Man is totally unnable to choose spiritual life

[Browner]

-- born with an inherited sin nature … many verses
-- spiritually dead in his sins … Ephesians 2:1-5, Colossians 2:13
-- a captive to the law of sin and death … Romans 8:2
-- a slave to sin, forced to obey evil … John 8:34, Romans 6:17-21, Titus 3:3
-- an enemy of God, hostile to God, opposed to God … Romans 8:7
-- spiritually blind and deaf … Matthew 13:13-15, John 9:39, John 12:39-40, Eph 4:18
-- unable to understand the things of God (they are foolishness) … 1 Corinthians 2:14
-- seeing the gospel as utter foolishness … 1 Corinthians 1:18
-- unable to believe the truth of the gospel because it is veiled … 2 Corinthians 4:3
-- blinded by Satan … Acts 26:18, 2 Corinthians 4:3-4
-- controlled/ruled by Satan John 12:31, 1 John 5:19, Acts 26:18, 2 Cor 10:4-5, Eph 2:2
-- deceived by Satan … Revelation 12:9, John 8:44, 2 Corinthians 11:14
-- a captive of Satan unto death … Hebrews 2:14-15, Luke 4:18
-- unable to be righteous by doing good works … Isaiah 64:6, Galatians 2:16, Titus 3:5
-- unable to be saved by his own desire or works … Romans 9:16, Ephesians 2:8-9
-- able to be saved only by the grace and mercy of God … Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:4-7
-- NOT allowed to choose ... God chooses only whomever He pleases … Romans 9:9-24

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 1 by Browner]

this is a one sided pessimistic view of human nature. Isn't it? This is not what human beings were created as. All those references crumble before the scriptural fact that humans are good. In fact very good. Which Genesis clearly states. How can you reconcile all the hopeless references of Paul with the original word of God concerning human nature? The ground of human nature is the very image OF God.

The ground of our created nature is the very image OF God but not of human nature which we chose ourselves.

Was ALL indeed good in the garden before they ate?

Gen. 1:31 And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

1. 1st "not good:"
This verse: 2 Peter 2:4 For if GOD spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell (literally: Tartarus) and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgement. is within this “everything,� since it is common knowledge that Satan and the angels fell before the garden as proven by the snake arriving in a fallen state before Adam and Eve sinned in the garden. Or do you ascribe to the blasphemy that Satan's fall and the demon's being sent to earth was good?

So sometimes everything does not mean everything. Perhaps it does not include some things outside of the area being talked about, (ie, the demons) OR perhaps something (someone, ie Adam and Eve) is bad but since it was used by God to further God's purpose then this situation with a bad thing being used for the good of His purpose could be summed up as good.

Thus the fact that Adam and Eve are not mentioned as sinning in the garden yet, and are included in being very good, does not prove their moral goodness, only that their creation and the creation of the earth and the garden serves God's purpose.

All of the arguments that they had to be morally good in the garden because God cannot create evil depends upon their bodies being created for them in the Garden as descriptive of their first and original creation, which causes the theological difficulties of some of these verses. If it is accepted that their original creation was as spirits in the spirit world (Sheol) where they may have sinned before the creation of the physical universe, then there is no need to ascribe them perfection of moral purpose in the garden.

2. 2nd "not good:"
Ever notice that and, behold, it was very good comes after Adam and Eve's creation as they are mentioned in a previous verse; Gen. 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Yet in Gen. 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. we have something being "not good." So not good in fact that it needed to be remedied, a remedy that came before the very good of verse 1:31. In other words the phrase very good is about a situation that started not good and then was corrected by giving Adam a helper.

3. 3d "not good" before all was very good:
But first we have the animals... Gen. 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

Well, something hinky is going on here I think. Who's idea was it that an animal could/would be a suitable helpmeet (mate) for Adam? God's? I really don't think so... And why didn't God just tell Adam, "Hey - animals aren't for mating; I've a got a woman planned for you."?

Or was Adam being a little bit rebellious to God's idea of a proper helpmeet? It had to be Adam's idea, right? It couldn't be God's idea, Eve wasn't there yet nor was the snake (perhaps) nor would the animals themselves get this idea so who is left? Now if it was Adam's idea, was he in conformity to God's plan/purpose/will for him or not? And is not all rebellion evil sinfulness?

Isn't it that the plain reading of the text implies Adam was being rebellious to God's plan for him but created on earth in the garden theology forces a warped interpretation upon these verses?

4. 4th "not good:" evil animals.
Gen. 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.

[Aside supporting Adam's sinfulness: Gen. 2:25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. this naked and the word describing the serpent's evil, cunning/crafty are the same word pre-vowel pointing, so were they subtle also or was the serpent naked and unashamed? An interesting choice of words especially in light of the fact that there is a perfectly good word in Hebrew that speaks directly to their being naked and only naked, (reference Noah being found naked in his tent).]

