God ordained the Fall

[justinangel]

So sad that dying on the cross was such wasting suffering for Jesus..

Sorry, but our salvation is conditional.

But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.
1 John 1, 7

And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”
John 12, 32

Jesus did not suffer and die only for the elect. And although none of us can earn God's unmerited favour of justification and forgiveness by our own natural efforts, we can reject His love by our sins - doing wicked deeds - and lose the eternal life Christ has gained for us by his merits. Even those who have come to believe in Jesus, being predestined to grace, can lose their salvation by their own free will. God does not show partiality between believers and unbelievers. Certainly no man can snatch us from the Lord's hand, yet we are still free to release ourselves from it by resisting the Holy Spirit. Jesus would have died in vain if we were able to justly earn salvation by our human efforts alone without the aid of grace which he merited for us by his passion and death. Salvation is by grace alone, but it can be resisted by both believers and unbelievers. For us believers, our good works done in charity and grace keep us from losing our eternal reward which we may deserve provided we persevere in faith and obey God's will, but which Christ alone has produced for us. Since God's grace is available to all people, Jesus did not suffer and die in vain. God shall keep His promise of rewarding those who deserve to be rewarded by His grace. God doesn't depend on us, but He shall observe these conditions which He has set by His own initiative in His new covenant with us all.

"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him."
John 3, 36

A true believer is one who obeys the Son. Professing belief in the Son in words alone is insufficient for gaining eternal life.

We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commands. Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person. But if anyone obeys his word, love for God is truly made complete in them. This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did.
As for you, see [look to yourselves] that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father. And this is what he promised us—eternal life.
And now, dear children, continue in him, so that when he appears we may be confident and unashamed before him at his coming.
1 John 2, 3-6, 24-25, 28

It is our own righteousness God looks at when He judges the state of our souls - not Christ's personal righteousness which supposedly is imputed to us. So Jesus could never have died in vain. Our Lord is not morally responsible for our actions. This is why John exhorts the faithful. The need to cooperate with divine grace is urgent.

Let us therefore cleave unto those to whom grace is given from God.
Let us clothe ourselves in concord, being lowly minded and temperate,
holding ourselves aloof from all back biting and evil speaking, being
justified by works and not by words.
Clement of Rome, First Epistle to the Corinthians (c.A.D. 96)

PAX

 

[Uber Genius]

. You turn man to destruction; and say return you children of men.

This is horribly out of context!

This doesn't refer to all men or Adam.

Type in the word "exegesis" read carefully and follow the instructions. Lifting passages out of context is a great way to make a verse support a view that no one in the original audience ever would have held.

It makes a mockery of scripture.

Adam was free and did spend some time in the garden not sinning. Further there are consequences to his sin. If God forced him to sin as you suggest then God is the author of sin not the robotically controlled Adam. Nothing in scripture suggests Adam was forced of sin.

 

[JackRT]

Something as important as the fall of all humanity did not catch God by surprise nor did Satan deceive God or Adam did not sin of his own free will.

I found the grammar above to be confusing. Are you saying that Adam did not sin of his own free will? Without free will there is no sin. And if the Fall was "God ordained" then there is no free will.

I should also point out "the Fall" is just one possible interpretation of Genesis. There are other possible interpretations as well.

 

[Uber Genius]

Sorry, but our salvation is conditional.

Soteriology or the study of salvation has both Old and New Testament progressive revelation. We probably don't want to just take one verse and drop

 

[OzSpen]

No where else in all of the English language does sovereignty mean "control" in that sense. It is a distortion of the word and a poor representation of God's character to state that God is in control of everything.

From where do you obtain that theology?

God's sovereignty = governance =to be in control. It is based on his unchanging attributes of omnipotence (all powerful), omni-benevolence (all good), omniscience (all knowing/knowledge), omnisapience (all-wise), God knows the best thing to do in all creation and he has the power to do it.

We can defend biblically that God is before all things (Col 1:17); he created all things (Gen 1:1), upholds all things (Heb 1:3), is above all things (Ps 97:9) and owns all things (Ps 24:1). Therefore, He has the right to rule everything (Ps 10:16).

