Original Sin

[apothanein kerdos]

(post removed)

For one, Jonathan Edwards wasn't the great of a preacher, no matter what "history" might tell you. Secondly, what in the world does this have to do with anything? And third, you don't care what Romans says? You are directly ignoring what the Bible teaches and have no problem with this?

Edited May 1, 2006 by IslandRose

[Guest tinker]

Did you seriously even think before you clicked "add reply"?

Probably lol.

For one, Jonathan Edwards wasn't the great of a preacher, no matter what "history" might tell you. Secondly, what in the world does this have to do with anything? And third, you don't care what Romans says? You are directly ignoring what the Bible teaches and have no problem with this?

I never said he was great, I just said he spoke. I am just saying that you act as he [Edwards] would, or as he[Edwards] would have wanted. No, I do not have a problem with it. Let us travel back in time to 1184, or 1478, a time where you (apothanein kerdos) would feel more comfertable.

Edited May 1, 2006 by tinker

[apothanein kerdos]

Did you seriously even think before you clicked "add reply"?

Probably lol.

For one, Jonathan Edwards wasn't the great of a preacher, no matter what "history" might tell you. Secondly, what in the world does this have to do with anything? And third, you don't care what Romans says? You are directly ignoring what the Bible teaches and have no problem with this?

I never said he was great, I just said he spoke. I am just saying that you act as he [Edwards] would, or as he[Edwards] would have wanted. No, I do not have a problem with it. Let us travel back in time to 1184, or 1478, a time where you (apothanein kerdos) would feel more comfertable.

Could you possibly begin to make more sense? I am not following what you are attempting to convey. Are you asserting that because I rely on the Bible I am somehow "out-dated?"

[eric]

Hi, AK, I would like to go back a few post for a minute and address this post you typed for Dad Ernie, here.

I stated that prior to the fall, Adam had no need for Christ. If Adam was created with a need then how could God declare His creation acceptable to His standards? The Bible is very clear that the entire reason Christ came into this world is because Adam sinned. YOu left the topic because you were in over your head and to anyone who read it, it would be quite obvious to them.

I have to agree that Adam did need Christ, and Christ was provided for him in the form of the tree of life, which is a form or type of Jesus, which Adam rejected and chose the other tree.

We all need Christ as well, but it is only available to man, when man humbles himself and acknowledges to God the fact that he does need forgiveness and salvation and the only way to accomplish that is to accept Jesus who is the Life, JN.14:6

When man rejects Jesus, the tree of life, he is spiritually dead. and that's what happened to Adam, but then you don't need me to tell you that, eh bro.

cheers,

eric.

[apothanein kerdos]

Hi, AK, I would like to go back a few post for a minute and address this post you typed for Dad Ernie, here.

I stated that prior to the fall, Adam had no need for Christ. If Adam was created with a need then how could God declare His creation acceptable to His standards? The Bible is very clear that the entire reason Christ came into this world is because Adam sinned. YOu left the topic because you were in over your head and to anyone who read it, it would be quite obvious to them.

I have to agree that Adam did need Christ, and Christ was provided for him in the form of the tree of life, which is a form or type of Jesus, which Adam rejected and chose the other tree.

We all need Christ as well, but it is only available to man, when man humbles himself and acknowledges to God the fact that he does need forgiveness and salvation and the only way to accomplish that is to accept Jesus who is the Life, JN.14:6

When man rejects Jesus, the tree of life, he is spiritually dead. and that's what happened to Adam, but then you don't need me to tell you that, eh bro.

cheers,

eric.

It is impossible for Adam to have been created with a need for Christ though. That is what I'm getting at. Post-fall, absolutely He needed the hope of Messiah. But we often forget why Christ came into the world. Romans 5 lays it out for us, He came to reverse what Adam had done. If this was the purpose, then how could Adam have had a need for Him pre-fall when there was nothing yet to reverse? We can say the tree of life is like Christ, but in the overall Biblical context this doesn't fit. Notice that in Revelation it reappears...does it lose it's connection to Christ in this apperance? Does it hold two seperate roles? Of course not.

Adam was created perfect, with no need, and that includes Christ. It is after he sinned that he then began to have a need for Christ. To say he needed Christ prior to the fall is to say he was incomplete.

[eric]

Point taken AK, but why the two trees. If God knew that Adam was going to fall. as some suggest, but I don't believe that, God would not have to test him by giving him a choice. But God did in fact put a *good* tree there representing Christ and eternal life and a *bad* tree representing death and eternal damnation. No one knows for sure whether or not God knew Adam would rebel, because it is not mentioned specificaly in the bible any where. People can only speculate and draw their own conclusions., which is exactly what I am doing now. However it makes healthy discussion, but I wouldn't care to debate it, because the outcome would be 50/50.

