Born dead in Adam?

[Lone Arranger]

Daniel, I've added your book's link to my favorites for when I have time to read the entire thing. I need to print it because it's hard from me to read from the laptop and I like to make notes, underline, etc. Also my eyes aren't as good as they once were.

So, until I have a chance to read and digest it all, can you just copy/paste what you feel is the most pertinent part dealing with why pre-law peoples were condemned - by that I mean made spiritually dead - before the written law? In other words, what is the flip side, not spelled out in scripture (that I can find), of how Abraham was justified by faith before the written law? The flip side is why were the rest of mankind not justified before the written law? This question gets more complicated when you factor in that God called Abraham to leave his family, etc. What if God had never called him? Would he still be called the father of faith? Of course not, but then such a possibility is an impossibility in the purposes of God.

I look forward to hearing from you and whoever else cares to repond.

[RogerW]

Lonearranger, why must we be born AGAIN? We aren't stillborn, yet we are born "dead in trespasses and sins". So we are naturally born, physically alive, yet Christ tells us "ye must be born again". That seems to indicate that though we be born physically alive, there is something within us that must be born again. What is that? Could it be that we are born phsically alive, spiritually dead?

[Lone Arranger]

I get your point - that it's a matter of how we are born - which would mean we are born spiritually dead. That would mean that all babies and children that die would go to hell because they'd have been spiritually dead/separated from God from birth (before birth?). But the problem with that explaination is that Paul said, "Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died," Rom 7:9. So that section of scripture makes a point of telling us that people are spiritually alive up to some event - obviously Paul wasn't speaking of physical death. So I think the answer to your question is that we are born with a nature alienated from God that will inevitably lead us to sin and that to spiritual death - the only remedy of which is to be born again with a new nature through faith in Christ.

[Eyelog]

I understand where you're coming from, because I was there...for decades, even.

Hi, Daniel. I will try to read your chapter.

In the mean time, I am impressed that you are actually attempting a philosophical approach to the question of what man is, in the light of Scripture.

I think we have to account for these verses:

What do we do with these Scriptures, if unblievers are not doing things the devil makes them do?

1 John 5:19
We know that we are of God, and that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.

John 8:44
You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

Matthew 13:38
and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one;

2 Peter 2:19
They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity—for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him.


2 Corinthians 4:4
The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.


2 Timothy 2:25-26
New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)

25 Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, 26 and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.

If we are slaves of the Devil, doing what he commands, is it possible to maintain a subjective choice, even if the outcome of our choice is in some fashion determined by the will of Satan?

Please advise.

[RogerW]

I get your point - that it's a matter of how we are born - which would mean we are born spiritually dead. That would mean that all babies and children that die would go to hell because they'd have been spiritually dead/separated from God from birth (before birth?).

Would it not be better to leave the fate of the dead with the Lord? Instead of worrying about whether or not babies and children are born spiritually separated from God, would it not bring greater comfort for us (believers) to claim the promises of God for our children? We find a good example in King David. When his son through adultery with Bathsheba died, David did not consider his son lost. David found comfort in knowing that though his son would never return to him, he would be with him. If all children are born spiritually separated from God, how did David find hope even in his child's death? I believe it was because David claimed God's promises to him and his children. Salvation is of the Lord, and He will save His people. The children of believers have great advantage over those of unbelievers. Because God says, Ac*2:39
"For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." Of course this is not a guarantee that every child of every believer will indeed be saved. But it is of great comfort to those of us who have the sure Word of God, knowing that none of God's elect people (whether infant, child, or adult) will be lost. Why? Because salvation if of the Lord!

Of course we know the condition of every human born of the seed of Adam..."there are none righteous, no not one". But praise be to the God of all mercy that salvation is not dependent upon my righteousness, but upon the grace of God alone!

But the problem with that explaination is that Paul said, "Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died," Rom 7:9. So that section of scripture makes a point of telling us that people are spiritually alive up to some event - obviously Paul wasn't speaking of physical death. So I think the answer to your question is that we are born with a nature alienated from God that will inevitably lead us to sin and that to spiritual death - the only remedy of which is to be born again with a new nature through faith in Christ.

