DO We Have Free Will?

[Shiloh1-49-10]

What I am initially trying to establish is sinning does not “require” any different nature than Adam and Eve had prior to their sinning, since Adam and Eve sinned without a sinful nature.

Established. No argument there. What I'm trying to establish is that A & E were really the only two who had a true choice, by nature. Could have chosen the one or the other. You and I were skewed to the left from birth (make that conception).

The Bible does not say we have any greater “disposition toward sinning” then Adam and Eve had. God does not say: “yours and your decedent’s nature would change.

A & E were not 'sinless' in the garden; they were innocent, not knowing good and evil. Disobeying God made them "sinners". Result? Everlasting life was forfeited. They would "return unto the ground". I would call that a change in nature...from one that would live continuously to one now subject to death. And to show that you and I 'inherited' that same nature all we need realize is we are subject to death as well. The wages of SIN is death.


Christ certainly did not have this “sinful nature”.
Amen. He was conceived of the Holy Ghost. He (speaking of Him as a man) had God's nature in a human body (A body hast Thou prepared Me"..."born of woman").



How would it be fair and just for some humans to be born without this sinful nature (Adam and Eve) and others born with this sinful nature? (Can we get away with blaming Adam and Eve for part of our problem?)

All human beings are born with this problem of a fallen nature [A & E were not born, both were created, one from dust, the other from Dust's rib]. Do you understand the dual aspect of Reconciliation? One aspect answers the "blame" associated with Adam's fall.

You said: “He must give that creature the capacity to obey/disobey Him in and of himself; otherwise there could be no such true fellowship”, so was Adam and Eve regenerated people?

Not before the fall. They were Innocent then. The fact that God gave them coats of skins (suggesting death and sacrifice) tells me they were regenerate upon leaving the garden. [But they still had the sentence of Death upon them and, yes, they probably sinned afterwards as well.]

As we mature and become more aware of all we have been forgiven and the huge debt that had to be paid, will we not come to Love all the more? The problem I see coming with blaming our sins in part or totally on the sinful “nature” we inherited form Adam and Eve, so who can really blame us for creating a huge debt of sin, the debt really lies with our ancestors.

No, I have already commented that being forgiven much will not necessarily result in loving much, nor will a multitude of sins result in a person's turning to Christ more so than some little old lady who thinks she sinned by eating meat on Friday. Also, neither is it true that any will be judged or punished for Adam's sin. Nor can we blame ours sins on Adam's fall...those are all ours.

 

[simonthezealot]

By the time Augustine got to share his errors the Church was so far off from the Word of God that very little was in order any more.

So now you're agreeing that it wasn't 1500 years before this as you call it non-sense was preached... LOL does that mean your going to go back and delete your pointless point?
~~~~~~~~~
What's even more hilarious is that it traces back further to Clement of Alexandria in 150-220
Therefore in substance and idea, in origin, in pre-eminence, we say that the ancient and Catholic(Universal) Church is alone, collecting as it does into the unity of the one faith—which results from the peculiar Testaments, or rather the one Testament in different times by the will of the one God, through one Lord—those already ordained, whom God predestinated, knowing before the foundation of the world that they would be righteous.

 

[Giver]

So now you're agreeing that it wasn't 1500 years before this as you call it non-sense was preached... LOL does that mean your going to go back and delete your pointless point?
~~~~~~~~~
What's even more hilarious is that it traces back further to Clement of Alexandria in 150-220
Therefore in substance and idea, in origin, in pre-eminence, we say that the ancient and Catholic(Universal) Church is alone, collecting as it does into the unity of the one faith—which results from the peculiar Testaments, or rather the one Testament in different times by the will of the one God, through one Lord—those already ordained, whom God predestinated, knowing before the foundation of the world that they would be righteous.

There is a big difference between God knowing who will be with him and us knowing.

The only way we can know if he or she is going to be in the kingdom of God is if Jesus tells us, or we can see we will be because the Holy Spirit/Jesus is personally leading us to live a righteous life.

A sinner will never enter the kingdom of God.

 

[simonthezealot]

There is a big difference between God knowing who will be with him and us knowing.

The only way we can know if he or she is going to be in the kingdom of God is if Jesus tells us, or we can see we will be because the Holy Spirit/Jesus is personally leading us to live a righteous life.

A sinner will never enter the kingdom of God.

Okay so you don't comprehend Calvin's view but your quick to criticize the "doctrines of grace"

 

[Giver]

Okay so you don't comprehend Calvin's view but your quick to criticize the "doctrines of grace"

Who doctrine of grace, and taught by whom?

I understand Calvin"s view, and he was wrong. I know he was wrong because Jesus told me he was wrong. Also Jesus taught me about God, and Calvin’s teachings are nowhere close to the truth Jesus has taught to me.

 

[simonthezealot]

Who doctrine of grace, and taught by whom?

I understand Calvin"s view, and he was wrong. I know he was wrong because Jesus told me he was wrong. Also Jesus taught me about God, and Calvin’s teachings are nowhere close to the truth Jesus has taught to me.

So you were given a revelation that denies the truth of scripture, a truth that was taught from the earliest times..And you claim this came from~ THE CHRIST?

 

[bling]

Established. No argument there. What I'm trying to establish is that A & E were really the only two who had a true choice, by nature. Could have chosen the one or the other. You and I were skewed to the left from birth (make that conception).

First off: You cannot establish from scripture “A & E were really the only two who had a true choice”, since can easily be assumed: “they would sin under our condition and we would sin under their condition”. If A&E would sin under my condition, how can we assume I am “skewed to the left” more than they were?

Given God’s nature of fair and just; how could He make people unequal in nature if God can make them equal?

A & E were not 'sinless' in the garden; they were innocent, not knowing good and evil. Disobeying God made them "sinners". Result? Everlasting life was forfeited. They would "return unto the ground". I would call that a change in nature...from one that would live continuously to one now subject to death. And to show that you and I 'inherited' that same nature all we need realize is we are subject to death as well. The wages of SIN is death.

If a person has no sin why are they not “sinless” at that point?

Was “everlasting life forfeited” or was it forfeit only on earth?

Adam and Eve prior to sinning had not eaten from the tree of life, so at that point they would not live forever, so did they change internally with leaving? From what was said after they sinned; Adam and Eve could have eaten of the tree of life the same way they could have before sinning and lived forever?

We are not talking about the results of sinning since they are the same for both Adam and Eve and us, but our nature (predisposition) being changed by Adam and Eve’s sinning. There are lots of changes taking place, but we cannot place any of the blame for our sinning on Adam and Eve.

Amen. He was conceived of the Holy Ghost. He (speaking of Him as a man) had God's nature in a human body (A body hast Thou prepared Me"..."born of woman").

Do women not carry the same DNA as men, since women sin also?

All human beings are born with this problem of a fallen nature [A & E were not born, both were created, one from dust, the other from Dust's rib]. Do you understand the dual aspect of Reconciliation? One aspect answers the "blame" associated with Adam's fall.

This “problem of a fallen nature” is an assumption on your part, but there is a huge change as the result of Adam and Eve sinning, but is that change a help to those that are willing to allow the change to soften their heart?

Not before the fall. They were Innocent then. The fact that God gave them coats of skins (suggesting death and sacrifice) tells me they were regenerate upon leaving the garden. [But they still had the sentence of Death upon them and, yes, they probably sinned afterwards as well.]

If God could give Adam and Eve free will then why would you have a problem with God giving all humans free will (the ability to make a moral decision they are personally responsible for making)?

No, I have already commented that being forgiven much will not necessarily result in loving much, nor will a multitude of sins result in a person's turning to Christ more so than some little old lady who thinks she sinned by eating meat on Friday. Also, neither is it true that any will be judged or punished for Adam's sin. Nor can we blame ours sins on Adam's fall...those are all ours.

You say: “…being forgiven much will not necessarily result in loving much…”, but is the opposite not being taught by Jesus (Luke 7: 36-50) and is that not what you have experienced in real life? I know people that were sincerely forgiven by others and did not accept that forgiveness as the pure charity that was offered them and thus go on not “Loving”, but that is because the transaction of forgiveness was not completed.


