God's forknowledge and predistinaiton

[BNR32FAN]

Adam was created in the image of God (Gen 1:26). However, the image that Adam passed on to his offspring was not an image of God "but after his image" (Gen 5:3). So Adam did not pass on the same image he received at creation.

God said this about men after the fall.

“Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭9‬:‭6‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

And James had this to say

“But no one can tame the tongue; it is a restless evil and full of deadly poison. With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God;”
‭‭James‬ ‭3‬:‭8‬-‭9‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

 

[Paleouss]

God said this about men after the fall.

“Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭9‬:‭6‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

And James had this to say

“But no one can tame the tongue; it is a restless evil and full of deadly poison. With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God;”
‭‭James‬ ‭3‬:‭8‬-‭9‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

So how do you think this counters "the image that Adam passed on to his offspring was not an image of God "but after his image" (Gen 5:3).

 

[BNR32FAN]

It would seem that the burden of proof is on you to show it is not "one man's disobedience" since Rom 5:19 states..."For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners". It doesn't say by one man's character trait or dispotion. As I have stated in the other post, this disobedience was one of sin. Sin is the cause of the sin nature. It infects and currupts the nature.

Now, if you do not hold to an inerrancy of scripture. Then I suppose you can claim anything you want. But if your position is not one of an inerrancy of scripture than this debate is pointless. Because your truth can be whatever you say it is and mine whatever I say it is.


I would agree that the nature is passed on and not the act. But that just ignores what I said. The act of disobedience was one of sin and sin currupted the nature that Adam was created in. This nature that Adam was created in can also be contrasted with the image of Adam before the fall and then the image Adam passed on to his offspring after the fall. Before the fall, Adam was created in the image of God (Gen 1:26). However, the image that Adam passed on to his offspring was not an image of God "but after his image" (Gen 5:3). So Adam did not pass on the same image he received at creation.


I never speculated that Adam had a "perfect nature" before the fall. I asserted that Adam had a sinless nature. I am contrasting a sinless nature vs a sinful nature.

Your substitution of the word "perfect" suggest you would like this debate to revolve around perfection. Although Adam was perfect in so far as he was created in a sinless state, he was far from divine perfection.

How about my presentation of the image of Adam being passed on to his offspring and not the image of God? It seems clear that Adam's image was not the same when he passed it on. Why was his image not the same?

No offense friend but I feel like you’re not being consistent in your argument. For example you say that Adam couldn’t have had a sinful nature because he was made in the image of God but then you say that he didn’t have a perfect nature. So I feel like your trying to imply perfection because he was made in the image of God in that part of the argument but then when you switch topics to Adam’s imperfection before the fall now all the sudden him being made in the image of God isn’t being taken into consideration, at least not in the same manner it was when you were actually discussing him being made in God’s image. The scriptures refer to many people after Adam being made in God’s image and that term is not exactly defined on what exactly it means. Nowhere is it even implied that people made in God’s image don’t have a sinful nature. To say that this is what the term means is quite a stretch with no actual biblical evidence to support it.

 

[BNR32FAN]

So how do you think this counters "the image that Adam passed on to his offspring was not an image of God "but after his image" (Gen 5:3).

Likeness can mean a lot of things. Was James referring to people made in the image of God before the fall in his statement? No, obviously not only was Adam made in the image of God but all mankind is made in His image.

 

[Paleouss]

No offense friend but I feel like you’re not being consistent in your argument.

I oppologize if I am being inconsistent.

For example you say that Adam couldn’t have had a sinful nature because he was made in the image of God

An image is not the exact replication of the source. God is perfection, there is none other. Adam had a sinless nature.

but then you say that he didn’t have a perfect nature

I don't know what a perfect nature is (regarding mankind) unless one uses the term perfect nature as being synonymous with sinless nature. But to me the two don't mean the same and I would never use them as being the same. I can see how you hold the position you do by holding the definition of perfect nature as sinless nature. Because from perfection comes....perfection. But nobody I know holds that Adam had a perfect nature before the fall. They might hold he has a sinless nature. So when you use it as an arguement it seems more like a strawman.

So I feel like your trying to imply perfection because he was made in the image of God in that part of the argument

No, I'm not trying to emply perfection by presenting the image of God at creation. Because I hold that Adam had a sinless nature. I was trying to show that there was a change from his image at creation to the image he passed on. This change is caused by the corrupting sin. That one sin, corrupting the whole nature.

Nowhere is it even implied that people made in God’s image don’t have a sinful nature.

I'm presuming you mean that "Nowhere is it even implied that [Adam], made in God's image, [doesn't] have a sinful nature." This is logic by negative inference. So I won't say any more about it.


May God do a fruitful work through you

 

[BNR32FAN]

Regardless, or irregardless, Adam, before he sinned, was entirely different - (pure, holy, literally sinless) than any of us alive today are before we are regenerate in Christ Jesus.
Specifically, nothing anywhere in Scripture ever indicates, states, nor proposes that Adam as Created by Yahweh had a sinful nature. (notwithstanding someone could choose an out-of-ordinary definition of sinful nature to "make" Adam as if had a sinful nature by a non-biblical definition, to support a non-biblical approach and doctrine) .

