Free Will Questions

npetreley,

Perhaps. Yet my comment is with regard to rufus' use of angels (and devils) in the context of freedom of their will. I understand this example is being used to make a point about human will. If so, the question still stands. Let's see what the response is.

 

Hardsheller,

So one of the instrinsic values of human beings is "desire"?

Again, what is nature? Does "nature" have anything to do with "sinner" or "saint"? If so, why? (Note: these are meant to be rhetorical questions. No explanation is necessary unless you're interested in continuning).

I'm assuming you believe Adam was intrinsically "good" before the fall. IMO, this is something in itself to think about.

Only God is Good. All creatures of His creation are "good" as result of God's purpose, not becuase of their instrinsic qualities. So Adam's nature does not have anything to do with being inherently "good" or "evil".

So if the result of the fall is "external", the human race is iherently "good" and thus in no need of a Savior? Really? Then I suppose this has to do with what you believe about God, not Adam. And actually, this is part of my point.

IMO, our understanding of human nature comes from our understanding of God's nature. This especially includes the concept of "choice". But getting back to your comment, if you're implying that Adam in his pre-fallen state was in no need of a Savior, then I'll ask a question I posed to nepetrely some time ago: Can Adam know God in his pre-fallen state without Christ?

 

Hardsheller,

In other words, can Adam, in his pre-fallen state, have a relationship with God, thus "know Him", without Christ?

 

Hardsheller,

So there are two ways to know God: 1) Adam, in his pre-fallen state, knows God without Christ and 2) Adam in his fallen state (also including regeneration and eternity), knows God by Christ.

Is this what you're saying?

 

Hardsheller,

Okay. Then I guess I don't understand your comment "Not in time but in eternity".

How does Adam know God before the fall? This question is with regard to "nature", "choice", and the other things we're talking about, so I'm trying to stay on track assuming you may not be interested if we get further away from the subject of this thread.

Thanks.

 

Believing that Adam's disobedience of God, and eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil completely and utterly destroyed the nature of man is pure folly. There was no cosmic explosion that forever altered Creation. Everything that happened there in the garden was small subtle change, the acquisition of knowledge resulting from the act of disobedience.

The nature of man did not change, but the result of eating of the tree of the Knowledge of Good and evil is that man became more like God, having knowledge that God apparently intended for man to have, perhaps at some point in time. God didn't need the earth to grow the Tree of Life, or the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God is the author of life and knowledge. By virtue of the fact that God had a tree of the knowledge of good and evil, it is clear that God intended that man should sin. And of course that is for the purpose of giving himself glory.

The problem is that you have not thought through the events that are recorded in Genesis, none of which is apocolyptic or epic. Nothing earth shaking occured, the language is calm, God mad no moves to kill Adam or Eve. There was no slamming of furniture against the walls or slamming of doors, or screaming and shouting and no squeeling of tires in a quick departure.

The nature that God gave to man in the creation remained intact, but forever altered by the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Knowledge that did not make man less than man previously was, but did in fact make man more like God.

What a delemma you introduce with apocolyptic terms such as "the Fall" to the condition of man that removed him from the paradise of the Garden. The fall was not gigantic Cosmic event that altered the creation. Nothing changed except the relationship of man to his God, and the location where man must now exist...outside of the garden, tilling the soil (in life long labor) for survival.

Please note that all of this occured after God rested from creating and called it all good. Creation was a finished product. Taking a piece of fruit from a tree is not an earth shattering event, but a rather routine thing. Eating of the fruit drew little if any notice. The events that followed were done with relative calmness as well. It was rather a small, almost inperceptable separation of holiness and sin with holiness being God, while sin is man.

Man was not Changed from Holy one moment to Totally Depraved the next. That is a figment of your imagination. Over the 930 years of Adam's life, he did not become totally depraved. However, depravity did enter mankind perhaps during Adam's lifetime. However it was not the condition that you describe using such "graphic terms" as 'Totally Depraved', but rather
The separation is something that God can reach across, but that man cannot.

 

sounds good Yelsew,

except where scripture says:

Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

But your version does sound good.

By the way, enmity does not mean there is a life long movement into a position of an enemy, but that the carnal mind is already in this position. And this as a result from the non-cataclysmic event in the garden of Eden.

Again, man was created corruptible, he corrupted his original creation by the "fall." He cannot stand up from this fall on his own, because he is wollering in the mire and rather enjoys that place. But God can and does send forth His Holy Spirit to raise him from this mire.

The event that seperated man from God did result in his gaining a knowledge of Good and Evil; without the fall man would not have known the Grace, mercy and love of God.

The fall was a world shattering event for the sacrifice witnessed by Adam and Eve to teach them the need for the atonement. A look at the Cross will also show us the earth shattering event that did occur in the garden. A close read of Is. 63 also reveals much.