Again who are these people that are not being forgiven “much” by God? How significant is just one sin? If one sin creates such a huge debt that Christ has to go to the cross, what does it matter how many “sins” a nonbeliever does before becoming a believer?

 

[Giver]

So you were given a revelation that denies the truth of scripture, a truth that was taught from the earliest times..And you claim this came from~ THE CHRIST?

No not denying the truth. Just sharing what Jesus personally taught me, and my teaching will stand up to the written Word of God.

How anyone can believe that a person such as Calvin could have discovered the truth after hundreds of years hundreds of years of Christian teaching is beyond me.

The only way one can come to the truth is to have God teach him or her. Following man’s teaching about God, will lead to death.

(1 John 2:27) “But you have not lost the anointing that he gave you, and you do not need anyone to teach you, the anointing he gave teaches you everything; you are anointed with truth, not a lie, and as it has taught you, so you must stay in him.”


My job is to give a word, and it is not my job to try and convince anyone. I have given you a word, and you can do what you want with that word. I have done what was required of me to do for you.

 

[Hawisher]

The problem I have with Calvinism is that quantum mechanics introduce an uncertainty that, although it has been used primarily to support the probabilistic worldview, could very well be used to support the idea of free will and is at the very least a severe blow to determinism.

 

[Shiloh1-49-10]

A sinner will never enter the kingdom of God.

On the contrary, the Kingdom of God will be composed only of sinners, the King excepted, of course.

 

[Giver]

On the contrary, the Kingdom of God will be composed only of sinners, the King excepted, of course.

People should be warned that your opinion does not carry much weight.

(1 Corinthians 6:9-19) “You know perfectly well that people who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God: people of immoral lives, idolaters, adulterers, catamites, sodomites, thieves, usurers, drunkards, slanders and swindlers will never inherit the kingdom of God.”

(1 John 3:8) “He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work”

(Matthew 7:21-23) “It is not those who say to me, ‘Lord, Lord’, who will enter the kingdom of Heaven but the person who does the will of My Father in Heaven. When the day comes many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, cast out demons in your name, work many miracles in your name?’ Then I shall tell them to their faces: I have never known you; away from me, you evil men

 

[Shiloh1-49-10]

The problem I have with Calvinism is that quantum mechanics introduce an uncertainty that, although it has been used primarily to support the probabilistic worldview, could very well be used to support the idea of free will and is at the very least a severe blow to determinism.

Hi Hawisher. I see your mood is "angry" but I doubt if you're really serious about that. Should you be, however, this might make you angrier...but it's not my intention.

"quantum mechanics"..."probabilistic worldview"..."determinism"...?? many of us who read these entries have trouble understanding some of the terms and language used...been meaning to make a comment on earlier blogs (not yours) but didn't. Doing so now. I'm reminded of something I read many years ago...it stayed with me...about someone passing on news about an addition to their family. The announcement went like this:

"Our feline, Bertha, gave birth to offspring, sixtuple in number, three of the masculine persuasion, and an identical number of the distaff side".

They could simply have said, "Our cat had six kittens, three males and three females". And all would have known.

So, what did you say your problem with Calvinism is?

 

[Shiloh1-49-10]

People should be warned that your opinion does not carry much weight.

(1 Corinthians 6:9-19) “You know perfectly well that people who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God: people of immoral lives, idolaters, adulterers, catamites, sodomites, thieves, usurers, drunkards, slanders and swindlers will never inherit the kingdom of God.”

(1 John 3:8) “He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work”

(Matthew 7:21-23) “It is not those who say to me, ‘Lord, Lord’, who will enter the kingdom of Heaven but the person who does the will of My Father in Heaven. When the day comes many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, cast out demons in your name, work many miracles in your name?’ Then I shall tell them to their faces: I have never known you; away from me, you evil men

OUCH!! Well, I guess they're warned now!

Sorry, Giver. I was speaking with tongue in cheek. Didn't mean to give offence. I agree with every quote you make above.

