Could we agree that Adam and Eve were very good when they were created. And maybe the word “innocent” applies.
I especially appreciate the discussion revolving around God’s purpose in His foreknowledge, the condition of fallen man, and the efficacy of Christs death.
We know that God so loved the world that He gave a spotless and pure lamb to pay the debt of sin, and He did that from before the foundation of the world.
I’d like to introduce to this discussion a fundamental driver that might have something to do with it.
Love requires freedom. Freedom is what it is. Freedom entails choice.
So that it is true that:
In the case that God decrees to create free creatures as objects of His reciprocating love, the possibility of evil choices comes into existence at the same time.
This means that Adam and Eve, although innocent as created, were necessarily free to sin against God from the moment they were created.
Does this seem to be true, and, if so, what would that mean relative to God’s creation of free creatures?
Im frankly agnostic relative to the chronology of Adam’s rebellion.
There are those who maintain that our 1st ancestors were in need of a savior upon their " conception"
I suppose Augustine could have backed himself into that corner. I recall him confessing his envy as a child in the crib.
So…is it our flesh that is merely doing what comes naturally initially? Or is rebellion baked in?
I’ll sit back and listen. As I remain ambivalent.
Perhaps it’s my impulse to remain in the present, where my Lord will meet me, that keeps me from pondering the history. The truth of the text, speaks to me where I am. In the here and now.
My question is more specifically relative to entailments logically prior to any creation.
In other words, it’s not possible for God to create free creatures who can’t sin, unless the creatures or context are somehow deficient. Of course God knows this. If God decrees to create persons, in His own image, who are capable of reciprocating His love, they necessarily are free to choose to not love or obey Him.
So this entailment establishes a possibility of sin in any world that God creates substantially free persons, be it in heaven, or on the earth.
Our magnificent holy God is going to have a plan for that.
Hearken, O God! Alas for the sins of men! Man says this, and You have compassion on him; for You created him, but did not create the sin that is in him. Who brings to my remembrance the sin of my infancy?
For before You none is free from sin, not even the infant which has lived but a day upon the earth. Who brings this to my remembrance? Does not each little one, in whom I behold that which I do not remember of myself? In what, then, did I sin? Is it that I cried for the breast? If I should now so cry — not indeed for the breast, but for the food suitable to my years — I should be most justly laughed at and rebuked. What I then did deserved rebuke; but as I could not understand those who rebuked me, neither custom nor reason suffered me to be rebuked.
For as we grow we root out and cast from us such habits. I have not seen any one who is wise, when purging John 15:2 anything cast away the good. Or was it good, even for a time, to strive to get by crying that which, if given, would be hurtful — to be bitterly indignant that those who were free and its elders, and those to whom it owed its being, besides many others wiser than it, who would not give way to the nod of its good pleasure, were not subject unto it — to endeavour to harm, by struggling as much as it could, because those commands were not obeyed which only could have been obeyed to its hurt?
Then, in the weakness of the infant’s limbs, and not in its will, lies its innocency. I myself have seen and known an infant to be jealous though it could not speak. It became pale, and cast bitter looks on its foster-brother. Who is ignorant of this?
Mothers and nurses tell us that they appease these things by I know not what remedies; and may this be taken for innocence, that when the fountain of milk is flowing fresh and abundant, one who has need should not be allowed to share it, though needing that nourishment to sustain life? Yet we look leniently on these things, not because they are not faults, nor because the faults are small, but because they will vanish as age increases. For although you may allow these things now, you could not bear them with equanimity if found in an older person.
For the readers sake. Something that Paul in his 13 epistles taught me.
Right, none of this is figurative. God literally created a world where sin is possible, and you personally are free to sin. And you have willingly used your freedom to sin and rebel against God.
God did not cause you to sin. And I don’t think you needed Adam to teach you to sin. Nor did I.
We were discussing:
I agree with @PeterC , that we should never diminish the gravity of sin. and the significance of Jesus sacrifice. Especially reflecting on His prayer in Gethsemane, as He sweat great drops of blood, beseeching the Father that if there be any other way, that the cup would pass from Him.
There is no other way. This is why.
Freedom to love entails freedom to sin. THAT’S HOW MUCH HE LOVES US!! HE MADE US ANYWAY, AND HE MADE THE WAY!!!