The fall resulted in immediate recognition of physical and spiritual nakedness, nothing less. Before the fall, there was no death in the world, after the fall, the first physical death was visited upon the substitute.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

It is an assumption to say that this scripture means that the seed of God's truth can't grow in a heart of an individual who is living by the flesh.

If this were actually true, then there could be no such thing as an actual convert. Those who live by the flesh will always live by the flesh because a mind that is living by the flesh must reject the Spirit.

It takes time for a seed to grow into a plant.

 

Frogman, is this the enmity, between the serpent and the offspring of man, the enmity to which you refer?

Truly, man does experience enmity with Satan (sin), because it is Satan that interferes with man's relationship with the Creator God. Sin brings guilt! Guilt brings hostility, hatred, ill will, animosity, and antagonism.

 

not unless your god is satan.

The Bible says: "The carnal mind is enmity against God:..." Romans 8.7

satan isn't mentioned.

The enmity between man and the serpent was put there by God, between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman, and is to typify the enmity between the Son of Man and satan;

Enmity against God is the result in man, of the Fall which fact you can't see, because you can't see the FALL.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

It is an assumption to say that this scripture means that the seed of God's truth can't grow in a heart of an individual who is living by the flesh.

If this were actually true, then there could be no such thing as an actual convert. Those who live by the flesh will always live by the flesh because a mind that is living by the flesh must reject the Spirit.

It takes time for a seed to grow into a plant. </font>[/QUOTE]The question is how does that seed get planted, by the action of the Holy Spirit; or by the free-will choice of man. I have no problem with your analogy that the seed can be planted and manifested in the appointed time.

My problem is assuming man can plant this seed of his own free-will.

Those who live by the flesh will always live by the flesh because a mind that is living by the flesh must reject the Spirit.

I agree full and complete with this statement. This is the summation of my argument. Man lives according to the flesh; his trust is put in what he sees; when the man comes under the influence of the Holy Spirit, then his desire is changed and he is enabled to choose to believe the Gospel.

Bro. Dallas

 

Frogman,

According to the parable of the seeds, God's truths are sown into our hearts when we are exposed to God's truth.

All the ways God's truths are exposed to us, I don't know? The most common would be hearing it spoken and seeing it lived out.

Both of these common modes of taking in God's truth comes by the way of our senses which is not by the Holy Spirit.

 

According to the parable of the seeds, God's truths are sown into our hearts when we are exposed to God's truth.

Who is the sower? Man of his own will, or man working under the direction of the Holy Spirit. Rom. 10.15

All the ways God's truths are exposed to us, I don't know? The most common would be hearing it spoken and seeing it lived out.

The most Biblical one is spoken Romans 10.17

Both of these common modes of taking in God's truth comes by the way of our senses which is not by the Holy Spirit.

Again Rom. 10.15

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

Hardsheller,

Really? Is this a conclusion from scripture? Who is Christ? Is not He the Anointed One of God? The Messiah? The go-between God and man? Are you suggesting this go-between did not exist until the NT?

Colossians 1:15 says He is the "image of the invisible God". From this we find 1) God is invisible (IMO, meaning unperceptible by the creature) and 2) that Christ is the image of God. Colossians 2:9 says He is "the fullness of the Godhead bodily". Is this NT only? Or is this eternal existence.

IMO, the only way to know, percieve, or relate to God is through the Son. No man has "seen God at any time". Nor can man "see God and live". So the creature can only know the Creator by a go-between which is Christ. This includes this life and in eternity

Mainstream theology does not teach this. Mainstream, by deffinition, is what everyone accepts. Yet this does not necessarily mean it's the truth. I've reached these conclusions by simply stopping and thinking about what is taught by mainstream theology. IMO, orthodoxy has missed the mark.

For example, mainstream theology teaches that the Garden of Eden was a "paradise". Pictures you see in children's Bibles or even in more mature commentaries depict the Garden as a wonderful, lush, oasis-like land. Where does this picture come from? Who decided that the Garden of Eden looked this way? Even movies have adopted the same idea. Yet nowhere in the Bible is this picture presented.

The same goes for the nature of Adam. Where do we get the idea that Adam's nature was altered as a result of his transgression? Do we really stop and think about this or do we simply accept mainstream theology because thats what "everyone else believes"? Should we assume the majority is correct?

I submit to you that the nature of Adam and the Garden of Eden principles that mainstream theology adheres to has its roots in Catholosism. This is not a deragatory statement, just an observation to think about.

 

Frogman,

Are you certain you want to make this kind of a statement? Do you really think Adam, before the transgression, knew nothing of God's grace, mercy, and love? Really? How do you arrive at that?

If Adam's relationship with God before the transgression is not based upon grace, mercy, or love, what is it based upon? What kind of relationship are you suggesting Adam had with God?