What do you think?
Did Adam have a natural proclivity towards sin when he was created?
What do you think?
Isaiah 45:7: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
God described the creation as very good. We learn of no natural proclivity to sin in the Scriptures.
For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine
[Jer 8:12] "...Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore shall they fall among them that fall: in the time of their visitation they shall be cast down, saith the LORD."Originally Posted by wildboar
[Eze 16:22] "... And in all thine abominations and thy whoredoms thou hast not remembered the days of thy youth, when thou wast naked and bare, and wast polluted in thy blood."
[Eze 23:29] "... And they shall deal with thee hatefully, and shall take away all thy labor, and shall leave thee naked and bare: and the nakedness of thy whoredoms shall be discovered, both thy lewdness and thy whoredoms."
[Gen 2:25] "... And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed."
[Gen 3:7] "... And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons."
[Gen 3:10] "... And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?"
Selah!
"Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so..."
UGC:
Scripture must be interpreted in context. The point being made in the Genesis passage is that they were not ashamed because there was no sin in them. Once sin had entered then they were ashamed. Jeremiah and Ezekiel are not talking about Adam and Eve but of Israel. Israel was living in a post fall context and sinned and yet had progressed in sin to such a degree that they weren't even ashamed of it. Adam and Eve tried to cover it up, Israel sinned openly.
For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine
The fact that they were not ashamed meant that they were not aware of their true condition. Once their eyes were opened and they KNEW they were naked for the first time they became aware of their inherent proclivity to rebel (inherent spiritual nakedness) from the beginning.
Now see here how sleepy-headed all our opponents are, and how little it helps a man to rely on the ancient fathers, for all their repute down the course of the ages! Were they not all equally blind to, yes, and heeldess of, Paul's clearest and and plainest words?
--Martin Luther
You're missing the underlying theme being (in this particular instance) presented by the bible itself. God has chosen specific authors throughout time to use similar language to convey concepts that are relative to one another, and relevant to the underlying 'message system' of the bible as a whole.
Paul expounded doctrine in the EXACT same fashion by piecing togther "bits and pieces" scattered throughout the "ot".
Try stepping outside the boundries of what you've been taught by men, and examine it for yourself...
Here's an excellent example to begin with Romans 3:10-3:18.
Last edited by Ugly_Gaunt_Cow; 06-20-2007 at 07:27 AM.
"Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so..."
proclivity noun:
"inclination, tendency, leaning, disposition, proneness, propensity, bent, bias, penchant, predisposition; predilection, partiality, liking, preference, taste, fondness, weakness." -apple dictionary
If adam did commit sin then it must have been a proclivity. He must have had a proneness or weakness to sin before he sinned and that is why he must inevitably have sinned. One argument might be that the devil's temptation caused adam to sin and ony after that did adam have a weakness to sin. The first half is true, the devil did tempt adam to sin. If adam was not depraved before the fall though, he would not have committed sin because it would not be in his nature to do so. The tempation by the serpent and the woman would not have been effective because his flesh would only have the desire to follow God's orders. The only point of view that could deny this is one that leads to free wills bacause in this view man can change the disposition of his own heart at any time and affect the outcome of his own destiny outside of the will of God.
Oddly enough my dictionary has a definition for infralapsarian but not supra...
I have always wanted to ask this question and now here is my opportunity. Anyone please respond. I wonder why this specific verse Gen 1:31 “And God saw everything that he had made and behold, it was very good”, is used to say that Adam was created without any inclination to sin, I’m not sure I understand unless it is only because of the word good. In verse 25 after creating the beasts of the field He also says that it was good.
Does anyone have the ‘why’ this is traditionally used this way?
Eileen~
"To those who have no works-phobia, I will state that you are not trembling before the gospel" Robert R. Higby
Everything that God created/creates is good simply because it is He who created it. Regardless of what/who it is or whether the purpose of the created object is ultimately salvation, beauty, utilitarian, or damnation.
I personally believe it is the Platonic mindset--the one that assumes God cannot be good if He creates something less than ontologically perfect--that is the origin of this interpretation of equating 'very good' with 'ontological perfection.' It goes way way back to the inter-testamental Greeks and Jewish political leaders.
Now see here how sleepy-headed all our opponents are, and how little it helps a man to rely on the ancient fathers, for all their repute down the course of the ages! Were they not all equally blind to, yes, and heeldess of, Paul's clearest and and plainest words?
--Martin Luther
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks