Sin or free will in the garden?

[TedT]

The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith in Chapter 9 Paragraph 1 and 2 describes Adam and Eve as having free will (the ability to refrain or not refrain from a given moral action) prior to the fall.

There appears to be no scriptural basis for believing this ability was lost [ed: emphasis mine] at the fall without violating good Bible interpretation principles.

How would you answer this with scripture and good hermeneutics?

I'm using Paul's post here as a springboard to get up on my one trick pony, PCE theology and the pov of sinfulness in the garden:

IF Adam and Eve were sinners, then we'd have no reason to accept their free will but only their enslavement to sin: John 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the slave of sin.

First: a note about there being no PROOF verses such as a poke in your eye type of proof. Even Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed you in the womb I knew you...is explained away by the orthodox folk who have had 4000 years to puzzle out alternative meanings for these HINTS to the doctrine of PCE which may be the one doctrine that is to be hidden till the end times.

HINTS to Sin in the Garden prior to the eating of the fruit:
1. Adam was being rebellious, that is unfaithful, to seek his mate amongst the animals: GOD knew HE had Eve planned so an animal wasn't in HIS plans at all. Who thought of the idea to look among the animals for his helpmeet, anyway?? It certainly was not GOD's idea! So if Adam was righteous and faithful, it seems logical that GOD would say, "Not here, bud, I got a woman for you!" Why did GOD let him go through the charade of looking amongst the animals if Adam was not being rebellious?

2. The root word for Adam and EVE being naked and the serpent being crafty in evil is the same word, `rm.* They can be read the opposite, ie, Adam and Eve were crafty and the serpent was naked ! if so desired.. The vowels that make them to be naked or crafty were not put into the writing until ç600AD. The reason the Rabbis and the Church Fathers chose naked for Adam and Eve was based upon their decision that all mankind was created at conception (traducianism) or at birth (creationism of the soul). So, as newly created in the garden they had to be innocent since GOD does not create evil...[at least until HE wants evil people so HE supposed created the rest of us in Adam's sin but that is a different blasphemy].

*There is also a perfectly good word about Noah that describes the nakedness of being unclothed with absolutely no chance of thinking it meant evil.

Naked is a metaphor for evil in other parts of scripture. Rev 3:17 You say, ‘I am rich; I have grown wealthy and need nothing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. 18 I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, white garments so that you may be clothed and your shameful nakedness not exposed, and salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see. Where is the sin in being unclothed in your own garden as GOD made you? Even if naked refers to sex, how could it be sinful if they were commanded to procreate? No, the telling part of this verse is "They were not ashamed!". If there was no sin in being naked then why bring up shame? They were not over 12 feet tall either but there is no hint that they should be ashamed of that!

The reference to their shame is echoed in Rev 3:17-18, being a sinner is shameful but those blinded by sin need their eyes opened by the Lord's salve and their shame covered by white garments, the righteous acts of the saints, Rev 19:18.

It is also curious how, when their eyes were finally opened to their sin, they saw their being naked, a nakedness they had before they ate, not their eating. The only thing that happened when they ate was that they now saw their nakedness as sinful and were ashamed but their nakedness did not change in the least. Does this not imply that if they were just newly created, GOD created them sinful?? Also, if being unclothed is no sin, why did they suddenly become ashamed of their nakedness when they sinned?

Only if they were already sinners does this make any sense at all.

3. Eve treats the serpent like a mentor or pastor. Is it not a sin to fraternize with a demon this way? IF she was innocent then why did GOD allow the serpent access to her and not warn her to beware of him? How can we consider HIM to be the most loving to this innocent girl, letting the serpent deceive her? BUT if she was already sinful and the serpent was her friend, a friend whom she had to learn to repudiate, then HE might have let the serpent deceive her to open her eyes to her own sinfulness and to the serpent's sin so she would never choose to follow him over her GOD ever again.

4. The bible is pretty clear that the law / commands are given to convict sinners of their sinfulness.

Romans 3:20 Therefore no one will be justified in His sight by works of the Law. For the Law merely brings awareness of sin.
Romans 7:7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law.
Gal 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

Thus for Adam and Eve to be given a command is an indication that they were sinners who needed their eyes to be opened to their sin by their failure to obey an easy command PROVING THEIR LACK OF A FREE WILL.

5. Adam was first to bring sin into the world. Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man...yet the serpent entered the garden with an evil nature and evil intent, and Eve sinned by befriending him or at least by eating first so Adam was the third person to sin in the world. Thus is impossible for him to be responsible for bringing sin into the world unless he was already a sinner when he came into the world and brought his sin with him as the first person to be sown / brought into the world. Sown: not created but moved as per Matt 13:36-39.