And, praise His name, we get to watch Him destroy sin and evil forever. That’s the great and Holy God we serve.
I don’t take issue with any of this. I suppose one could introduce Augustine’s thoughts around " original righteousness " and whether we inherited Adam’s guilt, or his propensity for sin.
As I said, makes no difference to me now.
And I accept fundamental Christian doctrine. I’m merely exploring terminology.
Perhaps transactional jargon is what’s baked into our fallen nature.
But it seems inconsistent to what I know of my savior. And perhaps new metaphors are in order. Not new doctrine.
Edit upon re-read: oh, you mean the “transactional jargon”?
Yeah you know some folks get caught up in some things and some in others.
I share your concern. Some folks seem to want to demand their definitions etc, on pain of exclusion. I get it. On the other hand is the risk of apostasy.
That’s not the struggle that I’m called to ha ha. Jesus, and Him crucified. Brings me to my knees and drives away my arrogance. It’s hard to be arrogant when you’re bawling like a baby. He knew what I would be, and He loved me that much - He made me anyway.
I have lots of kids and lots of grandkids. I was young, now I’m old. What you say is true. It’s a given they will break rules. It’s possible for them to resist love. But not likely and not forever. Patience in love will win them over.
Forgive me for asking, @Oakback, but since you refer to “transactional jargon,” perhaps you could define exactly what you mean by that term. More importantly, which biblical terms or concepts do you regard as “transactional,” and what do you believe Scripture intends by them? I ask because terms such as “price,” “ransom,” “redemption,” and “debt” are not merely theological inventions. They are biblical language. So I’m genuinely curious where you draw the distinction between the language of Scripture and what you regard as “transactional jargon.”
That being said…
λύτρον (lytron) - ransom
ἀγοράζω (agorazō) - purchase/buy
τιμή (timē) - price
ἀπολύτρωσις (apolytrōsis) - redemption
ἱλαστήριον (hilastērion) - propitiation/expiation
ἀναφέρω (anapherō) - bear/carry up, including sins
ὑπέρ (hyper) - on behalf of/for
ἀντί (anti) - in place of, in exchange for, corresponding to
Did these concepts actually evolve away in the New Testament, or does the New Testament develop and deepen the Old Testament categories around Christ?
I’m genuinely interested in what you are bringing to the table.
I believe the essence of sin is emnity towards my neighbor. Which, imo is emnity towards Our Good Lord.
My relationship with Him, can be seen by relationship to my “neighbor”. Full stop.
Jesus has never asked me to stop sinning. He’s asked me to start loving.
Im really, honestly, sincerely not here to judge my neighbor. Our Good Lord has that taken care of. I am absolutely unqualified as a judge. I do it poorly.
I believe love is contagious. And can only pray for those who reject it.
My theology can best be described as such;
We are imperfect people, commanded to love imperfect people, perfectly.
Here’s the free full text, hosted by the Christian Classics Ethereal Library, which is a solid, reputable source for public domain theological texts…
That’s Henry Cole’s English translation of De Servo Arbitrio, with the table of contents linking straight into each section, including his direct rebuttals of Erasmus’s arguments for free will.
The Packer and Johnston modern English translation is generally considered the more readable version if you end up wanting a print copy, since Cole’s 1823 translation can feel dense and archaic in places.
With respect, this highlights the confusion re: Calvin and Luther that many of us experience.
According to Luther, God has enslaved the will of @TheologyNerd, who is utterly incapable of any good works. So why would you tell him to “keep up the good work”, when in fact he is simply doing what God has determined him to do by force of His own will?
Luther would say that you are no Christian at all, (like he did to Erasmus) and in fact you are a devil-spawned apostate for suggesting that @TheologyNerd is acting in any way on his own.
So help us out here, seriously, how do you reconcile that? And I know that you have said differently on different threads, so it seems that you don’t agree with everything that Luther says.
Is that correct?
And, my goodness, this guy’s rhetoric is the worst. I don’t see how he proposes to himself that he is following the will of God.
Apparently this was a historical time similar to our own, where bald ad hominem passed for respectable debate. So perhaps, given the context, his hyperbolic condemnations were considered thoughtful and scholarly.
