Who Dunit?

[CCWoody]

I don't personally think that His lack of explicit testimony as to Adam and Eve's natural, original inclination is an issue because I think He was explicit. He not only called them "good," He called them "very good."

God bless

This is really the bone of contention.

• Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good.

I think that you will have a more difficult time interpretating this verse to mean that God called them "very good." It would seem to me that a more plain interpretation of this scripture would simply be: "God saw... it very good." I think that the simple language of this chapter actually helps my case that God is here admiring his handiwork, for the glory that it does & will bring Him, rather than Him calling them "very good" as a statement to their nature.

But, even if I fully grant that in charity -- for you still have not demonstrated that God is herein making a declaration about their nature from scripture and you admit that you must assume this in the verse and let us know that you, in fact, don't have any such scripture --you still seem to have a problem. You see, I would think that you would agree with me that any kind of declaration about Adam's nature would properly be called a gift of God. And, this would prompt me to ask how you can maintain a position that this gift is somehow taken away, i.e. Adam's nature is changed, and also maintain that "the gifts and the calling of God are without repentance."

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.

P.S. I'm still insanely busy, so my presence on this thread will be limited. Still, I don't want to abandon what is really a very nice essentially Reformed discussion.

The date went well, though, 12 year olds tend to get hyper stimulated and then go into an emotional state after it is all over and they are tired. LOL! I guess that is a sign of a really good job.

 

[Reformationist]

Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good.
I think that you will have a more difficult time interpretating this verse to mean that God called them "very good." It would seem to me that a more plain interpretation of this scripture would simply be: "God saw... it very good."

So that's really a reference to God's vision, "God saw it very good?"

I think that the simple language of this chapter actually helps my case that God is here admiring his handiwork, for the glory that it does & will bring Him, rather than Him calling them "very good" as a statement to their nature.

The lexigraphical interpretation of this dictates that it [the creation] was exceedingly good. The word good (towb {tobe}) in this context can mean any of the following:

1) good, pleasant, agreeable

a) pleasant, agreeable (to the senses)

b) pleasant (to the higher nature)

c) good, excellent (of its kind)

d) good, rich, valuable in estimation

e) good, appropriate, becoming

f) better (comparative)

g) glad, happy, prosperous (of man's sensuous nature)

h) good understanding (of man's intellectual nature)

i) good, kind, benign

j) good, right (ethical)

And your contending that in this context God separated the majesty of His work of creation from the quality of the result of His divine work? Sorry bro, I'm not getting that.

But, even if I fully grant that in charity -- for you still have not demonstrated that God is herein making a declaration about their nature from scripture and you admit that you must assume this in the verse and let us know that you, in fact, don't have any such scripture --you still seem to have a problem.

I'm not making "assumptions" nor did I admit to any such thing. That is how I interpret the verse. I am a finite being. Can I tell you that there is no possibility that I'm wrong? Of course not. What I can tell you is, given that God is the sovereign playwright of His own creation, it makes perfect sense that He would create a being that is initially in full fellowship and complete harmony with His Will, something which is evident in the initial nature of man, and then, to glorify Himself, change that inclination to bring to pass man's need for redemption through the Son.

You see, I would think that you would agree with me that any kind of declaration about Adam's nature would properly be called a gift of God.

I would think God's declaration about Adam's nature a gift? I don't know what you mean. I would say that the state in which Adam was created, i.e., in full fellowship with his Creator, is a gift. I would say God's declaration of regenerate man as justified is a gift because it is that declaration, made manifest through the efficacious work of Christ, which makes that creation good. I do not think that God's declaration that Adam was "good" is God's gift to Adam. I think it's God's assessment of His creation, which is "good" by His grace.

And, this would prompt me to ask how you can maintain a position that this gift is somehow taken away, i.e. Adam's nature is changed, and also maintain that "the gifts and the calling of God are without repentance."

You've lost me. What does God's divine perrogative to change the inclination of the creation of His hands have to do with "the gifts and the calling of God" being without repentence?

P.S. I'm still insanely busy, so my presence on this thread will be limited. Still, I don't want to abandon what is really a very nice essentially Reformed discussion.

I look forward to your continued participation.

The date went well, though, 12 year olds tend to get hyper stimulated and then go into an emotional state after it is all over and they are tired. LOL! I guess that is a sign of a really good job.

Well done.