 

[Eloy Craft]

I hope you don't mind. I hope I'm not being rude.
I just want to add little bits.

Why did GOD let him go through the charade of looking amongst the animals if Adam was not being rebellious?

This prepared him to receive Eve properly disposed.
First he will know that the solution to his loneliness does not exist on earth. Only God could remedy the evil of being alone for Adam. Adam would appreciate the perfection of Woman

telling part of this verse is "They were not ashamed!". If there was no sin in being naked then why bring up shame? T

Their bodies were perfectly obedient to the will.

Thus for Adam and Eve to be given a command is an indication that they were sinners who needed their eyes to be opened to their sin by their failure to obey an easy command PROVING THEIR LACK OF A FREE WILL.

Their eyes were opened to the Law of death. The law that rule bodies that die. Their bodies served the law of death and began moving involuntarily. The body informed the intellect of it's fallen state. The unconscious movements associated with survival urges to reproduce hunger. Now their body is burdened with the need to survive. Now their bodies moved of it's own volition like all bodies that die. Because of that their bodies cause shame and so they cover their shame and hide from God. The law of death looked good to Eve because like Satan there would be no one above her. She says in her heart;. " I am queen on my throne, I don't lack for a husband and I'll never mourn.
She replaced Adam as generator, and voice of God and she will be mother of the living. She found that to be good and ate.

Adam was first to bring sin into the world. Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man..

Death entered the world because of Woman. Sin because of Adam. All descendants are born in sin because of Adam. Adam could have rebuked Eve like Jesus did Peter. "Get thee behind me Woman".

 

[fhansen]

I'm using Paul's post here as a springboard to get up on my one trick pony, PCE theology and the pov of sinfulness in the garden:

IF Adam and Eve were sinners, then we'd have no reason to accept their free will but only their enslavement to sin: John 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the slave of sin.

First: a note about there being no PROOF verses such as a poke in your eye type of proof. Even Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed you in the womb I knew you...is explained away by the orthodox folk who have had 4000 years to puzzle out alternative meanings for these HINTS to the doctrine of PCE which may be the one doctrine that is to be hidden till the end times.

HINTS to Sin in the Garden prior to the eating of the fruit:
1. Adam was being rebellious, that is unfaithful, to seek his mate amongst the animals: GOD knew HE had Eve planned so an animal wasn't in HIS plans at all. Who thought of the idea to look among the animals for his helpmeet, anyway?? It certainly was not GOD's idea! So if Adam was righteous and faithful, it seems logical that GOD would say, "Not here, bud, I got a woman for you!" Why did GOD let him go through the charade of looking amongst the animals if Adam was not being rebellious?

2. The root word for Adam and EVE being naked and the serpent being crafty in evil is the same word, `rm.* They can be read the opposite, ie, Adam and Eve were crafty and the serpent was naked ! if so desired.. The vowels that make them to be naked or crafty were not put into the writing until ç600AD. The reason the Rabbis and the Church Fathers chose naked for Adam and Eve was based upon their decision that all mankind was created at conception (traducianism) or at birth (creationism of the soul). So, as newly created in the garden they had to be innocent since GOD does not create evil...[at least until HE wants evil people so HE supposed created the rest of us in Adam's sin but that is a different blasphemy].

*There is also a perfectly good word about Noah that describes the nakedness of being unclothed with absolutely no chance of thinking it meant evil.

Naked is a metaphor for evil in other parts of scripture. Rev 3:17 You say, ‘I am rich; I have grown wealthy and need nothing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. 18 I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, white garments so that you may be clothed and your shameful nakedness not exposed, and salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see. Where is the sin in being unclothed in your own garden as GOD made you? Even if naked refers to sex, how could it be sinful if they were commanded to procreate? No, the telling part of this verse is "They were not ashamed!". If there was no sin in being naked then why bring up shame? They were not over 12 feet tall either but there is no hint that they should be ashamed of that!

The reference to their shame is echoed in Rev 3:17-18, being a sinner is shameful but those blinded by sin need their eyes opened by the Lord's salve and their shame covered by white garments, the righteous acts of the saints, Rev 19:18.