AK you have a great day in Jesus,

eric.

[apothanein kerdos]

Point taken AK, but why the two trees. If God knew that Adam was going to fall. as some suggest, but I don't believe that, God would not have to test him by giving him a choice. But God did in fact put a *good* tree there representing Christ and eternal life and a *bad* tree representing death and eternal damnation. No one knows for sure whether or not God knew Adam would rebel, because it is not mentioned specificaly in the bible any where. People can only speculate and draw their own conclusions., which is exactly what I am doing now. However it makes healthy discussion, but I wouldn't care to debate it, because the outcome would be 50/50.

AK you have a great day in Jesus,

eric.

Well that deals with the whole predestination vs. foreknowledge vs. open theism, which is a whole other can of worms. Personally I believe God knew Adam would rebel, and this is why He created man to begin with. Knowing that Adam would fall, He then realized man would have a choice; love God or don't love God. God, being loving and creating us in order to love u, would likewise realize that for true love to exist there would have to be a choice. I wouldn't read into the two trees so much. Knowledge in this instance represence a posteri knowledge, in other words, to eat of the tree of good and evil was to experience the difference, to become evil, to have "known" it (experienced). The tree of life, however, represented a relationship that was in dedication to God. It differs from Christ in that Christ restores whereas the tree of life was merely a sign of God's good measure to man and had no restoration powers. That's why I have a hard time linking it to Christ.

And though I don't think you're bordering this at all, we must be careful, both of us, to avoid two types of heresies. You must seek to avoid the same heresy as the Gnostics which taught Adam was inherently sinful and had an inheret need, and I must avoid the heresy that teaches there are more ways than Christ. It is a delicate issue.

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

AK,

Would you agree that Adam although Created without innate sin, still had an inherent need for a Relationship with God. In that way , he did indeed need Christ. Not out of a Salvational aspect at first but in a Relational aspect.

In essence God was the sustenance of Adam.

Therefore when he, Adam, fell from the relationship. He was indeed in sin and in need of Salvation.

What was that relationship built upon?

Peace,

Dave

[apothanein kerdos]

Grace to you,

AK,

Would you agree that Adam although Created without innate sin, still had an inherent need for a Relationship with God. In that way , he did indeed need Christ. Not out of a Salvational aspect at first but in a Relational aspect.

In essence God was the sustenance of Adam.

Therefore when he, Adam, fell from the relationship. He was indeed in sin and in need of Salvation.

What was that relationship built upon?

Peace,

Dave

I'm seperating the two, relationship and salvation. Of course Adam was created with an inheret need for a relationship with God, this is still in men today. Even the athiest attempts to find a fulfilling life without explanation as to why he is trying. Sin cast a split though between God and man.

What I am arguing is that prior to the fall, Adam had no need for Christ in a salvation sense. Again, salvation is to restore, and to what means did Adam need to be restored prior to the fall? That is wshat I have been saying from the beginning and Dad Earnie has been arguing the opposite, that Adam needed Christ for salvation prior to the fall. If that is the case, he was created inherently fallen.

As for relationships, yes, when Adam fell he became in need of salvation. However, I am speaking about the pre-fall.

[Kabowd]

Grace to you,

AK,

Would you agree that Adam although Created without innate sin, still had an inherent need for a Relationship with God. In that way , he did indeed need Christ. Not out of a Salvational aspect at first but in a Relational aspect.

In essence God was the sustenance of Adam.

Therefore when he, Adam, fell from the relationship. He was indeed in sin and in need of Salvation.

What was that relationship built upon?

Peace,

Dave

This is the crux of the entire issue. Dad Ernie insists that Adam was created inherently sinful, fallen, imperfect. He doesn't like that we call this belief heretical, but historically that's exactly what it is. It makes God evil (in that it makes Him the Creator of something evil). AK addressed this thoroughly in another topic (about the image of God), pointing out that the purpose of Christ was to restore man's relationship with God. The word "restore" by definition, means to bring back something that was lost to it's original condition. If Adam was sinful to begin with, or imperfect, there would be no point in restoration...why would God want to restore us to a fallen state when that's what we're in now? This is why a person's view of creation and the fall is very critical, it's the foundation of every other belief...especially redemption. Neither AK nor myself EVER suggested that there is any other way to God, except through Christ. This is a strawman argument launched against us time and time again. All we've stated is that prior to the fall, God's creation (including man) was perfect (which is the essence of the words "very good" in Hebrew).