Here's what I could have said. We're all sinners..."All have sinned"...you know the verse. Saved sinners will dwell eternally in God's presence; lost sinners will spend eternity elsewhere. The only difference in the two groups of 'sinners' is that the former has their sins washed in the blood of the Lamb; the latter does not.

1 Cor. 6:11. "And such [fornicators, idolaters, effeminate,abusers of themselves with mankind, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, extortioners] were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God".

 

[Tangible]

Thanks Tangible.
I agree with much of this except for the duo nature part.
We have one nature now, because we're a new creation.
But we DO sometimes act outside OF our nature perhaps...

But we have one nature.
(Obviously that's my view)

Rom 7:18For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 19For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 21So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. 22For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, 23but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. 24Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

Two natures seems pretty much a slam dunk in this passage. And it makes other passages much easier to understand.

 

[Shiloh1-49-10]

First off: Given God’s nature of fair and just; how could He make people unequal in nature if God can make them equal?

God did not make people unequal. Adam & Eve came fresh from the Potter's hand; they were perfect as to moral condition ("in Our image") not knowing good or evil but having the capacity (and the perrogative) to choose either. Temptation came and they yielded. They became "skewed to the left", as I so rakishly put it, and thus you and I, still "in the loins of Adam" were skewed right along with him. It's not "us and them", it's just "us"...human kind.

If a person has no sin why are they not “sinless” at that point?
"Sinless" gives the thought that there was knowledge of sin, but no commission of it. Innocence would give the thought of not knowing it existed (which it didn't in that creation at that moment...though that 'shining one' that came into the garden had already fallen from grace, apparently; otherwise, he could not entice Adam & Eve to do the same).

Was “everlasting life forfeited” or was it forfeited only on earth?
God meant for man to live "everlastingly" on the earth in the state in which He created man. Man's sin caused him to forfeit that..."dying thou shalt die". [However, Reconciliation by God through Christ has opened the way for man to "return to Paradise", one might say, and, yes, man will live everlastingly on the 'New Earth'; this old will be destroyed].

Adam and Eve prior to sinning had not eaten from the tree of life, so at that point they would not live forever, so did they change internally with leaving?

They did not need to eat the 'tree of life' to live forever. Death came only as the result of sin; therefore, had they not sinned, they would have gone on living forever. They changed interally by sinning.

From what was said after they sinned; Adam and Eve could have eaten of the tree of life the same way they could have before sinning and lived forever?
They had to leave because of sin and the way barred to the 'tree of life'...lest having access to it they would partake of it and go on living [by the way, I do not believe that it was the 'one bite' that would have caused them to live forever...but that's another topic].

Do women not carry the same DNA as men, since women sin also?
Yes, of course. Your unspoken question here is: Why did Christ not have a fallen 'sin' nature since He was born of woman? Holy Ground here and I do not pretend to know the answer. Just that scripture says He was conceived of the Holy Ghost. I can only surmise that "a body hast Thou prepared Me" could only come the same way you and I got ours, by growing in the womb of 'woman'. This is astounding. He could have taken the form of a man as He did when appearing to Abraham but God the Son was made a man, in the normal way one might say, and thus He remains a man to this day. There's "one of us" in Glory as we speak (I mean as a whole person).

This “problem of a fallen nature” is an assumption on your part, but there is a huge change as the result of Adam and Eve sinning, but is that change a help to those that are willing to allow the change to soften their heart?

No, it's no help, just a hindrance. The Psalmist could say, "Create in me a pure heart, O Lord". The only way to do so would be a change of natures. We have Adam's nature now (by birth); we need Christ's nature (by re-birth). Sinning is contrary to achieving that. Repentance of sins is the only way. "If we confess ours sins He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins", John wrote.

If God could give Adam and Eve free will then why would you have a problem with God giving all humans free will (the ability to make a moral decision they are personally responsible for making)?

My point is that God gave all humans free will when He created our first parents. The principle is the same as is found in Hebrews when Paul is explaining the superiority of the Melchisidec priesthood over the Aaronic or Levitical priesthood. Where's the proof that the former is greater than the latter? He says this: "Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him". [Heb.7]. Levi was not born till some 400+ years after Abraham yet he is seen as "in the loins of his father", Abraham. Same for you and I and all mankind. We were "in Adam". And when he fell, and forfeited 'free will' and everlasting life, so did we.