It is also curious how, when their eyes were finally opened to their sin, they saw their being naked, a nakedness they had before they ate, not their eating. The only thing that happened when they ate was that they now saw their nakedness as sinful and were ashamed but their nakedness did not change in the least. Does this not imply that if they were just newly created, GOD created them sinful?? Also, if being unclothed is no sin, why did they suddenly become ashamed of their nakedness when they sinned?

Only if they were already sinners does this make any sense at all.

3. Eve treats the serpent like a mentor or pastor. Is it not a sin to fraternize with a demon this way? IF she was innocent then why did GOD allow the serpent access to her and not warn her to beware of him? How can we consider HIM to be the most loving to this innocent girl, letting the serpent deceive her? BUT if she was already sinful and the serpent was her friend, a friend whom she had to learn to repudiate, then HE might have let the serpent deceive her to open her eyes to her own sinfulness and to the serpent's sin so she would never choose to follow him over her GOD ever again.

4. The bible is pretty clear that the law / commands are given to convict sinners of their sinfulness.

Romans 3:20 Therefore no one will be justified in His sight by works of the Law. For the Law merely brings awareness of sin.
Romans 7:7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law.
Gal 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

Thus for Adam and Eve to be given a command is an indication that they were sinners who needed their eyes to be opened to their sin by their failure to obey an easy command PROVING THEIR LACK OF A FREE WILL.

5. Adam was first to bring sin into the world. Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man...yet the serpent entered the garden with an evil nature and evil intent, and Eve sinned by befriending him or at least by eating first so Adam was the third person to sin in the world. Thus is impossible for him to be responsible for bringing sin into the world unless he was already a sinner when he came into the world and brought his sin with him as the first person to be sown / brought into the world. Sown: not created but moved as per Matt 13:36-39.

God doesn’t author sin, or else He’d be worse than satan. As it is, Adam, following Lucifer, ushered sin into the world. He was culpable or blameworthy for committing that original sin only because he was free to do otherwise.

 

[Blade]

Natural, supernatural. Looking at this from the natural you will never see it. Allot of speculation and its unwise to run with that as fun as it can be. Your saying allot that is not in the word. They had free will.. angels have it. From what I read there was no sin before the fall. Again speculation is not scripture. I do wonder why you talked about naked 15 times .

 

[Maria Billingsley]

I'm using Paul's post here as a springboard to get up on my one trick pony, PCE theology and the pov of sinfulness in the garden:

IF Adam and Eve were sinners, then we'd have no reason to accept their free will but only their enslavement to sin: John 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the slave of sin.

First: a note about there being no PROOF verses such as a poke in your eye type of proof. Even Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed you in the womb I knew you...is explained away by the orthodox folk who have had 4000 years to puzzle out alternative meanings for these HINTS to the doctrine of PCE which may be the one doctrine that is to be hidden till the end times.

HINTS to Sin in the Garden prior to the eating of the fruit:
1. Adam was being rebellious, that is unfaithful, to seek his mate amongst the animals: GOD knew HE had Eve planned so an animal wasn't in HIS plans at all. Who thought of the idea to look among the animals for his helpmeet, anyway?? It certainly was not GOD's idea! So if Adam was righteous and faithful, it seems logical that GOD would say, "Not here, bud, I got a woman for you!" Why did GOD let him go through the charade of looking amongst the animals if Adam was not being rebellious?

2. The root word for Adam and EVE being naked and the serpent being crafty in evil is the same word, `rm.* They can be read the opposite, ie, Adam and Eve were crafty and the serpent was naked ! if so desired.. The vowels that make them to be naked or crafty were not put into the writing until ç600AD. The reason the Rabbis and the Church Fathers chose naked for Adam and Eve was based upon their decision that all mankind was created at conception (traducianism) or at birth (creationism of the soul). So, as newly created in the garden they had to be innocent since GOD does not create evil...[at least until HE wants evil people so HE supposed created the rest of us in Adam's sin but that is a different blasphemy].

*There is also a perfectly good word about Noah that describes the nakedness of being unclothed with absolutely no chance of thinking it meant evil.

Naked is a metaphor for evil in other parts of scripture. Rev 3:17 You say, ‘I am rich; I have grown wealthy and need nothing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. 18 I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, white garments so that you may be clothed and your shameful nakedness not exposed, and salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see. Where is the sin in being unclothed in your own garden as GOD made you? Even if naked refers to sex, how could it be sinful if they were commanded to procreate? No, the telling part of this verse is "They were not ashamed!". If there was no sin in being naked then why bring up shame? They were not over 12 feet tall either but there is no hint that they should be ashamed of that!