Paul isn't arguing for spiritual life in this passage. He tells us how he interpreted works of the law before he was given spiritual life through Christ. Without spiritual knowledge of the law, sin was there, but not according to how Paul viewed his righteousness through keeping the law. Apart from spiritual life, Paul saw himself as righteous, but when the light of the Spirit entered his conscience, he began to see the lusts of his own heart. He saw himself healthy and sound, and lived in a state of self-righteousness. But when the true law through Christ was revealed to him, he saw himself as he truly was, dead in sin, dead to God and under condemnation. Paul's sinful nature even used the law to deceive him into thinking he kept the law, which he now realizes made him even a greater sinner.

[Eyelog]

I understand where you're coming from, because I was there...for decades, even.

But the problem your position faces is that it declares evil to be something not individually chosen. In fact, it conflates the whole definition of Choice itself, which inevitably leads to doublethinking ideas like "we choose in Adam" and so forth. The doctrine is merely an extension of the Calvinist notion that a man "chooses in God," for Calvinists believe man is not "ultimately predicative." In short, the doctrine of original sin ultimately denies the basis of individual, sentient, creaturely existence, because it denies individual, creaturely Choice. IMO the biblical view is that Choice = (sentient) Being. And so, if there is no individual Choice, there is no you.

Unwittingly or not, I believe Descartes was echoing a profound and biblical truth when he said, "I think, therefore I am." For although God gives us the ability to think, He never gives us what to think. If He provided the what, then there would be no final distinction between the mind of "God" and the mind of "man". And so God provides the form, but a man the content, of his thought. Indeed, unless we provide the content, morality is not even possible. Why? Because sin is selfishness, and selfishness is not possible without a self. Neither is unselfishness possible without a self. In fact, both selfishness and unselfishness demand not only a Self, but an Another apart from the Self. For if, hypothetically, there were only one Being in the universe with no one besides, then it would be impossible for that Being to be either selfish or selfless, since either of these states requires the existence of another person. Therefore to say that Adam's Choice determined irresistibly (i.e., "assures," as you put it) your choice, is to conflate Adam and you, in which case there is only "Adam" and "you," i.e., synonymous terms incapable of final immaterial [thought, choice, being] distinction. Calvinism extends this principle by claiming only God "ultimately predicates," which is why I counterclaim that Calvinism embraces the One of Zen, but generally escapes that label by cleverly disguising itself in Christianese. Calvinism does this through the psychological association of words that imply, in any normal sense of the word, individual things and persons, leaving the reader to falsely suppose Calvinism accepts the idea of individuality. Unfortunately, these Calvinistic ideas have infiltrated even many churches who think of themselves as non-Calvinistic.

Here are two questions worth asking: Do you really believe in individual, sentient existence? If you answer yes, then upon what basis is it, if not individual Choice? This whole question is about the definition of personhood. Remember, when the Bible tells us "In Him we live and move and have our being," this can only refer to the form of our being. Otherwise there is no final, sentient distinction between "God" and "us".

Hi, Daniel, I read a good portion of your very lengthy Chapter 18 and skimmed the rest of your book. I think you are a good writer, and you do a remarkable job of dealing with the complex problem of exigizing very difficult passages, with all their relatively vague referents flowing this way and that. I think you are a very good thinker, and probably right about most of what you say and think on.

Now, I have no commitments to Calvinism or any other ism. Like yourself, I tend to read the Word and draw conclusions directly from it, rather than relying on someone else's theological prouncements. However, I have several areas of disagreement with you:

First, I agree Original Sin is not tantamount to what Augustine and Calvin, et al, would call "total depravity." But there is definitely a serious difference between Innocent Adam and Fallen Adam, which you discuss under the heading of knowledge of good and evil. See my comments to that below. On the other hand, I tend to agree that imputed sin from Adam should be considered imputation of the consequences of sin only (as opposed to sin guilt). However, I don't think that, even if we conclude OS is imputed sin guilt, this vitiates "free will" to any degree. Rather, that is a question about the so-called problem of evil, especially in understanding how infants and the unborn can be saved from Hell. But there is apparently no Biblical statement anywhere that those who have original sin or the imputed sin of Adam are going to receive eternal death, but only that they shall die. 1 cor 15:22. There is no explanation as to why death is not the sole penalty for Adam's sin which has an ultimate conclusion. (The darkened mind may be a consequence rather than a penalty, but I don't think we need to draw that distinction unless we are contrasting the effects on humans and the entire creation from the fall against the list of consequences or punishments in Genesis 3.) Therefore, there is no issue as to sin consequences/punishments with the problem of evil, except that we are only able to account for original sin's sin guilt not leading to hell by saying one of two things:

1. it is not sin guilt, but just consequences; or
2. the penalty of physical death is sufficient to pay that sin penalty.