You say: “…being forgiven much will not necessarily result in loving much…”, but is the opposite not being taught by Jesus (Luke 7: 36-50) and is that not what you have experienced in real life?

My point is that it is not always the case and you cannot build a doctrine upon a point made by one parable.

Again who are these people that are not being forgiven “much” by God? How significant is just one sin? If one sin creates such a huge debt that Christ has to go to the cross, what does it matter how many “sins” a nonbeliever does before becoming a believer?

There are those who think themselves 'small' sinners compared with Bundy, say, or some other fiend...see, even I make distinctions, and I know the difference. But then there's the 'many stripes' and 'few stripes' allusion...but let's not digress.

 

[bling]

God did not make people unequal. Adam & Eve came fresh from the Potter's hand; they were perfect as to moral condition ("in Our image") not knowing good or evil but having the capacity (and the perrogative) to choose either. Temptation came and they yielded. They became "skewed to the left", as I so rakishly put it, and thus you and I, still "in the loins of Adam" were skewed right along with him. It's not "us and them", it's just "us"...human kind.

There is nothing in scripture that says we were “skewed” by what Adam and Eve did. We all gained “knowledge”, but knowledge is not a bad thing in and of itself. All the other “curses” (including the knowledge) are also not “bad” for us, since they all provide the opportunities we need to fulfill our objective.

One problem with your scenario is still the fact Adam and Eve where “initially made” spiritually superior to all other humans (except maybe Christ), when God could easily eliminate this flaw?

"Sinless" gives the thought that there was knowledge of sin, but no commission of it. Innocence would give the thought of not knowing it existed (which it didn't in that creation at that moment...though that 'shining one' that came into the garden had already fallen from grace, apparently; otherwise, he could not entice Adam & Eve to do the same).

]We do not need to play with words, I will use innocent to describe Adam and Eve for your sake.

God meant for man to live "everlastingly" on the earth in the state in which He created man. Man's sin caused him to forfeit that..."dying thou shalt die". [However, Reconciliation by God through Christ has opened the way for man to "return to Paradise", one might say, and, yes, man will live everlastingly on the 'New Earth'; this old will be destroyed].

Where do you get the idea: “God meant for man to live "everlastingly" on the earth…”?

I do not have a problem saying: “God desired man to be in a Garden type situation forever”, but I see the earthly Garden as a learning situation for both Adam and Eve and the rest of us.

They did not need to eat the 'tree of life' to live forever. Death came only as the result of sin; therefore, had they not sinned, they would have gone on living forever. They changed interally by sinning.

Interesting, I would have said Adam and Eve could have lived forever with the help of the tree of Life, but they would have had to eat from the tree of life, which seems inevitable with time. You feel they had eternal life already, so why is there any need for the tree of life in the Garden?

No, it's no help, just a hindrance. The Psalmist could say, "Create in me a pure heart, O Lord". The only way to do so would be a change of natures. We have Adam's nature now (by birth); we need Christ's nature (by re-birth). Sinning is contrary to achieving that. Repentance of sins is the only way. "If we confess ours sins He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins", John wrote.

The sinful yet God loving Psalmist is certainly pray for a pure heart to be created in him, so does that not mean he did not have a pure heart at that time?

Was the Psalmist “nature” changed before writing the Psalm, he seems to be inspired?

You say: “Sinning is contrary to achieving that”, yet with the prodigal son all his sinning got him to the point of coming to his senses (looking at where he had gotten himself to and where he was going unless he changed). The nonbeliever’s sinning will keep taking him down until he comes to his senses, but it does not mean he will change (turn to seeking God’s help).

If God could give Adam and Eve free will then why would you have a problem with God giving all humans free will (the ability to make a moral decision they are personally responsible for making)?