The reference to their shame is echoed in Rev 3:17-18, being a sinner is shameful but those blinded by sin need their eyes opened by the Lord's salve and their shame covered by white garments, the righteous acts of the saints, Rev 19:18.

It is also curious how, when their eyes were finally opened to their sin, they saw their being naked, a nakedness they had before they ate, not their eating. The only thing that happened when they ate was that they now saw their nakedness as sinful and were ashamed but their nakedness did not change in the least. Does this not imply that if they were just newly created, GOD created them sinful?? Also, if being unclothed is no sin, why did they suddenly become ashamed of their nakedness when they sinned?

Only if they were already sinners does this make any sense at all.

3. Eve treats the serpent like a mentor or pastor. Is it not a sin to fraternize with a demon this way? IF she was innocent then why did GOD allow the serpent access to her and not warn her to beware of him? How can we consider HIM to be the most loving to this innocent girl, letting the serpent deceive her? BUT if she was already sinful and the serpent was her friend, a friend whom she had to learn to repudiate, then HE might have let the serpent deceive her to open her eyes to her own sinfulness and to the serpent's sin so she would never choose to follow him over her GOD ever again.

4. The bible is pretty clear that the law / commands are given to convict sinners of their sinfulness.

Romans 3:20 Therefore no one will be justified in His sight by works of the Law. For the Law merely brings awareness of sin.
Romans 7:7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law.
Gal 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

Thus for Adam and Eve to be given a command is an indication that they were sinners who needed their eyes to be opened to their sin by their failure to obey an easy command PROVING THEIR LACK OF A FREE WILL.

5. Adam was first to bring sin into the world. Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man...yet the serpent entered the garden with an evil nature and evil intent, and Eve sinned by befriending him or at least by eating first so Adam was the third person to sin in the world. Thus is impossible for him to be responsible for bringing sin into the world unless he was already a sinner when he came into the world and brought his sin with him as the first person to be sown / brought into the world. Sown: not created but moved as per Matt 13:36-39.

Free will also includes obedience.
Blessings

 

[Eloy Craft]

Free will also includes obedience.
Blessings

So true. I think obedience demonstrates freedom. No wait.
Suffering perfects obedience which perfects freedom. Yeah good one Maria.

 

[TedT]

I hope you don't mind. I hope I'm not being rude.
I just want to add little bits.

Good morning... critical conversation is hoped for and not considered rude.
Bombastic declarations of a personal commitment to a dogma probably is...

First he will know that the solution to his loneliness does not exist on earth.

IF Adam was just created perfectly righteous and holy so as to be in spiritual communion with GOD then how could he be lonely??? Surely loneliness only occurred after his eating?

Is it not instructional that what GOD said was very good, Gen 1:31 And God looked upon all that He had made, and indeed, it was very good. [meod tov], started as a not good: Gen 2:18 The LORD God also said, “It is not good [lo tov] for the man to be alone. I will make for him a suitable helper.” which was fixed to become abundantly good??

If tov in this presentation of man's supposed creation has a moral meaning then we must consider:
Fixing the whole of creation to become suddenly a moral good implies that HIS first effort at creation was a moral failure...??? How could GOD create a moral not good? HE can't any more that a good tree can produce rotten fruit or a trema of life giving water can produce salt or stagnant water.

Logically HE was probably hinting that Adam was not good when he was put into the garden alone, that is, he was not a new perfect creation but an older person who had made serious choices already about accepting or rejecting GOD's plan for him, ie, being faithful or rebellious to these plans.

Their eyes were opened to the Law of death. The law that rule bodies that die.

For them to have an understanding of the meaning of the command they must have understood what death entailed, that is, a command without instruction as to the meaning within the command is meaningless...a booby trap, not a real warning.

And please consider:
The law is NOT given to the righteous or the innocent but to lawbreakers to convict them of their sin:
1 Timothy 1:9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers etc. with Romans 3:20... rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.

Since they were the only people around, they must have been the sinners targeted for conviction for a previous sin to receive the law not to eat.

All descendants are born in sin because of Adam.

GOD cannot create evil by any means...

I have come to realize that the fact that the full story of GOD's interaction with man on this earth ends with a heavenly marriage implies that the heavenly marriage was HIS purpose for our creation. It is in the heavenly marriage that HIS GLORY shines forth the strongest and most perfect in relationship with us, NOT in justice nor redemption which are merely aids to bring the marriage to fruition after to our moral stumbles.

HIS plan for all creation was the heavenly marriage.
HIS plan for each of us is the heavenly marriage.
Everything HE has ever done or will ever do conformed to this purpose, this plan, and He has never done anything that would slow this plan down or put it off or side track it in the least!