We don't have God's knowledge and insight, so too often our reaction to God's sovereign governance or control is something like, 'I wouldn't do it that way. That's unjust'. However, we don't have the attributes and mind of God. Who are we to tell God how he ought to govern the creation?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I should also point out "the Fall" is just one possible interpretation of Genesis. There are other possible interpretations as well.

Jack,

We don't interpret that Bible only through the verses of Genesis. Romans 5:12 (ESV) repudiates your view: 'Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned'.

Both Genesis and Romans agree that sin (the Fall) entered into the world through the sin of one man - Adam.

Could your theologically liberal presuppositions be overwhelming a clear understanding of Scripture?

I found it interesting that you did not include one example of the 'other possible interpretations' of Genesis regarding the Fall.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

That would be saying God is evil... It was not Gods plan that Adam and Eve were to Sin, He didn't make them do it . Why would God create them to fail? He didn't, they just had free will and sadly they chose to listen to the trickster devil .

And God in his foreknowledge knew they would do that.

 

[JackRT]

I found it interesting that you did not include one example of the 'other possible interpretations' of Genesis regarding the Fall.

I do not read the Genesis myth as a fall from an original state of perfection into sin and death. The first couple were completely innocent and naïve creatures. They were certainly capable of making a mistake but without knowing good from evil they lacked even the ability to sin. That ability came only with them eating of the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil". To me the story is a "coming of age story". Our mythical first couple graduated from animal status into to fully self aware human beings capable of making moral judgments. This is not an Original Sin story but rather an Original Blessing story that should be celebrated. We are not a people fallen from an original state of perfection into sin and death. What we are is a people that is still evolving. We are no longer "just animals" but something more.

In the words of John Spong: "Every living thing, plant and animal is programmed to survive. What is true of all these living things is also true of human life. The only difference is that we human beings are self-conscious, while plants and animals are not. If survival is our highest goal, self-centeredness is inevitable and thus this quality becomes a constant part of the human experience. Traditionally, the church has called this "original sin" and has explained it with the myth of the fall. That was simply wrong. Survival is a quality found in life itself. There was no fall. Self-centered, survival driven, self-conscious creatures is simply who we are. There is thus no such thing as "original sin" from which we need to be rescued by a divine invader. So much of traditional Christianity assumes this false premise.

 

[OzSpen]

I do not read the Genesis myth as a fall from an original state of perfection into sin and death. The first couple were completely innocent and naïve creatures. They were certainly capable of making a mistake but without knowing good from evil they lacked even the ability to sin. That ability came only with them eating of the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil". To me the story is a "coming of age story".

That's your personal opinion that does not come with exposition of the details. 'To me the story is ...' affirms your autonomous reason as the decider of what Genesis is.

Repeating John Shelby Spong's view is piling liberal theology on liberal theology from a bloke who doesn't give a hoot about the authority of Scripture.

Oz

 

[Daniel Marsh]

God is sovereign over all things.

Something as important as the fall of all humanity did not catch God by surprise nor did Satan deceive God or Adam did not sin of his own free will.

It was God’s plan before the earth was created that all will die in Adam and will be made alive in Christ .

Without a sinner who needs Jesus.

God knows all things and allows for permissive will.

 

[OzSpen]

I do not read the Genesis myth as a fall from an original state of perfection into sin and death. The first couple were completely innocent and naïve creatures. They were certainly capable of making a mistake but without knowing good from evil they lacked even the ability to sin. That ability came only with them eating of the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil". To me the story is a "coming of age story". Our mythical first couple graduated from animal status into to fully self aware human beings capable of making moral judgments. This is not an Original Sin story but rather an Original Blessing story that should be celebrated. We are not a people fallen from an original state of perfection into sin and death. What we are is a people that is still evolving. We are no longer "just animals" but something more.

