad trees/bad fruit" in a dialog concerning false prophets. No mention of creation nor of Adam in that dialog at all, so inferring that the bad tree/bad fruit issue extends to Adam's creation is at best a stretch and at worst a mis-handling of the issue.

 

[Aaron]

God clearly said that man was "very good" on the day He created humankind.

That's right. And a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit.

You are saying that God created a corrupt being...

No, a corruptible being. He wasn't created corrupt. He was created subject to corruption. He was created weak and mortal.

While it is true that Adam had the capability to sin by his actions/choices...

We've got to stop considering sin an ability. It's the lack of ability. God is all powerful. He has all power and authority. Nothing is impossible. Yet it is impossible for God to lie. God cannot sin.

Evil fruit springs from corruption. There is no exception.

Also, we should note that Christ was not speaking "in context" of Adam when he noted the bad tree/bad fruit in His teaching. He was comparing "good trees/good fruit" with "bad trees/bad fruit" in a dialog concerning false prophets. No mention of creation nor of Adam in that dialog at all, so inferring that the bad tree/bad fruit issue extends to Adam's creation is at best a stretch and at worst a mis-handling of the issue.

That's already been argued. You're saying that Adam was the only good tree that could bring forth evil fruit. Christ was applying a universal principle to prophets. It can be applied to any situation.

 

[glfredrick]

That's right. And a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit.

True... But can a good tree become a bad tree? Surely there are things that happen to good trees to cause them to become bad, producing bad fruit, right? I don't recall that Jesus mentioned that issue, other than the fact that we are all "bad trees" by choice and by birth, yet we become "good" because of Christ's imputed righteousness.

No, a corruptible being. He wasn't created corrupt. He was created subject to corruption. He was created weak and mortal.

I agree with that statement.

We've got to stop considering sin an ability. It's the lack of ability. God is all powerful. He has all power and authority. Nothing is impossible. Yet it is impossible for God to lie. God cannot sin.

But, God is not us... Sin is both an ability and a choice. We, in our current state have had the choice removed from us, in a manner of speaking. Not that we cannot make a good choice, as would a good tree bear good fruit, but rather that we probably will not make that choice based on our cursed nature.

I do like the way you phrased sin as a lack of ability however. Seems to fit with what I am trying to say.

Evil fruit springs from corruption. There is no exception.

I'm not sure we can be as forceful on the "no exception" clause you tie to this statement. I read in my Bible that God works out all things for good...

That's already been argued. You're saying that Adam was the only good tree that could bring forth evil fruit. Christ was applying a universal principle to prophets. It can be applied to any situation.

No, I'm arguing that Adam was a good tree made into a bad tree, and that as a bad tree, he produced bad fruit.

I've been in horticultural work for decades, and I find a good many of the biblical illustrations that use a horticultural basis are misunderstood by a good many people in an otherwise good-hearted effort to grasp what Christ or one of the other inspired writers are trying to say. I've seen otherwise "good" trees that were corrupted by outside influences, disease, bugs, drought, cutting their roots, etc. Once corrupted they seldom, if ever, recover, and yes, the "fruit" produced by those trees is also corrupt to an extent, save for the fact that a seed may actually produce another good tree... The concept is not as universal as you are trying to make it, neither with Christ nor with horticulture.

 

[Aaron]

No, I'm arguing that Adam was a good tree made into a bad tree, and that as a bad tree, he produced bad fruit.

That's my point, too.

I've been in horticultural work for decades, and I find a good many of the biblical illustrations that use a horticultural basis are misunderstood by a good many people in an otherwise good-hearted effort to grasp what Christ or one of the other inspired writers are trying to say. I've seen otherwise "good" trees that were corrupted by outside influences, disease, bugs, drought, cutting their roots, etc. Once corrupted they seldom, if ever, recover, and yes, the "fruit" produced by those trees is also corrupt to an extent, save for the fact that a seed may actually produce another good tree... The concept is not as universal as you are trying to make it, neither with Christ nor with horticulture.

Whether or not the corrupting influence was internal or external, I've ventured no opinion. Just the universal principle that a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

It hasn't however revealed your intention. I'm bored with this game. :sleep:

:sleep:Just like going to church:sleep: