Old Earth and Original Sin

[ewq1938]

I've heard this said many times, but I'm not so sure I believe Adam is trying to blame anyone. It's seems merely to be an account of what transpired.

The problem is that it's an already known fact between them so Adam's inclusion of that is suspicious...it's something people do even now to suggest blame should go to the origin rather than to whom is at fault. "The woman YOU GAVE ME, gave me that fruit..." While accurate, the way it's worded tells me Adam was trying to skirt responsibility. In any event, Adam has done nothing to save Eve or to sacrifice himself in some selfless act of valor.

[glad4mercy]

Truth and righteousness is always anointed so there's nothing special there. People have always sought God and truth because we have the ability according to His Image. Don't act like something unusual was happening when you have no scripture to indicate it. In fact, we know John did exactly what other prophets before him did, from his dress, diet, and words.

If you don't think John Baptist was special, please provide me with a list of everyone in the Bible who was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb.

Yes, they were righteous, being instructed of the Father.
That's what I said, now you agree. Make up your mind.

I cannot find the above quote in my post. Please post it in full context

Who said that? A minute ago you agreed they did righteousness and had good works but still had sin,

Please provide this statement in its immediete context.

now you want to say I am saying they did not have sin. Pick a side and stay there.

This is the statement I was responding to. Please note the portion that I highlighted.

These tell you who comes to Jesus and who does not.
Joh 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
Joh 3:21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Different types of ground, with only one being good, verifies it. Someone that hates the light is not going to come to it. The Spirit is not going to drag and tweak them to come to what they hate.

My point is that God has a history of drawing the chiefest of sinners to Himself. He has a history of drawing people who formerly and previously hated the Light. Many like Paul hated the Light due to ignorance and blindness. Yet when the Holy Spirit opened their eyes and their hearts, they saw the error of their ways. Repentance means a complete change of mind, heart, and direction. Where we once loved darkness and hated light, we turn around and do the exact opposite. God is the one that leads us, grants us, and calls us to repentance. The ones who are of the truth are those who hear the call and are obedient to the Gospel. The ones who come to the Light are not those who lived righteously before conversion, they are the ones who are obedient to the heavenly calling, and it is this what makes them doers of the truth. The call always precedes the desire to come to the Light, and the call comes from God Himself.

You can't use the parable to your advantage and disadvantage at the same time. Either make the tree good or else make it evil. That's what Jesus said. You can't say the Spirit drags us but we can resist. That we're are unable to come but able to resist. The Spirit is not going to draw someone that hates the light. The Spirit will draw the others

Look at the bolded portion. You just said that the Spirit draws some and does not draw others. Is this what you believe?

BTW, what parable are you referring to? There is no parable mentioned in the quote you posted.

[Lily]

Because she did not sin against Adam, but she sinned against God, Adam still was a creation whatever state he was in.

Is that maybe why Adam sinned (he did sin, however you choose to look at it - out of love for his bride or not), because the flesh is weak? I'm asking a question, but I should be honest and say this is exactly why I think Adam sinned and why we all do.

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.)

[Noeb]

If you don't think John Baptist was special, please provide me with a list of everyone in the Bible who was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb.

What does this have to do with it? Before him were those with the Spirit, message of righteousness, same dress and provision from God in the wilderness. Were they less anointed? Please provided scripture! Is this how you gauge 'anointing'? Exactly what point is it you think you have here? This is completely foreign to scripture!

I cannot find the above quote in my post. Please post it in full context

You don't know how to use the 'find' function in your browser?
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.ph...75#post2860675

When I said that Paul was blameless according to the Law, you said that ceremonial righteousness had nothing to do with it, yet now you use the same argument to prove the opposite. Yes, they were righteous, being instructed of the Father. Also, it was faith that made them righteous. They were not without sin, but they trusted God, and their faith made them righteous before God. Do you suppose God had anything to do with the fact that they believed?

Please provide this statement in its immediete context.

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.ph...75#post2860675

When Jesus performed the first draught of fish miracle, Peter said " depart from me for I am a sinful man". None of the disciples would claim to have been righteous before their regeneration. Even Jesus said, "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance". Sure, the disciples were following the Law the best that they could, and were doing their best to follow the Light that they had received, but they did not choose Jesus, Jesus chose them, though it is true that they were obedient to that calling.

[glad4mercy]

sinner is one who sins. Adam did one when he ate the fruit so of course he was not a sinner.

How many times do I have to break a law in order to be guilty as a lawbreaker? Adam sinned and his sin needed to be covered. It doesnt matter how many sins you commit, whether you sin once or a billiion times, you still stand guilty before God and need pardon, cleansing, and remission.

It was called knowledge of good and evil and when they ate it does say their eyes were opened to know good and evil like God and they became like God. If you really need the verses let me know and I'll post them.