My point is that God gave all humans free will when He created our first parents. The principle is the same as is found in Hebrews when Paul is explaining the superiority of the Melchisidec priesthood over the Aaronic or Levitical priesthood. Where's the proof that the former is greater than the latter? He says this: "Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him". [Heb.7]. Levi was not born till some 400+ years after Abraham yet he is seen as "in the loins of his father", Abraham. Same for you and I and all mankind. We were "in Adam". And when he fell, and forfeited 'free will' and everlasting life, so did we.

I have no problem with being a child of Adam, made in the image of God and a child of God, but that does not mean inheriting some bad nature. As a child of Adam we inherited his same nature which was not said to have changed with his eating the forbidden fruit, but only knowledge changes.

You must show for your scenario to be true that Adam and Eve’s nature changed (Which God did not say would happen with eating) and not just their situation and knowledge.

My point is that it is not always the case and you cannot build a doctrine upon a point made by one parable.

Why can’t I: “build a doctrine upon a point made by one parable”, since we are talking about Deity giving the parable and it being total truth.

I also find it “always to be the case” each time, every time, all the time like all of Christ’s teaching, these are not Aesop Fables we are talking about. The time it “appears” not to work is when the transaction of forgiveness is not completed with the giver or receiver of the forgiveness (like with Matt. 18).

There are those who think themselves 'small' sinners compared with Bundy, say, or some other fiend...see, even I make distinctions, and I know the difference. But then there's the 'many stripes' and 'few stripes' allusion...but let's not digress.

Some people do not realize how much (the huge debt sin creates) they have been forgiven of, but Christ had to pay the debt for any one sin by going to the cross, so the debt of any one sin is huge, but may not be realized.

 

[Shiloh1-49-10]

There is nothing in scripture that says we were “skewed” by what Adam and Eve did. We all gained “knowledge”, but knowledge is not a bad thing in and of itself. All the other “curses” (including the knowledge) are also not “bad” for us, since they all provide the opportunities we need to fulfill our objective.

One problem with your scenario is still the fact Adam and Eve where “initially made” spiritually superior to all other humans (except maybe Christ), when God could easily eliminate this flaw?

.

Hi Bling. I thought it best to respond to this portion only of your submission though I appreciate all. We have to build upon a right foundation, for "if the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?" Ps.11:3.

Truly, Adam and Eve gained knowledge when they ate the forbidden fruit but they lost much more than they gained. Here's some things they lost as pertains to our discussion:

1. Their 'innocent' nature. Not only was there a knowledge of sin and a conscience of it (tried covering themselves), there was 'sin' itself. The knowledge came with the act...but before the act there was no concept of 'sin' (with them).

2. Thier 'everlasting' life. Remember death (not instant death but "dying thou shalt die") came in only as a result of sin. If sin never came Adam and Eve would have kept on in that state of bliss everlastingly (not the same thought as 'eternal life' but let's leave that for the moment). They would not have aged, nor would they have died.

3. Their communion with God. Before sin, God came down "in the cool of the day" and had fellowship with them both. After sin, conscience of it caused them to hide themselves 'from' God among the trees, prompting God to ask, "What hast thou done?" Sin spoiled the communion.

4. Their place in the garden. They were put forth from it so as to prevent access to the tree of life, lest they partake of it and go on living in their sinful condition...having access would have given them prolonged longevity similar to that in a coming day when the tree of life (Rev.22:1-2) together with other trees (Ezek.47:6-12) will result in the nations being healed and men living longer than Methusaleh did (Isa.65:17-25).

What does the above mean for us, you and me?

Don't simply think of God as creating Adam and Eve but the whole human race. The whole human race was "in" Adam when he was created for he came literally from His hand; and He created in them the power to reproduce themselves. And He created them (not 'gave them' as opposed to giving us) with 'free will', the abilty to choose good or evil, and this 'free will' would have been passed on to Cain, then Abel, and so on down the chain had not sin come in. The moment it came the 'innocent' nature changed, a 'sinful' nature replaced it (Romans 5 for instance), death followed together with a distancing from the creator.