In the words of John Spong: "Every living thing, plant and animal is programmed to survive. What is true of all these living things is also true of human life. The only difference is that we human beings are self-conscious, while plants and animals are not. If survival is our highest goal, self-centeredness is inevitable and thus this quality becomes a constant part of the human experience. Traditionally, the church has called this "original sin" and has explained it with the myth of the fall. That was simply wrong. Survival is a quality found in life itself. There was no fall. Self-centered, survival driven, self-conscious creatures is simply who we are. There is thus no such thing as "original sin" from which we need to be rescued by a divine invader. So much of traditional Christianity assumes this false premise.

There's your presupposition - the Genesis myth.

In the words of John Spong: "Every living thing, plant and animal is programmed to survive. What is true of all these living things is also true of human life.

Looking to John Shelby Spong for an authoritative dissection of the meaning of 'every living thing, plant and animal' and 'human life' is like calling on a saltwater crocodile to provide a recipe for eating Australian whiting fillets.

Oz

 

[JackRT]

Looking to John Shelby Spong for an authoritative dissection of the meaning of 'every living thing, plant and animal' and 'human life' is like calling on a saltwater crocodile to provide a recipe for eating Australian whiting fillets.

In that sentence Spong spoke only of survival. I did not see anything on the meaning of life.

 

[OzSpen]

In that sentence Spong spoke only of survival. I did not see anything on the meaning of life.

Jack,

You didn't provide closing quotation marks to tell me where Spong's quote concluded. Was the whole of that paragraph from Spong. If so, what is Spong's source. I've searched the www for the first and second sentences of what you quoted and can't find a source.

Would you please enlighten me on the source so I can read Spong in context.

Is survival not part of meaning in life? I won't experience meaning without survival.

Therefore, looking to John Shelby Spong for an authoritative understanding of the survival of 'every living thing, plant and animal' and 'human life' is like calling on an Australian saltwater crocodile to provide a recipe for eating Australian whiting fillets.

My search of titles in CF.com indicated you contributed this exact quote from Spong to the topic 'Original Sin' (#2) and you indicated that the Spong quote concluded at the end of the paragraph. However, again you did not provide your Spong source so I could check his context.

So, you support Jack Spong in his denial of original sin. The apostle Paul disagrees with you: 'Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned' (Rom 5:12 NIV).

This brief article provides a biblical understanding of original sin that supports this theology from Scripture: What is original sin?

Oz

 

[JackRT]

Jack,

You didn't provide closing quotation marks to tell me where Spong's quote concluded. Was the whole of that paragraph from Spong. If so, what is Spong's source. I've searched the www for the first and second sentences of what you quoted and can't find a source.

Would you please enlighten me on the source so I can read Spong in context.

Is survival not part of meaning in life? I won't experience meaning without survival.

Therefore, looking to John Shelby Spong for an authoritative understanding of the survival of 'every living thing, plant and animal' and 'human life' is like calling on an Australian saltwater crocodile to provide a recipe for eating Australian whiting fillets.

My search of titles in CF.com indicated you contributed this exact quote from Spong to the topic 'Original Sin' (#2) and you indicated that the Spong quote concluded at the end of the paragraph. However, again you did not provide your Spong source so I could check his context.

So, you support Jack Spong in his denial of original sin. The apostle Paul disagrees with you: 'Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned' (Rom 5:12 NIV).

This brief article provides a biblical understanding of original sin that supports this theology from Scripture: What is original sin?

Oz

The Spong quote was lifted from one of his weekly newsletters to be found at https://johnshelbyspong.com
I regret that I cannot pinpoint which one it was.

And, yes, I have a much different understanding of Genesis and Original sin than you do

 

[OzSpen]

The Spong quote was lifted from one of his weekly newsletters to be found at https://johnshelbyspong.com
I regret that I cannot pinpoint which one it was.

And, yes, I have a much different understanding of Genesis and Original sin than you do

Are you a supporter of Spong's theology?

 

[JackRT]

Are you a supporter of Spong's theology?

He agrees with me on a lot of questions.

 

[OzSpen]

He agrees with me on a lot of questions.

Do you support modernist, postmodernist, existentialist, liberationist or some other forms of liberal theology?

He agrees with me on a lot of questions.