But just these words: more subtile than any beast of the field, don't they imply that the beasts had a measure of subtleness, a measure of craftyness, surpassed (only) by the snake?

So now during the everything was very good phase of existence we have:
- seriously fallen demonic angels
- GOD's estimate of Adam's aloneness as 'not good.'
- a deranged Adam trying to mate with the animals
- animals who were only a bit less evil than the snake, evil lite you might say.
- Adam and Eve being perhaps called as subtle as the serpent but they were unashamed of their state of sin.

Puts the old Sunday School teacher's version in a new light, eh? The only theology that treats these ideas in a straight forward manner without distortion is PCE, the belief we existed before the creation of the physical universe in a place where we ALL made our true free will choices, by faith without proof, to join God's Church forever or to take the chance that becoming His eternal enemy would work out ok.

As members of God's fallen church, Adam and Eve came to inhabit their new earthly bodies in the garden to learn that sin is enslaving, that it causes immense suffering and blindness and that the enemies of God will hold their enmity for eternity, ie they can't be saved or loved into heaven.

[marco]

Perhaps it makes no sense but that's the reality of life.

Babies are born so innocent and somehow turn into monsters.
Once you kill another human being you are a killer.
The only way back is what Jesus said, you must be
born again starting with repentance.

I have no idea how this relates to theology. Yes, babies are innocent. People are good and bad. Life is up and down. The only way back if you fall is to pick yourself up and learn from your error.

When one returns to the innocence of infancy one is very close to the grave.

[marco]

But, I know children's disobedience comes from their inherited sin nature.

Which would be true if children were universally disobedient. They aren't.

Scripture says ALL humans are totally filled with evil, sin, and etc.

If Scripture says this, then Scripture is an ass, as Bumble remarked about the law.

This is, of course, from God's viewpoint.
A totally holy God see us as totally evil and full of sin.
All of this because of the rebellion, disobedience, etc. of Adam and Eve.

This is a bridge too far. It is NOT God's viewpoint but man's interpretation of God's view. If God sees us as totally evil, then he's myopic. We have a whole spectrum of attributes from good to bad. Some people are undoubtedly evil while others are undoubtedly good. If God still regards pious old ladies as evil, then he requires a good dictionary.

This negative philosophy is out of place in a modern world. We do have bad people but thankfully the world is not without its saints or just honest-to-goodness folk who make mistakes but harm no one. If God doesn't like them then God is not a being to be liked.

[ttruscott]

Yes, man's nature when he was initially created was good.

And it makes no sense, therefore, to say that evil could come from a nature that was created good. Free will doesn't come in to it.

This is where the fallacy that we were created good meaning morally righteous, leads.

I contend that we were not created morally righteous at all but were created as ingenuously innocent (not righteous, not evil) with a free will BY WHICH we all had an equal ability and opportunity to chose to be able to become perfectly eternally righteous or to become eternally perfectly evil.

In this way we have the creation of evil by HIS creation, and not from HIMself, without having to destroy the idea of our free will which is an absolute theological necessity given GOD's attributes.

[ttruscott]

Babies are born so innocent and somehow turn into monsters.

No somehow about it: babies are not innocent (death proves sin) and we change to monsters when we use our free will to sin.

We were created innocent before we were born into the world by the Son of Man or the devil, and pre-earth we became monsters by our own free will choosing to follow our deepest dreams and desires, then, as sinners, we are sent to become human babies with a surface innocence.

All sinners, ie monsters, are sent to, sown into, earth.
Only sinners, ie monsters, are sent to, sown into, earth to live as humans.
The evil of the redeemably elect is just as evil, has an equal disvalue in GOD's eyes as the evil of any demon.

[marco]

Yes, man's nature when he was initially created was good.

And it makes no sense, therefore, to say that evil could come from a nature that was created good. Free will doesn't come in to it.

This is where the fallacy that we were created good meaning morally righteous, leads.

I contend that we were not created morally righteous at all but were created as ingenuously innocent (not righteous, not evil) with a free will BY WHICH we all had an equal ability and opportunity to chose to be able to become perfectly eternally righteous or to become eternally perfectly evil.

Well this removes some inconsistency. However, it is hard to understand how this neutral being, void of moral righteousness, or moral evil, could make meaningful choices. Since the being cannot attach good or evil to an action how can the being then be judged as having done anything wrong or right?

I can see how this appears to exonerate the Creator from the charge that he created evil, but a being with no sense of evil certainly didn't institute it. But it makes sense of Adam's a posteriori awareness that he was naked and, by prudish biblical standards, somehow bad. His awareness of evil was a new circumstance.