I will agree that they received the knowledge of good and evil, but where does it say they became like God. Go ahead and post that one if you will.

Secondly, they already knew Good, for they knew God. The only thing that was added was the knowledge of evil. In simple venacular, they lost their innocence.

When a young person fornicates for the first time, their eyes are opened in a sense as well, aren't they? Oh the glory of having one's eyes open to all the wonderful ways we can sin. Look at all the marvelous inventions of sin. We truly are wise in sinning, but in righteousness and goodness we are simple minded until God's truth enters our hearts.

You can't twist it like that, sorry.

That's not twisting. Man was made upright. It does not say "born" it says "made". There is nothing in this verse that indicates man is born righteous. You can make an argument that man is born innocent of any personal transgression, but you cannot say that he is born righteous.

No one is saying he was under the dominion of sin.

Agreed. Yet is natural man under the dominion of sin until redeemed?

[glad4mercy]

What does this have to do with it? Before him were those with the Spirit, message of righteousness, same dress and provision from God in the wilderness. Were they less anointed? Please provided scripture! Is this how you gauge 'anointing'? Exactly what point is it you think you have here? This is completely foreign to scripture!

If they were annointed, then that means that the power of the Spirit accompanied their message. In other words, no one has ever come to faith unless the Spirit moved on their hearts. You argued against this, but now you are admitting that the message of the prophets and apostles was effectual due to the annointing. The annointing is what breaks the yokes of the bondage of sin and unbelief, not the human will. The will only cooperates and yields to the Spirit.

Yes, they were righteous, being instructed of the Father. Also, it was faith that made them righteous. They were not without sin, but they trusted God, and their faith made them righteous before God. Do you suppose God had anything to do with the fact that they believed?

They were righteous because of their faith in what had been revealed and taught to them by the Father. The Father reveals, we respond in faith, then He reveals more. Like I said, the Father initiates everything. We don't seek God naturally, God seeks us first, then we respond with either a yay or a nay. This has been my point all along. If a natural man has a desire to seek God, it is only because God is already reaching out to them and drawing them.

[Noeb]

I will agree that they received the knowledge of good and evil, but where does it say they became like God. Go ahead and post that one if you will.

Gen 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

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 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

[Noeb]

BTW, what parable are you referring to? There is no parable mentioned in the quote you posted.

The only one we have discussed about the different types of ground.

[glad4mercy]

The only one we have discussed about the different types of ground.

What did that have to do with the quote that preceded this reference. You were responding to this quote

Doesnt the Bible say that we were enemies of God before we were saved. God was in Christ reconciling us to Himself, was He not. We were not going out of our way to reconcile ourselves to Him, He was the one who reached out to us.

How does your statement regarding the parable of the sower relate in any way to this statement?+

The Spirit is not going to draw someone that hates the light. The Spirit will draw the others.

I will ask again, do you really believe that the Spirit draws some, but does not draw others?

[Mark F]

Moses is the one spoken of the type of Christ there, not Adam.



He didn't save Eve in the least in fact he tried to blame her for what he did:

Gen 3:12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.


He also implies it's God's fault because the woman came from him!

No, Adam did not "sacrifice" himself to save Eve. He blames his choice to sin on her and on God, trying to avoid blame. That is not Christ-like at all.

I dont see Adam as a type of Christ, Adam sinned and was greatly punished, cast from the garden. What kind of type is he? There is much written to distinguish the very differences between the first Adam who was flesh, and the last Adam who was spiritual. Scripture makes clear how very different the two were. Adam was the first, Christ was the last. They are opposites in what they represent. When we think of Adam it is failure, sin, death, rebellion, denial, nakedness and shame. I do not think of these things when I think of Christ.


Moses was the one who led Israel to the promised land, spoke for God on many occasions, wrote the law and was the
chief priest basically...all things Christ would fulfill.

Adam is a type for all sinners who fall short, Moses was the type for Christ (yes Moses did sin but it was the ways God used Moses that makes him the proper type)

Adam was formed innocent and sinless. He lived with God in Paradise (The Garden). He was tempted with sin and fell from God's grace, and was cast out of that Paradise and sentenced to hard labor and eventual death.

Is that a Tupos or a type of our Lord Jesus Christ? NO!

Is that an "ensample" of what would be found in the life of our Saviour? NO!

Thats more like what happened to satan/Lucifer. Adam died for his own sins, Christ died for OUR sins. Adam is not a type of the Messiah, he was a type of the fallen man/soul who needed saved by the Messiah. And in that, we are all similar to Adam, all types of Adam....yet none of us are types of Christ.

That's fine that you disagree, I epected it, this BTW as any look at a type is for insight, a way to peel some layers away, the texts are there and actually quite clear, care must be taken I agree not to carry types too far.

I do however disagree with your first statement. Moses is not the one spoken of in type here:

Romans 5:14

14 "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come".

