andy153 said:
Sorry then. I don't know what you mean.
Adam was proclaimed very good after his creation. However, before Adam ate of the tree of good and evil he had no knowledge of either good or evil. Do you imply that Adam was evil before he had knowledge of evil ???.
If Adam had no knowledge of good or evil before the Fall then Adam's choice to disobey God was not a moral choice and, therefore, could not have moral ramifications. The very idea that God would hold someone, anyone, much less everyone, morally accountable for a moral choice by a creation that had no morals is not only illogical, it makes God out to be unrighteous. No andy, the very fact that God held Adam and his progeny morally accountable for Adam's choice shows that choice to be a moral one. Adam was in full fellowship with God. God is a perfectly righteous Being. It is impossible to think that Adam's relationship with God could be considered full fellowship if there were no moral aspect to their relationship.
when Adam was created he was placed into an environment without sin, Why ? so he could remain sinless. It was by deception of the serpent that Eve fell and then Adam chose to follow.
Andy, with all due respect, this does violence to Scripture and God's righteous design in creation. You claim that when Adam was created he was placed in an environment without sin for the purpose of keeping him sinless. This idea would have merit had God not put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in their midst and then told them it was off limits. It would have merit if God forbade Adam and Eve to be in the presence of the deceiving serpent. Unfortunatly for your position, neither of those things are true. God did place the tree in their midsts. God did allow them to be tempted by satan. Additionally, believing that God's intent was that man should never Fall is to deny that the Fall, one of the most influentially pivitol events in the history of creation, was part of God's divine and immutable plan. And last, but certainly not least, you are still trying to blame man's fall on satan. I agree that satan deceived them and that his deception was influential in their Fall. HOWEVER, when the Lord questioned Adam as to whether he had disobeyed and ate from the tree his response was one of shifting the blame, "The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate." So the Lord asked Eve, "What is this you have done?" Her response? Well, it's the same as yours, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate." She tried to blame her disobedience upon the temptor. If, as you contend, the serpent was solely responsible for their Fall then God would have only punished the serpent. He did not. He punished all of the parties involved (Gen 3:14-24). Likewise, when you stand before the Lord on judgement day and must make account for your disobedience you won't be able to claim that you sinned because "the devil made you do it" or because God brought you forth "in a world of sin and temptation." You'll cower before the Lord's wrath because you'll know, as did Adam and Eve, that you sinned because you desired the darkness rather than the light. Is the darkness to blame for your response to it?
This scripture proves my very point. It is the desire of the heart that gives birth to sin.
If James 1:14,15 proves your point then you're contradicting yourself. You cannot say that we sin because the desires of our heart are sinful while claiming that Adam's sin is the product of the deceit of the serpent, despite the fact that he knew no sin, nor knew what was good or evil. Andy, nothing in Scripture even comes close to implying that Adam and Eve were without knowledge of what was expected of them. Adam and Eve were not simply obeying God until they disobeyed merely because nothing else had crossed their mind. They submitted to the Lordship of God because He was their Creator and they knew His demands to be righteous.
If as you proclaim we are all sinners and sinners only by nature then Satan is redundant, there is no need for temptation.
What?? You have some of the strangest logic I've ever read. Sin isn't acknowledging the presence of something. It's the peversion of that acknowledgement. For instance, money is not evil. The love of money is evil. The tree in the Garden wasn't evil. It was Adam and Eve's response to the tree that was evil. There is no object that we would ever consider sinful that is, in itself, evil. Not money, not sex, not nudity, not anything. It is greed, extramarital intercourse, and lust that perverts these things making us guilty of sin before God.
What does Satan use to tempt us ? the things of our environment, that which pertains to this fallen world.
What did he use to tempt Christ? Oh, that's right, the things of our environment. Could Christ have blamed the environment or satan or the temptation for sinning? Of course not. The very thing that you blame as the reason for our sin is the thing that showed Christ's submission to the Father. We know that in Christ we have a Savior to whom we can relate because He was tempted in every way that we are
but was without sin. If your view held true then we must either conclude that Christ did sin, because satan
did tempt Him, or that His response to that temptation is of no consequence and, therefore, of no benefit to us. You see, the contrast between the first Adam and the Last is the way they
responded to temptation. Neither were created/born with a sinful nature.
If we lived in a sinless world what could we be tempted with ???
This is an irrelevent question and has no practical value to we who do live in a fallen world. As I said, if you think you can blame the world you live in then go for it. Just remember, we are clearly told that though we are in the world we are not of the world. What does that mean? Could it just possibly be referring to the way we respond to the things of the world? Could it just possibly deal with living as those set apart from the fallen ways of the world?