Too complex to my way of thinking, ttruscott.

[ttruscott]

But, I know children's disobedience comes from their inherited sin nature. ...Scripture says ALL humans are totally filled with evil, sin, and etc.

The concept of our inherited sin means that in effect we are not only sinful but facing damnation because HE put us in Adam and we had no choice in the matter. HE did not create Adam sinful so why create us sinful? Obviously HE did not...

We are the bride of Christ: there is no reason under heaven that HE would want to or need to create HIS bride as the most corrupt evil and pustulent people in creation then bring us, by our suffering, to the state where HE could finally marry us!

Our free will to choose to become evil or holy is an absolute necessity to keep GOD at arm's length from the creation of evil, to make our guilt to be truly our own and not HIS and to enable us to actually love, be righteous and to make a real marriage because forced love is no love at all, forced righteousness is not righteous at all and a forced marriage without choice is a rape, not a marriage.

[ttruscott]

Well this removes some inconsistency. However, it is hard to understand how this neutral being, void of moral righteousness, or moral evil, could make meaningful choices. Since the being cannot attach good or evil to an action how can the being then be judged as having done anything wrong or right?

The innocent person was not choosing right or wrong but was choosing to believe, that is, to put their faith, their unproven hopes, in GOD about what HE claimed was right or wrong.

Full complete disclosure about the consequences of our options in this choice were aired and discussed for a long time - if life on earth has taught me anything about GOD it is that HE does not force any quick decisions on people but goes too slow for most. Thus I envision at least as long as humanity has had to ponder these things for our pre-earth selves to ponder them and decide. Our problem was to decide if these unproven consequences should influence (not forced, no free will decision can be coerced) our choice to accept HIM or to reject HIS deity.

I can see how this appears to exonerate the Creator from the charge that he created evil, but a being with no sense of evil certainly didn't institute it.

???

But it makes sense of Adam's a posteriori awareness that he was naked and, by prudish biblical standards, somehow bad. His awareness of evil was a new circumstance.

His nakedness was not a bad nudity no matter what the Puritans taught. Being as he was created cannot be sinful, therefore the designation of naked must refer to a state of being unclothed in righteousness, that is , in a state of evil, as per Revelation 3:17 You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. Since he was not ashamed of being evil, he was rejecting that he was evil, a common state of evil people and part of their blindness.

Perhaps you are not aware that the serpent's craftiness and Adam's nakedness are indeed the same word (before pointing the vowels)...

[Yahu]

-- born with an inherited sin nature … many verses
-- spiritually dead in his sins … Ephesians 2:1-5, Colossians 2:13
-- a captive to the law of sin and death … Romans 8:2
-- a slave to sin, forced to obey evil … John 8:34, Romans 6:17-21, Titus 3:3
-- an enemy of God, hostile to God, opposed to God … Romans 8:7
-- spiritually blind and deaf … Matthew 13:13-15, John 9:39, John 12:39-40, Eph 4:18
-- unable to understand the things of God (they are foolishness) … 1 Corinthians 2:14
-- seeing the gospel as utter foolishness … 1 Corinthians 1:18
-- unable to believe the truth of the gospel because it is veiled … 2 Corinthians 4:3
-- blinded by Satan … Acts 26:18, 2 Corinthians 4:3-4
-- controlled/ruled by Satan John 12:31, 1 John 5:19, Acts 26:18, 2 Cor 10:4-5, Eph 2:2
-- deceived by Satan … Revelation 12:9, John 8:44, 2 Corinthians 11:14
-- a captive of Satan unto death … Hebrews 2:14-15, Luke 4:18
-- unable to be righteous by doing good works … Isaiah 64:6, Galatians 2:16, Titus 3:5
-- unable to be saved by his own desire or works … Romans 9:16, Ephesians 2:8-9
-- able to be saved only by the grace and mercy of God … Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:4-7
-- NOT allowed to choose ... God chooses only whomever He pleases … Romans 9:9-24

Let me guess, that is the basis for the Calvinistic nonsense about the 'total depravity of man'.

[marco]

[quote="[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.

I can see how this appears to exonerate the Creator from the charge that he created evil, but a being with no sense of evil certainly didn't institute it.

???

To have mens rea, at least in tellurian justice systems, one must have the intention of doing wrong. If people had no apparatus for deciding the immorality of an act, then they did not institute evil. If the choice they made was then designated the wrong one or the evil one by God, it is his responsibility.

Perhaps you are not aware that the serpent's craftiness and Adam's nakedness are indeed the same word (before pointing the vowels)...

I was unaware of this. I am aware that in Turkish, adam means man. Do these nuggets of information help an angel get his wings?