So it wasn't that Adam & Eve were made "spiritually superior" than us..."in" Adam we were all the same. But their disobedience was ours in that we inherited their sinful nature. But God does not hold us responsible for Adam's transgression...but He does hold us responsible to receive the antidote for it.
Suppose for example that upon birth you 'inherited' a disease from your mother. You could argue all you like that it's not fair, you were not the one responsible, you never caused it, and so on. And if you denied it and wouldn't believe that you even had it, it wouldn't matter as to the truth of it: You would be in danger nonetheless. But what if the doctor said, "I know you didn't cause this, but it's still in your system. I have a remedy for it that will nullify its effects". Wouldn't you be responsible to receive it? And wouldn't the consequences of refusing to accept it be then rightly deserved by you?
This is exactly the situation you and I are in with respect to the inherited sinful nature of Adam and Eve. First of all, we MUST acknowledge we have it. Then we MUST accept the remedy.

 

[bling]

Truly, Adam and Eve gained knowledge when they ate the forbidden fruit but they lost much more than they gained. Here's some things they lost as pertains to our discussion:

1. Their 'innocent' nature. Not only was there a knowledge of sin and a conscience of it (tried covering themselves), there was 'sin' itself. The knowledge came with the act...but before the act there was no concept of 'sin' (with them).

I do not see that as much more then my child losing his innocence as he matures? That is part of the maturing process and I do not call it a “falling”.

2. Thier 'everlasting' life. Remember death (not instant death but "dying thou shalt die") came in only as a result of sin. If sin never came Adam and Eve would have kept on in that state of bliss everlastingly (not the same thought as 'eternal life' but let's leave that for the moment). They would not have aged, nor would they have died.

If Adam and Eve had continued to live in the Garden they would have eaten from the tree of life and with the help the tree of life provides they would have lived forever, but let’s assume what you say is true: Is eternal life as a spiritual being not even better than what Adam and Eve had in the Garden?

If our heavenly home is better than the Garden then living forever in the Garden would keep Adam and Eve from a heavenly home?

Did Adam and Eve’s curse of death eliminate them from an eternal home in heaven?

3. Their communion with God. Before sin, God came down "in the cool of the day" and had fellowship with them both. After sin, conscience of it caused them to hide themselves 'from' God among the trees, prompting God to ask, "What hast thou done?" Sin spoiled the communion.

Today, we do not commune with God by walking with Him in the “cool of the day”, but have deity living inside of us 24/7, He is fully active in everything we do that is right.

4. Their place in the garden. They were put forth from it so as to prevent access to the tree of life, lest they partake of it and go on living in their sinful condition...having access would have given them prolonged longevity similar to that in a coming day when the tree of life (Rev.22:1-2) together with other trees (Ezek.47:6-12) will result in the nations being healed and men living longer than Methusaleh did (Isa.65:17-25).

In the garden there are no limited resources, no one hurting, no death, and God is with you once a day, but those conditions were shown not to work for man to fulfill his earthly objective, while outside the garden after sinning people have fulfilled their earthly objective.

What does the above mean for us, you and me?

Don't simply think of God as creating Adam and Eve but the whole human race. The whole human race was "in" Adam when he was created for he came literally from His hand; and He created in them the power to reproduce themselves. And He created them (not 'gave them' as opposed to giving us) with 'free will', the abilty to choose good or evil, and this 'free will' would have been passed on to Cain, then Abel, and so on down the chain had not sin come in. The moment it came the 'innocent' nature changed, a 'sinful' nature replaced it (Romans 5 for instance), death followed together with a distancing from the creator.

Why could Cain not use his own free will moral choice to kill Abel?

Just because all mature adults since Adam have sinned does not proof their nature has changed from Adam prior to him sinning, since Adam also sinned.

Gen. 9: 6 “Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man.” The Bible is teaching us “man” even after Adam is made in the Image of God.

God did not say “I am making all of mankind”, when God made Adam. Is God not still capable of making humans without Adam’s help? (Deity raised from the dead people.)

