An examination of the claim that God decreed Adam's fall

[janxharris]

Do you agree that there is a great deal of similarity in the way that the story of Israel is presented in the Deuteronomistic History and how the story of Adam is presented in Gen. 2-3?

Can I ask that this be taken to another thread?

Please.

 

[AndOne]

Arminians who want to be faithful to scripture take note - on this thread you have an example of how far someone is willing to manipulate scripture in order to get it to fit their theological viewpoint. When someone says they don't believe Adam ever existed they are flat out saying they disagree with the Bible. This person is using his belief that Adam didn't exist to support a synergistic view of scripture. Is that an argument you want someone to make for synergistic salvation? Just curious.

 

[Iosias]

Good, then please prove false the testimony of the Holy Spirit to my spirit that the canonical Scriptures are God's truth.

Proof applies to the phenomenal world, not the noumenal world.

 

[janxharris]

Proof applies to the phenomenal world, not the noumenal world.

Can I ask that this be taken to another thread?

 

[Clare73]

My belief is grounded upon evidence of the powerful witness of the Holy Spirit to my spirit
testifying that the canonical Scriptures are true.

That is not evidence: again, please demonstrate that Adam existed as an historical individual. I also believe that the canonical Scriptures are true.

It is for the Christian.

 

[Iosias]

Can I ask that this be taken to another thread?

Please.

Sure: the link is here.

 

[Clare73]

Do you agree that there is a great deal of similarity in the way that the story of Israel is presented in the Deuteronomistic History and how the story of Adam is presented in Gen. 2-3?

Nope. . .those supposed "similarities" show an ignorance of Scripture.

Israel's history as a nation can be broken down as follows:

1. Israel is “created” by God at the exodus through a cosmic battle (gods are defeated and the Red Sea is “divided”

Israel was "created" without cosmic battle at Ge 32, 42-43, not at the Exodus.

2. The Israelites are given Canaan to inhabit, a lush land flowing with milk and honey;

The Israelites had to take Canaan in bloody battle in order to inhabit it.

3. They remain in the land as long as they obey the Mosaic law;

They were not expelled from the land upon their disobedience, nor after their first warning regarding their disobedience.

4. They persist in a pattern of disobedience and are exiled to Babylon.

Israel was in violation of the covenant for at least 300 years before being exiled to Babylon.

Israel’s history parallels Adam’s drama in Genesis:

1. Adam is created in Genesis 2 after the taming of chaos in Genesis 1;

Adam did not exist prior to God's forming him from dust in Ge 2, whereas
Israel existed over 400 years before the Exodus.

2. Adam is placed in a lush garden;

Adam did not have to take the garden in bloody battle, as Israel had to take Canaan.

3. Law (not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil) is
given as a stipulation for remaining in the garden;

"Thou shalt not eat of it" was not stated as a stipulation for remaining in the garden,
but as a stipulation for retaining eternal life.

Exile from the garden was the result of his loss of eternal life, verified in his loss of physical life.

4. Adam and Eve disobey and are exiled.

Adam is exiled immediately upon disobedience, not over 400 years later, as was Israel.

Your source is ignorant of the Scriptures and handles them very loosely.

Nor do you know Scripture well enough to evaluate what he says.

I suggest you get in a good Bible study and learn the Word of God.

 

[Iosias]

Nope. . .

Would you care to explain here?

 

[Iosias]

It is for the Christian.

You're saying that the Spirit is witnessing to your spirit that your interpretation of scripture is true, that is not what Rom. 8 is about.

 

[Iosias]

Arminians who want to be faithful to scripture take note - on this thread you have an example of how far someone is willing to manipulate scripture in order to get it to fit their theological viewpoint. When someone says they don't believe Adam ever existed they are flat out saying they disagree with the Bible. This person is using his belief that Adam didn't exist to support a synergistic view of scripture. Is that an argument you want someone to make for synergistic salvation? Just curious.

I do not hold to synergistic salvation, I am a monergist through and through.

 

[AndOne]

I do not hold to synergistic salvation, I am a monergist through and through.

could have fooled me...

 

[Iosias]

Nope. . .

The irony, of course, is that in answering no to this question, you're parting way with standard Reformed teaching which teaches that the Mosaic Covenant is the republication of the Covenant of Works made with Adam as Bryan Estelle argues in his essay in The Law is not of Faith.

I have posted a new thread here.

 

[AndOne]

Can I ask that this be taken to another thread?

As much as I disagree with him - given the title of your thread I think his posts are on topic. Just my 2cents...

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Arminians who want to be faithful to scripture take note - on this thread you have an example of how far someone is willing to manipulate scripture in order to get it to fit their theological viewpoint. When someone says they don't believe Adam ever existed they are flat out saying they disagree with the Bible. This person is using his belief that Adam didn't exist to support a synergistic view of scripture. Is that an argument you want someone to make for synergistic salvation? Just curious.

Such an argument should only appeal to theistic evolutionists, of which I am most definitely not one. So even if I were an Arminian, I would find it spurious.

 

[AndOne]

Such an argument should only appeal to theistic evolutionists, of which I am most definitely not one. So even if I were an Arminian, I would find it spurious.

Yea - I'm just curious to see if one of our Arminian friends tries to call him out.

Of course that may not happen now - since he claims to be monergistic which he clearly isn't it - and which Dr. Wright (who he seems to emulate) isn't.

 

[Iosias]

Yea - I'm just curious to see if one of our Arminian friends tries to call him out.

Of course that may not happen now - since he claims to be monergistic which he clearly isn't it - and which Dr. Wright (who he seems to emulate) isn't.

Actually, if you really want a handle on my thinking try Paul Tillich and John Macquarrie.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

My belief is grounded upon both literary and scientific evidence.

No your belief is grounded upon the presupposition that secular mainstream science theories are more authoritative than Scripture, yes more since your interpretation is shaped by a particular view of origins according to men.

 

[Iosias]

No your belief is grounded upon the presupposition that secular mainstream science theories are more authoritative than Scripture, yes more since your interpretation is shaped by a particular view of origins according to men.

The work of Francis Collins has demonstrated that extant genetic variation could not stem from two original individuals. Moreover, the nature of the text itself mitigates our interpreting it literally. So my interpretation of scripture is based upon the historical critical method and the recognition that God's natural revelation can aid our understanding of his special revelation. Your interpretation of scripture is grounded on pre-critical exegesis and holds that when God's natural revelation contradicts his special revelation we must prefer the latter.

 

[AndOne]

Actually, if you really want a handle on my thinking try Paul Tillich and John Macquarrie.

Okay thanks - I know Tillich but will look into Macquarrie sometime...

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

The work of Francis Collins has demonstrated that extant genetic variation could not stem from two original individuals. Moreover, the nature of the text itself mitigates our interpreting it literally. So my interpretation of scripture is based upon the historical critical method and the recognition that God's natural revelation can aid our understanding of his special revelation. Your interpretation of scripture is grounded on pre-critical exegesis and holds that when God's natural revelation contradicts his special revelation we must prefer the latter.

Francis who? Did Mr Collins figure out how partially developed organs (like the heart) could function for millions of years in that condition? Anyway, I would agree the Creation account is an historical narrative, rather than Hebrew poetry. I do not believe there is contradiction between natural and special revelation (that would be your position), the problem there is interpretation of said natural revelation, where you fit special revelation into a natural revelatory box.