It implies that ALL of HIS being, all of HIS Sovereignty, all of HIS love, HIS righteousness and HIS nature as just have one perfect focus, to culminate HIS relationship with HIS creation in the heavenly marriage: one plan, one focus.

Therefore:
Our free will is an absolute necessity.
Aside from the fact that GOD cannot create any evil so all sinfulness proves the free will of the sinner, it is also a fact that true love and true marriage can be arrived at only by the free will acceptance of the lover and acceptance of the proposal of marriage by the Bride. GOD is not a Borg willing to have a Stepford wife...

This implies that GOD would never not save anyone who could be saved to become HIS Bride, not for any reason. No one is in hell who can be saved by any IF in reality... This also implies that only those who chose to eternally reject HIM as GOD and husband by a deep desire not to be involved in HIS plan would ever be passed over for entry into the marriage because they have a right to their free will decisions to choose such a path.

It implies that everyone ever created in HIS image, ie, able to be a proper Bride for HIM, was created perfectly capable and able to become HIS bride, not held back by any imperfection or lack of acceptance by HIM.
Isaiah 43:7, 21
7 "whom I created for my glory"
21 the people I formed for myself that they may proclaim my praise.

Ecc 7:29 Only this have I found: I have discovered that God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes.” Upright: S3477, yashar, straightforward, just, upright:... GOD created no one disgustingly corrupt, enslaved to sin and unable to be HIS Bride except by HIS intervention.

By their coming into being everyone must have been within HIS plan, not separated from HIM by anything until they decide by their informed free will to reject HIM and HIS plan. HE cannot marry an evil person so why would HE create by any means, any system at all, evil people? It is impossible.

 

[TedT]

God doesn’t author sin, or else He’d be worse than satan. As it is, Adam, following Lucifer, ushered sin into the world. He was culpable or blameworthy for committing that original sin only because he was free to do otherwise.

The doctrine of inherited sin MAKES GOD THE AUTHOR OF OUR SINFULNESS because 1. HE set up the system of our inheriting sin by 2. NOT creating us independent as HE did for the angels and Adam and Eve and 3. for no choice of our own, ie, we are sinners not by our will but by HIS will.

The ability to refuse to accept that the current doctrine of our creation causes our sin would seem to be all double think, accepting two opposites to both be true at the same time in the same form...when 'A cannot = Not A'.

 

[TedT]

I do wonder why you talked about naked 15 times

Putting aside your salaciousness for a mo, I talked about the word naked to prove that naked could just as well have been translated cunningly evil with no damage to the words.

No answer to my points 1-3 though...

 

[TedT]

I think obedience demonstrates freedom.

While one can obey by a free decision to be obedient to someone else, such obedience does NOT prove a free will in the least because a person under a compulsion would act exactly the same way. Only the decision to not obey proves the will is free. And if Satan had a free will, then so did everyone else in creation.

 

[Eloy Craft]

is also curious how, when their eyes were finally opened to their sin, they saw their being naked, a nakedness they had before they ate, not their eating.

God said in that day they will surely die . But they lived a long time after eating. Many resolve this apparent delay by saying it must have been spiritual death..
The change from life to death caused radical change to our body.and mode of knowing evil. From knowing evil intellectually to knowing by the experience of it's essence.

I think it less ambiguous to say we entered the world of death rather than death entered the world. If we consider the experience of the body unburdened by a need to survive and compare that with the experience of a body that does.not. That paradigm shift brings some of the mythic symbols to light.
An everlasting body would have no unconscious movements, urges or need associated with the expectation of death and the need to survive.

Involuntary movements of our bodies embarrass us. We say excuse me. Sexual reproduction changes from an act of complete freedom to a powerful urge demanding satisfaction.. Their bodies changed radically on that day from a body distinct from any other animal in that it didn't know death. Adam and Eve knew of it seeing the other animals. Their mode of knowing changed to knowing it in their being. Their nakedness wasn't informative until death caused the involuntary movements of a body of death. Then they begin the plunge from being a gift to the other to objects to satisfy the urges associated with the need to survive. Their nakedness before death was inconsequential. After death it made visible what their shameful fallen state. I think it's the reason God gave them animal skins to cover their bodies.

 

[Clare73]

I'm using Paul's post here as a springboard to get up on my one trick pony, PCE theology and the pov of sinfulness in the garden:

IF Adam and Eve were sinners, then we'd have no reason to accept their free will but only their enslavement to sin: John 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the slave of sin.