I don’t think I would recommend this writing to anyone who has a desire to know God better, even if he was accurate, which I don’t agree that he is.
Good morning @Oakback. You asked quite a bit; I’m not sure you understand how much you said here. Let’s start with the above. Jesus IS the only answer to any question in any faith-based belief system. The Gospel is it. Not a form of the Gospel. Not a version of the Gospel. Not your opinion of what the Gospel means. THE GOSPEL. The easiest way to describe the division is simply the enemy.
One of the devil’s greatest accomplishments is convincing the World that he doesn’t exist. No devil, then no hell. No devil, no hell, no sin. No sin, no reason for a Savior. No Savior, no God. No evil means no good. No hell, then no heaven. No judgment for Sin, if there is no sin. Simply, live as you will.
Then you have the body of Christ. The Church. Many people from all walks of life- rich, poor, black, white, other religions, etc.- all becoming one. Wait a second. This may not be a good thing for the enemy. Why? Look at the Tower of Babel. Not the whole story, but rather what God actually said.
"Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. As people moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there.
They said to each other, ‘Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.’ They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. Then they said, ‘Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.’
But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. The Lord said, 'If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.” Genesis 11:1-7
So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth. This is where we get the languages and races from. Did He do this because they couldn’t do it? No. “If, as one people speaking the same language, they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them.” United, we can do anything. One of the most effective weapons of warfare is divide and conquer.
The devil does not want us together, with one mind and one speech, so he does anything he can to separate us. False doctrines, jealousies, and the desire to be the only “right and true ones” that are loved by the Father. Whatever he can do to separate us.
Actually, it very much is. In the Old Covenant, the price of sin was death. It still is. God has always been the one providing the way it gets paid. The price has never changed (Romans 6:23)
“The wages of sin is death.” Sin inherently creates a breach of life and fellowship with God. Death isn’t an arbitrary fee God tacked on; it is the natural and just consequence of turning away from the Source of Life. Death was the cost in the Old Covenant, and death remains the cost in the New Covenant. God’s holiness and justice did not shift or lower the bar.
In the Old Covenant (The Shadow): The animal sacrificial system was a temporary provision. The shedding of blood demonstrated the gravity of sin. That sin costs life (Leviticus 17:11). However, as Hebrews 10:4 notes, “it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.” They were placeholders pointing forward.
In the New Covenant (The Substance): Jesus came as the ultimate, definitive sacrifice (Hebrews 9:26–28). He didn’t abolish the requirement that sin must be paid for; He met it completely, “once for all” (ephapax).
You seem to be worried that calling it a “price” implies a neighbor must do something or pay something to deserve grace. A “price” was indeed paid, but the sinner paid $0. The cost was borne entirely by the Redeemer.
In human transactions, if someone pays your debt, it remains a literal debt that was satisfied. You just didn’t pay it. Calling it a “paid price” doesn’t make grace earned; it highlights how costly grace was to God.
As you know, I agree with @Pater15 on free will, but you are both saying the same thing in the long run. What matters most isn’t solving the historical timeline of Genesis, but encountering Christ’s saving grace in the present moment. Do you see how easy it is for the enemy to sneak in and create a division? Just pointing it out. Sorry, continue.
We do not disagree here. The Bible teaches that we are born in sin. We are born of sin. And without Jesus, we die in our sin. Pretty firm on that. This is why we need the price paid by Jesus.
One hundred percent. After all, when asked about the greatest of all the Commandments, Jesus answered this.
“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
However, we also must be careful that we do not fall for false compassion and start justifying or excusing sin. Of course we are called to love. Of course Jesus loved all. However, do not forget this one detail. Jesus said, “Go and sin no more.”
John 5:14 (The Healing at the Pool of Bethesda) Jesus finds the man He had healed of a 38-year paralysis in the temple and says to him:
“See, you are well again. Stop sinning [sin no more], or something worse may happen to you.”
John 8:11 (The Woman Caught in Adultery)
After the accusers leave and no one is left to condemn her, Jesus says to the woman:
“Neither do I condemn you; go and from now on sin no more.”
Should we judge? Yes, actions, sin. Calling out what is and what is not Sin. What is and what is not truth. We are not called to judge one\s heart, but rather to warn those we see in sin; there is death in sin; however, there is life in Jesus.