You might want to reread that. Maybe in haste to post you missed it.

My point was to think of what was really going on in the garden, just like with Abraham, he is in many cases a fine and clear type of Christ, but only a certain sense, he sinned too but that still doesn't change that he modeled for us redemption.

[Mark F]

Is that maybe why Adam sinned (he did sin, however you choose to look at it - out of love for his bride or not), because the flesh is weak? I'm asking a question, but I should be honest and say this is exactly why I think Adam sinned and why we all do.

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.)

I would have to say that would not be the reason Adam sinned, he was not "sinful flesh" as Paul writes there in Romans 8, but Paul is equally clear that Adam was not decieved, Eve was, even though afterward Adam's conscience convicts him and he tries to shift the blame, as the rest of the Scriptures teach-he was to blame. Have you ever thought why Adam is always said to be to blame for sin entering the world when in fact Eve started the whole thing?

As for what compelled him to actually sin, what else do we have to go on than what Scripture says? 1 Corinthians 15 has many insights into this subject also, many Adam/Christ compairisons, it seems to me again, much more is being taught us in Genesis than meets the eye.

[ewq1938]

I do however disagree with your first statement. Moses is not the one spoken of in type here:

Romans 5:14

14 "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come".

You might want to reread that. Maybe in haste to post you missed it.

Knowing what a type really is and then going over the main points of their lives leaves one to conclude Moses is the one being spoken about, not Adam. Adam's name is simply mentioned next to the statement but the subject is how death reigned from Adam to....guess who? Moses. Moses is the actual subject. Now ask yourself why death stop reigning at Moses and then ask yourself did spiritual death stop reigning with Christ...then you see how Moses is the true type of Christ.

Acts 7:37 This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.


"like unto me"


Did you also know that Moses made atonement for his people just as Christ would make atonement for even a larger amount of people? The comparisons and foreshadows only begin there but these are the big ones.

he is in many cases a fine and clear type of Christ, but only a certain sense

In no sense is Adam ever a type of Christ. He is a type of Lucifer, first sinner, fallen creation, rebels against God, cast from the garden, sentenced to death for his crime...it's impossible to make Adam into a type of Christ.

[Noeb]

Glad4mercy, you were responding to what I said about the different types of ground. Your reply didn't even relate. Look at the parable, with which ground/s is the Spirit involved?

[glad4mercy]

Glad4mercy, you were responding to what I said about the different types of ground. Your reply didn't even relate. Look at the parable, with which ground/s is the Spirit involved?

You entirely missed the point. The fact that someone doesnt come to Christ or doesnt abide in Christ doesnt mean the Spirit didnt draw them. If you say that only the good soil hearers were drawn, then you are saying that some are invited to salvation and some are not. This is exactly what Calvinism teaches, the all men are invited to come by the preaching of the Gospel, but only the Elect are drawn of the Spirit. I on the other hand believe that God draws all men, and that Grace can be received or resisted. I also believe that the man must not only hear the Gospel preached, but he must also be drawn to Jesus by the Father. I don't know why you find this so hard to accept.

Those who did not believe may or may not have been drawn by the Spirit at that time. Those that did not abide may or may not have been drawn by the Spirit, and they may or may not have been genuinely converted. Yet even if they were not drawn by the Spirit or if they resisted the Spirit's drawing at the first, there is nothing that says they were never drawn, won't be drawn, or even drawn again at a later time. Yet no-one believes the Gospel, comes to Christ, and abides in Him if they are not drawn. All that come to Christ were drawn , but not all who are drawn come to Christ, some resist.

What did Jesus mean when no one can come to him unless the Father draws them?

Now the good ground hearers are those who repent and believe the Gospel from the heart, and continue therein, and it is God who leads us to repentance, God is the one who sought us out, and God is the one who called us to be saints.

Tell me, the ones who are good soil hearers, how did they become that way?

[Noeb]

You entirely missed the point. The fact that someone doesnt come to Christ or doesnt abide in Christ doesnt mean the Spirit didnt draw them. If you say that only the good soil hearers were drawn, then you are saying that some are invited to salvation and some are not. This is exactly what Calvinism teaches, the all men are invited to come by the preaching of the Gospel, but only the Elect are drawn of the Spirit. I on the other hand believe that God draws all men, and that Grace can be received or resisted.

I already said many times all are draw in many ways throughout life. Done.
I addressed who was drawn to Jesus this way, because God does not drag and tweak anyone to come to what they hate.

These tell you who comes to Jesus and who does not.
Joh 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
Joh 3:21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Different types of ground, with only one being good, verifies it. Someone that hates the light is not going to come to it. The Spirit is not going to drag and tweak them to come to what they hate.

Jesus said
"For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light"
I said
"Someone that hates the light is not going to come to it."