Welcome back to the discussion I’m still hoping you’ll post exactly what verse I’m contradicting since that was your accusation against me. The last time you were in the discussion I asked you for this evidence and you just disappeared.

I've become aware that some religions have stipulations/ clauses/ conditions that
fall apart when it is realized that Adam and Chavah when created did not have a sinful nature.
Instead of accepting the truth about this, adherents to those anti-Scripture religions instead defend the indefensible idea that Adam had a sinful nature to start with.
This is basically insoluble on this forum, as long as religious ideas contrary to Scripture are allowed to go on and on and on without stop.

And on top of that I don’t teach “absolutism”. If you’re going to make accusations against people you should at least provide evidence to support your accusations.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Regardless, or irregardless, Adam, before he sinned, was entirely different - (pure, holy, literally sinless) than any of us alive today are before we are regenerate in Christ Jesus.

And this is just pulled out of thin air. Where is the scripture to support this statement? I keep asking for it but no one can seem to produce anything from the scriptures on this subject. The reason people believe this is because some men in the 16th century said so. When it comes to learning what the early church taught I’ll take the interpretation of a writer from 170AD who is venerated in every single church that was established by the apostles over the interpretation of 16th century writers that were rejected by every single church established by the apostles.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I have no idea yet for sure what you do teach, other than continuing in error -
absolutism was the only thing I found searching that was a reason to think at all that Adam had an evil nature before he sinned.
No other group ever teaches or taught that ,
as far as could be found on the internet at least.
It is strange fire, a strange teaching, unknown why.

Did you read what Iranaeus wrote in 170AD? I quoted it to you and quoted it a second time in this thread. Iranaeus’ writings are accepted as truth by all of the apostolic churches. This is not coming from my own personal theology it was taught in the early second century of the church.

 

[Berserk]

The so-called Fall is better understood as a myth of the birth of conscience. Why?
God was pleased by Adam and Eve's disobedience for 2 reasons:
(1) Their disobedience made them "godlike" (3:22) and thus helped them fulfill their status as creatures in God's
"image and likeness (1:27-28)."
(2) Only when they become godlike in this sense do they "come to know good from evil (3:22)."
Both outcomes are morally preferable to their primordial innocence. So disobedience was always part of the divine plan to make it clear that we must come to God for mercy on the basis of grace:

"God HAS LOCKED us all in disobedience so that He might have mercy on all of us (Romans 11:32).

Why a myth?
(1) Because it's absurd to believe that snakes crawl only because a talking snake once said the wrong thing (3:14).
(2) Because it's absurd to believe that God created vegetation on Earth before there was a sun (1:11)

 

[Billy Evmur]

The answer to that is what you call good and what God calls good, are you as wise as God to tell what good is and what is evil?

Jesus pulled a man up for calling Him good "none is good but God only" and addressing His disciples He said "if ye then being evil know how to give good gifts ...."

The righteous one in the bible is the one who comes to God through the blood sacrifice. And he doesn't come as good or righteous but as a sinner.

But of Adam God said he was good.

 

[Billy Evmur]

The answer to that is what you call good and what God calls good, are you as wise as God to tell what good is and what is evil?

Jesus pulled a man up for calling Him good "none is good but God only" and addressing His disciples He said "if ye then being evil know how to give good gifts ...."

The righteous one in the bible is the one who comes to God through the blood sacrifice. And he doesn't come as good or righteous but as a sinner.

No David said in sin MY MOTHER CONCEIVED me. He was talking about his conception. Did he sin as an embryo or a sperm cell?

“Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.”
‭‭Psalms‬ ‭51‬:‭5‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

He had a sin nature ... the image of Adam after he fell.

 

[BNR32FAN]

He had a sin nature ... the image of Adam after he fell.

Yes I completely agree but he had not sinned yet. Most people here say he was already guilty of sin while he was still in the womb which is not what the passage says.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Do you mean that you believe this? (that you posted) :
"I agree with Iranaeus that God made man understanding both good and evil"

But you don’t agree that there was no change in his nature. Iranaeus isn’t just writing about Adam but all mankind. According to Iranaeus all mankind was given the same knowledge and the same ability to either choose to do good or evil. Adam was no different than we are today.

 

[BNR32FAN]

That explains why being wrong is believed right. Trusting the wrong source(s).

So the churches that were established by the apostles got it wrong until 1500 years later when John Calvin finally came along to set everyone straight? John Calvin knew more about how the scriptures were intended to be interpreted than the men who actually followed the apostles for decades? The apostolic churches failed for the first 1500 years of Christianity and Jesus’ plan to establish the church failed for the first 1500 years? The church of God was completely absent from the earth for 1500 years? Is that what your saying?