Slaves to sin have the limited free will presented in Scripture.
It is not the absolute free will of philosophy to make all choices, but the limited free will of Scripture; i.e.,
the power to choose (execute) voluntarily, without external force or constraint, what one prefers, likes.

First: a note about there being no PROOF verses such as a poke in your eye type of proof. Even Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed you in the womb I knew you...is explained away by the orthodox folk who have had 4000 years to puzzle out alternative meanings for these HINTS to the doctrine of PCE which may be the one doctrine that is to be hidden till the end times.
HINTS to Sin in the Garden prior to the eating of the fruit:
1. Adam was being rebellious, that is unfaithful, to seek his mate amongst the animals:

Nowhere does it state in Scripture that Adam did "seek his mate among the animals."

God brought all the animals before Adam to review, observe and appreciate all that God had given him for his use and dominion, and to name them all, having dominion over them as their lord. . .just as God had given names to the day and night, to the firmament, to the earth and to the sea, and even to the stars to show that he was LORD of these.
It was God's judgment of that review that there was none that would be a suitable match for Adam, who was a spiritual creature, so God created a new thing to be a help-meet for man.

GOD knew HE had Eve planned so an animal wasn't in HIS plans at all. Who thought of the idea to look among the animals for his helpmeet, anyway?? It certainly was not GOD's idea! So if Adam was righteous and faithful, it seems logical that GOD would say, "Not here, bud, I got a woman for you!" Why did GOD let him go through the charade of looking amongst the animals if Adam was not being rebellious?

Read the text: "to see what Adam would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof." (Genesis 2:19)

There is no Biblical warrant for Adam "being rebellious" before Eve was created.
There is no Biblical warrant for "sin being in the Garden prior to the eating of the fruit."

The whole scenario here is all pure fabrication from the mind of man, it being so agreeable to his own fancies that he thinks it is the very mind of God.

"Learn the meaning of the saying, 'Do not go beyond what is written.'" (1 Corinthians 4:6)

 

[fhansen]

The doctrine of inherited sin MAKES GOD THE AUTHOR OF OUR SINFULNESS because 1. HE set up the system of our inheriting sin by 2. NOT creating us independent as HE did for the angels and Adam and Eve and 3. for no choice of our own, ie, we are sinners not by our will but by HIS will.

The ability to refuse to accept that the current doctrine of our creation causes our sin would seem to be all double think, accepting two opposites to both be true at the same time in the same form...when 'A cannot = Not A'.

I'm not sure what "the current doctrine of our creation causes our sin" is meant to indicate but, in any case, the doctrine of OS means that all humanity fell with Adam, and that "falleness" is defined as separation or exile from God. Humanity is like a prodigal who's left home and doesn't know there way back, or if some other home even exists out there. That's why we do not know God and birth. That separation constitutes spiritual death for man and that's why all must be born again.

But Adam knew; Adam knew God, at least better than we do at birth. But by the revelation of Christ we can come to know Him better than Adam ever did. It's all fair; our main disadvantage is in that separation, that not knowing God. And He gives all the grace to come to know Him so that we may believe in, hope in, and, most importantly, love Him. That's where our purpose and perfection lie. So that disadvantage actually becomes our advantage and gives us an edge: that we may experience life apart from God so that we may learn for ourselves the wisdom and truth behind this statement: "Apart from Me you can do nothing." John 15:5

This world is a schoolhouse where we may learn just how wrong and foolish Adam was in his disobedience. Sin/evil/injustice reign to one degree or another where creation exists in a separated state of being from God and His will.

And if all inevitably sin anyway, then any of us arguably would've committed the same sin as Adam to begin with.

 

[TedT]

Nowhere does it state in Scripture that Adam did "seek his mate among the animals."

No, you made that phrase up...but it does convey the ideas of the paragraph very well.

What it does say when putting together the two ideas of naming the animals and looking for a helpmate is: Gen 2:20 The man gave names to all the livestock, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found. I did not put these ideas together...GOD did.

 

[TedT]

"the current doctrine of our creation causes our sin" is meant to indicate

It refers the blasphemy of our supposed inheriting Adam's sinfulness by our creation as human and indicates we are sinful at conception by GOD's will, not our own choice.

 

[Eloy Craft]

It refers the blasphemy of our supposed inheriting Adam's sinfulness by our creation as human and indicates we are sinful at conception by GOD's will, not our own choice.

Only a good tree can make good fruit.