So it wasn't that Adam & Eve were made "spiritually superior" than us..."in" Adam we were all the same. But their disobedience was ours in that we inherited their sinful nature. But God does not hold us responsible for Adam's transgression...but He does hold us responsible to receive the antidote for it.
Suppose for example that upon birth you 'inherited' a disease from your mother. You could argue all you like that it's not fair, you were not the one responsible, you never caused it, and so on. And if you denied it and wouldn't believe that you even had it, it wouldn't matter as to the truth of it: You would be in danger nonetheless. But what if the doctor said, "I know you didn't cause this, but it's still in your system. I have a remedy for it that will nullify its effects". Wouldn't you be responsible to receive it? And wouldn't the consequences of refusing to accept it be then rightly deserved by you?
This is exactly the situation you and I are in with respect to the inherited sinful nature of Adam and Eve. First of all, we MUST acknowledge we have it. Then we MUST accept the remedy.

[/QUOTE]
Let us look at your “first of all”, are we using our own free will to decide to accept or reject this “remedy”?

We do have a problem at birth and it is the same problem Adam and Eve had, and it is a problem of human nature, but Adam and Eve had that same problem before they sinned.

Adam and Eve were made “very good” and by God’s standard that would be as good as they could be made, but that does not mean perfect (Jesus is perfect, but Jesus is not a created being).

Adam and Eve lack what all babies lack at birth, since there are things God just cannot do (like make beings that have always existed [Christ like]).

If we are accepting or rejecting a solution to Adam’s problem that still lingers with us, that is not the same as accepting or rejecting the solution to a problem of our own creation.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

DO We Have Free Will?

Is it God's will for me to sin?
Do I sin.

I'm looking for Scripture., but more than that, I'm looking for the Scripture
to be "rightly divided" as well.

I do sometimes sin, much as I hate to, much as it makes me sad.
It makes me sad because I don't believe my Father is blessed or glorified when I sin...

Hi sunny.

Sadly, I am not knowledgable on that subject so I don't post much on it.

However, I did find an older thread on this topic and am quoting 1 post from it that appears interesting

[link courtesy of "Lamblinks"]Man there are some CF Old Timers on there!

http://www.christianforums.com/t4997203-2/#post32866858
Scriptural support for "free will"

While I am not aware of any verse in Scripture that proclaims that God gives us free will, it is heavily suggested in many, many verses. For instance, in John 3:15, we find, "That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.", which suggests that some will choose to believe in Him while others will either not choose to believe or will not respond in any way. And Paul tells us in Romans 10:13, "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." "Whosoever" denotes that some will choose to call upon Jesus while others will not.

Actually there are an incredible number of verses that seem to denote or suggest free will on the part of men. And, while others (Calvinists mostly) will declare that everything is predestined by God and therefore not any act of free will, such a postion is fraught with problems. Just look at the two verses quoted above. Does it sound like Jesus or Paul is even slightly suggesting that anything (much less everything) is predestined? Or, are they saying that men must make a choice? Besides, if there is only predestination, then why would Jesus tell us that we must do the "work" of God? (John 6:28-29) If God has already done that work, how can we do anything?

The real trouble with predestination is that it requires God to cause sinful actions as well as righteous ones. If God predestines some men for eternal salvation, then He also logically predestines others for eternal destruction. For instance Jesus tells us, "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:" Does God cause someone to kill, and someone else not to kill? And why will there even be a "judgement" if everyone is already predestined for either heaven or perdition?

Other verses that suggest free will are John 3:16, 17 & 18; Matthew 5:19; and a host of others.

God's omniscience (all-knowing quality) does not in any way declare or require His pre-ordination of certain events. That fact is well defined in the following to verses (matthew 10:32-33) "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." Certainly God already knows who will confess Him before men, and who will not. But, if that activity is already predestined by God, then isn't Jesus' declaration here wasted breath on His part? Could He have not said that certain individuals would confess Him, and other specific individuals would not? Instead He said "whosoever", which I personally interpret as leaving it as a matter of our free will whether or not we confess Him.

Matthan

 

[Giver]

Jesus personally asked me to give him my life. Jesus let it up to me to say yes or no. It was my will to say yes. Jesus did not just tell me what he wanted me to do.

Why can’t people see that letting man teach him or her about God only confuses him or her?