 

[Billy Evmur]

Yes I completely agree but he had not sinned yet. Most people here say he was already guilty of sin while he was still in the womb which is not what the passage says.

You don't believe you are guilty of Adam's sin? you were in Adam, you were part of that rush of blood when he sinned.

.... you would have done as he did.

 

[BNR32FAN]

You don't believe you are guilty of Adam's sin? you were in Adam, you were part of that rush of blood when he sinned.

.... you would have done as he did.

Ezekiel 18 makes it abundantly clear that neither guilt of sin nor punishment of sin is hereditary, passed on to offspring, or imputed to anyone other than the offender.

“Behold, all souls are Mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine. The soul who sins will die. “But if a man is righteous and practices justice and righteousness, and does not eat at the mountain shrines or lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, or defile his neighbor’s wife or approach a woman during her menstrual period— if a man does not oppress anyone, but restores to the debtor his pledge, does not commit robbery, but gives his bread to the hungry and covers the naked with clothing, if he does not lend money on interest or take increase, if he keeps his hand from iniquity and executes true justice between man and man, if he walks in My statutes and My ordinances so as to deal faithfully—he is righteous and will surely live,” declares the Lord God. “Then he may have a violent son who sheds blood and who does any of these things to a brother (though he himself did not do any of these things), that is, he even eats at the mountain shrines, and defiles his neighbor’s wife, oppresses the poor and needy, commits robbery, does not restore a pledge, but lifts up his eyes to the idols and commits abomination, he lends money on interest and takes increase; will he live? He will not live! He has committed all these abominations, he will surely be put to death; his blood will be on his own head. “Now behold, he has a son who has observed all his father’s sins which he committed, and observing does not do likewise. He does not eat at the mountain shrines or lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, or defile his neighbor’s wife, or oppress anyone, or retain a pledge, or commit robbery, but he gives his bread to the hungry and covers the naked with clothing, he keeps his hand from the poor, does not take interest or increase, but executes My ordinances, and walks in My statutes; he will not die for his father’s iniquity, he will surely live. As for his father, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was not good among his people, behold, he will die for his iniquity. “Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity?’ When the son has practiced justice and righteousness and has observed all My statutes and done them, he shall surely live. The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.”
‭‭Ezekiel‬ ‭18‬:‭4‬-‭20‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

In this passage God says that if a righteous father has a wicked son the wicked son will die and if that wicked son has a righteous son the wicked son will die but his righteous son will not. The righteous son will not inherit the punishment of the wicked father so evidently that righteous son doesn’t inherit the guilt of his wicked father. So both guilt and punishment of sin is not hereditary, it is not passed on to offspring, and is not imputed to anyone other than the offender.

 

[BNR32FAN]

You don't believe you are guilty of Adam's sin? you were in Adam, you were part of that rush of blood when he sinned.

.... you would have done as he did.

Yeah according to that logic Jesus was also in there since He is also a descendant of Adam.

 

[biblelesson]

Adam did not know sin. There would have been no way for Adam to sin unless sin was introduced to him. If sin had not been introduced, the human race would not have known sin because man would not have had the knowledge of sin.

Prior to Satan introducing sin to Adam, he could not have possessed sin. Satan was the only one who could have introduced sin to Adam.

Adam didn’t even have knowledge of good. He was to simply obey God. Adam was to eat from the Tree of Life to be changed from flesh to a spiritual being - a god, Psalms 82:6-7 KJV, John 10:34 KJV. It was Satan who introduced him to good and evil, by tricking Eve to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of good and evil.

Only after Adam ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of good and Evil did his nature become corrupt. God’s plan was then interrupted - man who had become corrupted through Adam’s sin, could not eat from the Tree of Life and live forever - to become a god, and he had to be put out of the garden, Genesis 3:22 KJV.

If Adam, who had become corrupted, had eaten from the Tree of Life, there would have been impure corrupted beings living forever. Therefore God “placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life,” Genesis 3:24 KJV

This is where we fell from - from becoming gods, God’s children. Through Christ, we are being redeemed back to God’s original plan that started in the garden.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Adam did not know sin. There would have been no way for Adam to sin unless sin was introduced to him.

Adam did not “know” sin just like Joseph didn’t “know” Mary until after Jesus was born. It doesn’t mean he was incapable of doing it, it just means he had not experienced it yet.

Also Adam’s sin didn’t interrupt God’s plan because it was God’s plan that Adam would eat from the tree of knowledge from the beginning. Why place a tree in the garden that served no purpose and tell Adam not to eat it? The fall was always part of the plan because man was always destined to fail because of his free will. Because of this the plan for salvation was formulated from the very beginning.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Prior to Satan introducing sin to Adam, he could not have possessed sin. Satan was the only one who could have introduced sin to Adam.

This is purely speculation. You can’t formulate a doctrine based on speculation. There is no evidence to support the idea that Adam was any different than us before the fall. A newborn baby doesn’t know sin either, not until he commits it.