Your exegesis seems to try to prove the point as to (1) consequences in Romans, and you don't mention the second possibility, which, I think does conflict with the concept that the penalty for any sin is not just physical death, but eternal death. I won't open that can of worms further.

So, I think that leaves your ultimate point about OS:

I stress this point in order to recover the biblical doctrine that man's will was not corrupted by any alleged original sin that descended down from Adam. Rather, the will must be considered uncorrupted if man is truly to be free—free so that God may judge him—either of his works, or of his faith in Christ.

The difference between total depravity and "not corrupted" in describing this thing you call "free will", is a huge gulf, of all kinds of varying levels of freedom vs. corruption, varying in quantity and quality. Yet, it seems you are saying that the human will is not corrupted at all, in any way. If that is your position, I think we will have something to talk about. For example, why is the creation going to be "set free from its slavery to corruption" Rom 8:21 but natural man and his mind and heart and "will" don't need to be set free from "slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God?"

Second, I don't believe that God judges us for our so-called acts of "free will," per se, but does judge us for the condition of our heart and the actions which overflow from it. By condition of the heart, I mean that which is stored up therein and which disposes us to 'choose' or 'decide' or 'will' the realization of our desires, whether they be good or evil. After all, there is no faculty of "will" in the Old or New Testaments, but only the heart and what it believes, hopes, loves, desires, expects, and otherwise emotes over. You can call that "free will" if you like (and lots of times I do so too, but only as a short hand), but it is (a) not a Biblical term, and (b) very possibly not as easily analyzed as sua sponte or ex nihilo thoughts or some other philosophical idea which is distinct and probably not even abstracted from the framework of love, hope and faith, which are the central business of the leb/kardia. It is for our love, hope and faith, or their relative absence, for which we are judged, as they manifest in, and concurrently with, our outward actions. Where that leaves us with a theory of "free will" is, perhaps, not altogether touched upon by inquiries into the philophical concept of "free will". It may be the apparent importation of philosophical baggage without a thorough analysis of the heart which leads to what i would call a sort of 'naked' conception of the will, free or otherwise. In that you do not analyze the heart and its contents at all in your analysis, at least that I saw, I am suspecting this accounts for your perceived need for a totally free volition, with 'thoughts ex nihilo.' I don't agree we have any thoughts ex nihilo, though I am not sure you explain that principle enough for me to directly take issue. (Again, I was unable to spend as much time abstracting your position as i would have liked, so it might help if you were to do so).

Third, I don't believe that God did not want mankind to have knowledge of good and evil, nor do I believe that Adam and Eve understood what death would mean for them. They had no fear of death. They certainly had no idea there could be a 'fall', involving the darkening of the heart/mind and the corruption of the entire creation. Nor do I believe God's overall purpose was for mankind to not sin and to not undergo the "fall". Indeed, all of the creation was subjected to futility by God Himself, in hope that ... God subjected it, along with mankind, to corruption, hoping to accomplish something:

Romans 8:19-21New American Standard Bible (NASB)

¹⁹ For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. ²⁰ For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope ²¹ that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.

Based merely on what I have read of your book, it appears you may be omitting a plausible account of the overarching teleology of the Fall and what God is attempting to accomplish with and through Adam/Antrhopos overall. However, I like your distinction between the old anthropos and the body of death. What would you say is the significance of the new anthropos?

So, I disagree with you flatly when you say:

God intended that Adam and Eve and their descendents should remain, so to speak, ‘babes in the woods,’ i.e., innocent of their nakedness (in the lower form in which God made them), having a simple understanding of good and evil unencumbered with the often tireless thought of sin’s pleasurable possibilities. For God knew that such knowledge would not be prudent for Adam and Eve in their lower form.