JackRT,

The Harvard Crimson reported:

In his many writings, Spong has disavowed nearly every traditional Christian belief. In his self-congratulatory A Call for a New Reformation, Spong claims that theism is dead, that Jesus was not God incarnate, that original sin is false, that the virgin birth was impossible, that miracles never happened, that the story of Christ on the cross is "a barbarian idea," that Jesus was not resurrected, that prayer does not work, that there is no heaven or hell and that there is "no external, objective, revealed standard" for moral behavior (although, curiously, racism and sexism and homophobia are objectively wrong). Spong also accused St. Paul of being a repressed homosexual and Mary of being a sexually molested teenager....

At the 1998 Lambeth Conference in England, the Anglican bishops from Africa and Asia passed several resolutions affirming the traditional Christian stance on sexuality--that sex is best expressed between a man and woman married to each other.

Spong was infuriated by Africans overriding his politically correct position on sexuality. He said of the African bishops: "They've moved out of animism into a very superstitious kind of Christianity. They've yet to face the intellectual revolution of Copernicus and Einstein[!] that we've had to face in the developing world. That's just not on their radar screen." (Of course, Spong never explained--because it is unexplainable--how heliocentricity and general relativity could possibly affect traditional Christian beliefs regarding sexuality.)

As one might expect, the African bishops were quite upset. "He is really looking down on us,'' said a Ugandan bishop. "I am portrayed as someone who does not know Scripture or doctrine.''

"If they feel patronized, that's too bad,'' replied Spong. "I'm not going to cease being a 20th century person for fear of offending somebody in the Third World.''

This contempt for disagreement is entirely typical of Spong. After a recent lecture, a friend of mine had the temerity to question Spong's casual dismissal of Genesis as unscientific. "I don't talk to fundamentalists," was Spong's reply, though such a word would hardly describe my friend (Buck 2000).​

With which of these teachings of Spong do you disagree?

Oz

Works Consulted

Buck, J S 2000. Ignoring W.B. Noble's Spirit. The Harvard Crimson, March 6. Available at: Ignoring W.B. Noble's Spirit | Opinion | The Harvard Crimson (Accessed 4 January 2018).

 

[Eloy Craft]

I agree with the OP. The fall was part of Plan A. There was no Plan B.

Consider that the fall was how Mankind became morally sentient. Before eating of the fruit, Adam and Eve were morally on the level of the animals. Do you think God wanted them to stay in that condition, not knowing right from wrong? Of course not. Eating from the tree had always been part of His plan.

Can this be true since they knew evil through the intellect to the deeper knowing of being?

 

[JackRT]

I do not read the Genesis myth as a fall from an original state of perfection into sin and death. The first couple were completely innocent and naive creatures. They were certainly capable of making a mistake but, without knowing good from evil, they lacked even the ability to sin. That ability came only with them eating of the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil". To me the story is a "coming of age story". Our mythical first couple graduated from animal status into to fully self aware human beings capable of making moral judgements. This is not an Original Sin story but rather an Original Blessing story that should be celebrated. We are not a people fallen from an original state of perfection into sin and death. What we are is a people that is still evolving. We are no longer "just animals" but something more.

Why the expulsion from Eden? In the mythology, I believe it to be symbolic that mankind was no longer a naïve creature living in moral ignorance but had become real men and women living in a real world where there was real good and evil.

In the words of John Spong: "Every living thing, plant and animal is programmed to survive. What is true of all these living things is also true of human life. The only difference is that we human beings are self-conscious, while plants and animals are not. If survival is our highest goal, self-centeredness is inevitable and thus this quality becomes a constant part of the human experience. Traditionally, the church has called this "original sin" and has explained it with the myth of the fall. That was simply wrong. Survival is a quality found in life itself. There was no fall. Self-centered, survival driven, self-conscious creatures is simply who we are. There is thus no such thing as "original sin" from which we need to be rescued by a divine invader. So much of traditional Christianity assumes this false premise."

 

[Open Heart]

Can this be true since they knew evil through the intellect to the deeper knowing of being?

I don't think they knew evil. I think they thought on the level of small children or intelligent chimpanzees -- Daddy said no; if I do it I will get a spanking. That's NOT the same thing as knowing good from evil.