This is why we will know no sin in heaven, because sin is absent.
You see, this type of theology is what those who attack my views should be arguing against. You argue against the idea that fallen man sins because he desires sin and, as a volitional creature, always seeks that which he most desires, destroying the idea of a will that is free, yet you have no problem claiming that the reason man doesn't sin in Heaven is because there is no outlet for his evil desires. Once again you are incorrect. You are right that there will be no sin in Heaven but that is
NOT why glorified man won't sin. He won't sin because his
only desire will be to obey God and glorify Him forever.
Yes indeed sin is a matter of the heart, but the heart is capable of good as well as evil.
Gen 6:5
Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that
every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
This was the Lord's assessment of mankind after his Fall. You claim that man is capable of good as well as evil and Scripture flatly denies that fallen man ever has a righteous thought, much less a righteous action.
Romans 8:7
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God,
nor indeed can be.
Paul clearly states that man's natural proclivity is so corrupted that his nature prevents him from submitting to God's Law, yet you contend that this same carnal mind is capable of good as well as evil.
Faith in God is required for us to be obedient. Faith is a gift of God's grace to whom He dispenses as it pleases Him. Whatsoever is not from faith is sin. All of this and the Bible is clear about man's response to God and His Law:
1 Corinthians 1:18
For
the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
I won't post it but if you really want to see man's natural disposition then just read Romans 3:10-18.
It is because of temptation that man is drawn away from good and into evil.
Patently untrue and unbiblical. There are many saints in the Gospel that were tempted and often responded obediently. Look at Joseph. Aside from Christ I cannot say that the Bible speaks of one who is more unfairly afflicted than Joseph. If you are right then the temptation that Joseph experiences drew him away from God yet not only are we told that in the midst of this temptation he cleaved even closer unto God, we are not told of one single instance of sinful thought or action on Joseph's part. Now, I don't mean to contend that Joseph was without sin. That would be untrue. However, his life is a clear cut example that temptation to sin, in itself, is not capable of making us sin. We sin, as the Bible says, when we are drawn away "by our own desires" (HELLO??!! This is clearly speaking of our
RESPONSE to temptation).
Satan tried to tempt Christ with the things of this world, Jesus refused them, man does not.
And all this does is contradict everything you've said. You claim that Adam and Eve sinned because satan tempted them. Now you claim that though satan tempted Christ He didn't sin. Hmmm...where is the difference? Oh, that's right, IN THEIR RESPONSE TO THE TEMPTATION. You see andy, as I said before, it is not the world's temptation that makes us guilty before God. It is our response to the world's temptation.
If sin is overcome then this world will not be destroyed at the great and last day.
Come on. Who said the world would be destroyed in the last day? I don't even have a clue what you're talking about.
Jesus did not overcome sin, (he had no sin to overcome) as long as good exsists so to will evil.
This is very strange. The hope of Christians is that He
WHO BECAME SIN for us has prevailed and by His stripes we are reconciled to God. You, on the other hand, divorce Christ's work from sin on the basis that He was not personally liable. I agree that Christ was free from guilt but if He did not die to atone for our sin and, therefore, remove its sting, what in the world is it that He did for us?
Also, you say that "as long as good exists so too will evil." Let's see, earlier you said, "
This is why we will know no sin in heaven, because sin is absent." There are a number of theologically unsound principles expressed in your contradictory statements. Before creation, which includes satan and fallen man, God existed. God is clearly good. In fact, He is the standard of good by which all else is measured and found wanting. If you are right then before God created the angels, man and anything else, evil existed. This is nothing more than the unbiblical notion of dualism. Secondly, not only will evil exist when we are basking in the glory of God in Heaven, you contend that, by virtue of the presence of good, it must exist. Don't have a clue where you ever got that idea. God's existence, and therefore, the existence of good Itself is neither derived nor dependent upon the existence of evil.
When all is resolved good will be in heaven and sin will be in hell, in seperate environments. Jesus paid the price for sin and for sinners, thereby providing the means of escape (deliverer) from this world into the next.
So God's design was flawed? Things happen contrary to the will of an omnipoent, omniscient, immutable Creator?
The work of the holy spirit is to draw men to Christ away from the temptations of the world and into the presence of God.
And? I don't see your point.
(I am not sure what you mean here )???
You said that Christ overcame the world, not sin. You also said that it is by belief in the works of Jesus that we overcome this world. I'm merely asking you how you can deny that "overcoming" this world includes overcoming sin.