God bless

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Hi Don:

I was reading the exchange between CCWoody and Yourself, and I find it very interesting. I am particularly interested in your question of how Adam and Eve could be changed into rebels against God if they were created to obey and desire to please Him? (paraphrased not quoted)

I don't believe that their natures had to be changed until after they ate the fruit and their eyes were opened. The serpent(Satan) could not get them to intentionally rebel against God, so he used a deception. He told Eve that she would be like God. The Bible says that she saw that the fruit was pleasing to the eye, good for food, and desirous to make one wise. It does not say that she saw God as a liar, an enemy, or overly strict. Maybe she thought that if Adam and her were like God, then they would have deeper fellowship with Him, and God would be happy.??
I know that it sounds absurd, but we should remember that Adam and Eve were naive(innocent). Maybe their natures weren't changed until after the fall, but they were deceived into rebellion unwittingly by having their desire to please God used against them.
It was after they ate the fruit that their eyes were opened, and they attempted to hide from God because they then knew their deed was evil. What do you think?

That's my speculation; I would be interested in your opinion

God Bless,

Jerome

 

[Reformationist]

Hi Don:

Hey yourself.

I was reading the exchange between CCWoody and Yourself, and I find it very interesting. I am particularly interested in your question of how Adam and Eve could be changed into rebels against God if they were created to obey and desire to please Him? (paraphrased not quoted)

Well paraphrased. I'm a bit wordy, in case you hadn't gathered that.

I don't believe that their natures had to be changed until after they ate the fruit and their eyes were opened.

The inherent problem that I see with this logic, Jerome, is that 1) it makes Adam and Eve completely innocent of any wrong doing because it would imply that they ate of the fruit for righteous reasons. And 2) it doesn't answer the question as to why they desired to disobey God in the first place. If their natures weren't changed until after they ate of the fruit what could have motivated them to disobey God in the first place. It seems to work from the standpoint that Adam and Eve were created with an equal desire to please the Lord as well as disobey Him. One of those motivations had to be stronger and if one was then it cannot have been a radom motivation. IOW, as they were born without a fallen nature they can either have only desired to please the Lord or only desired to disobey Him. There cannot have co-existed within their original nature the desire to do both. I think that directly contradicts God's assessment of them, which as I said, I think is an assessment not only of the work of His hands but of their character as well. It would make no theological or practical sense to believe that God would call Adam and Eve "very good" if he was only talking about the physical manifestation of His divine work of creation. If that were the case He would call all humans, regenerate and unregenerate, fallen and redeemed, "good" because they too, regardless of their natural disposition, would be "wonderfully created." As I said, I think that Scripture is clear that God alone is good after the Fall of man.

The serpent(Satan) could not get them to intentionally rebel against God, so he used a deception.

Again this point is made moot because we are given a direct comparison of the first Adam and the Last. Neither had fallen natures and both were tempted by satan. Temptation to sin is really no temptation at all to one who only desires, as did Adam and Eve, to obey God, at least in their originally created state. Satan, though admittedly quite powerful, is a created being and does not have the power to change the inclinations of our heart. All he can do is appeal to our already unrighteous desires.

He told Eve that she would be like God. The Bible says that she saw that the fruit was pleasing to the eye, good for food, and desirous to make one wise. It does not say that she saw God as a liar, an enemy, or overly strict. Maybe she thought that if Adam and her were like God, then they would have deeper fellowship with Him, and God would be happy.??

I have actually heard the theory before that their motivation was righteous, which is what you seem to be purporting, or at least suggesting as a possibility. Even if that were so they should have known that what may seem righteous to their finite minds cannot actually be righteous if it is a temptation to directly disobey God. Eve, nor Adam, can use the excuse, "the devil made me do it," which is a favorite of many a Christian. No, I think it was clear that they had an illegitimate desire to disobey God because they elevated their own opinion of what was best for them above what they knew God said was best for them.

I know that it sounds absurd, but we should remember that Adam and Eve were naive(innocent).

Again, God was quite clear in what they were not to do and what would happen if they did. They knew the Law. They knew God, in the personal sense, probably better than any created person ever has.

Maybe their natures weren't changed until after the fall, but they were deceived into rebellion unwittingly by having their desire to please God used against them.

Sorry bwap, I think it is treading on dangerous ground to ascribe such righteous ignorance to Adam and Eve because it denies that their very act of rebellion, if they were indeed "innocent," goes against their very nature. It is just plain incongruous to say that a being created with righteous motives, being in full fellowship with God, having been given a command to refrain from doing something can even desire to sever that relationship. It seems quite clear to me that God, according to His divine Plan, needed man to Fall from grace to bring about redemption, which is extremely glorifying to Him. He had to have brought it about by His sovereign Will or He would have just been sitting around hoping Adam and Eve made a choice that went against the very nature He, Himself, created them with.

It was after they ate the fruit that their eyes were opened, and they attempted to hide from God because they then knew their deed was evil. What do you think?

I think, by the very fact that they were in full fellowship with God, they knew full well that their actions were treasonous.

God bless,
Don

 

[boughtwithaprice]

no comment