Fourth, I think you have an excellent read of Romans. However, when you discuss Romans 7, it is ironic that you note:

in Romans 7. In that passage Paul sheds light on a different law, or principle, which he finds in his members and which wars against his true interest. The different law he is talking about is the knowledge of good and evil, and Paul finds that it nearly overwhelms him with distracting thoughts and threatens to take his focus away from God. The evident result (not inevitable result) is that Paul sometimes follows a sinful pleasure whose possibility had previously been presented to him through his flesh. This fact goes to the point that divinely-given additional knowledge, i.e., revelation, such as that given by God through the Mosaic Law, was designed as a counteracting knowledge which God gave to man to distract him (in a good sense) away from the vicarious knowledge about sin’s pleasurable possibilities.

You seem to have your finger on one very important place where Paul is saying, not that he is 'nearly overwhelmed' by the law of the flesh, but that he IS overwhelmed by it. He exclaims, "who will free me from this body of death? Thanks be to Jesus Christ..."

In other words, Paul is himself here saying that without the power of the Spirit, without the work of Christ on the Cross, he is overwhelmed by the power of the law of the flesh. Of course, it is a matter of degree, but this is what makes us hypocrites, and we know where they end up:

Matthew 24:51
and will cut him in pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

That place of weeping and gnashing of teeth is hell.

Matthew 13:42
and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

So, here, we see not only that Paul without Christ is helpless and a hypocrite, but that the fate of such is hell. I.e., folk are judged even though their 'free will' so to speak has been overcome by the law of the flesh, the flesh nature. Accordingly, the verses I quote in my prior post to you must be dealt with. Being a slave of Satan is a big deal, but once we are crucified with Christ, we are no longer in that condition. We are in a place where we can choose with 'free will', if you like, between making our members servants of righteousness or unrighteousness. Romans 6. But that is provided we are availing ourselves of the power of God to consistently do so. The flesh cannot reform the flesh, but if we put on the new man, and if we walk according to the Spirit, we will succeed. Of course, the zillion dollar question is, How do you do that? What does that look like?

You might pick up that I see Romans 7 as the predicament the unsaved believer in God's law is in, i.e., a devout Jew who has not accepted Christ. But that condition is analogous to the condition of the saved person who has failed as yet to take up what they have gained in Christ through the Spirit, as explained in Romans 8 and elsewhere.

Fifth, I like your overall conclusion, but I am still troubled with how you came to it:

There is a biblical model that is rational, logical and that explains the problem of evil—it is man’s heart. The Bible demonstrates that God foreknows everything including the activity of man before He created the world, yet deemed it exceedingly good that man should choose his own moral content, even if it meant that content was against His will. More to the point is that God wanted man to love Him in return, a choice only a person of free will can do.

Please point me to your essential discussion of the nature of man's "free will", as you find it in Scripture. Then, I might better understand your position, and very possibly agree with it. Your oblique reference to the heart cries out for explanation, even though my hunch is that you leave the heart unexamined in your treatment because you do not see a need to delve in. Your postulate is that man has a faculty of will in the heart, and it is free, though that would require inferences from specific Scripture to prove. I'd love to see what you would offer in that regard.

But I know for sure that your posited teleology for why God allows mankind's heart to be evil, as he purposed from before the foundation of the earth, is incomplete. What better way of admitting that than some of your final lines:

Granted we cannot any better understand God’s creation of man’s free will and His non-determination of it
than we can understand the same relation between God’s foreknowledge of all history and His non-determination of it,
nor both of these in regard to the additional difficulty of understanding, for example, how God can have an eternal past.

Finally, I share your disheartened criticism of how many try to deal with the problem of evil, and I think you have done a great job of nailing the Calvinists on this. You are well justified in your final words:

... Evangelicalism needs to turn 180º away from its meaningless and contradictory apologetic that does itself and the world no real good. And it needs to proceed instead unto a biblical model to explain the problem of evil, for otherwise it cannot hope to achieve a real unity within itself nor present to a skeptical world the gospel with any significant, divine power and blessing. Such falsehood always creates improper division and weakness in the saints of the Church. So let us turn away from all such false teaching. For only a God who is sovereign over all things, not in all things, can affect the malady of our time.

To be fair, I have an affirmative theory of my own you are welcome to criticize and tear apart as inconsistent and implausible if you like, at http://bibleforums.org/showthread.ph...all-of-Mankind, posts 1, 3, 7, 8, 13, 23, 25, 29.

In 29, I think I emote a kindred spirit a bit, Daniel:

All this evil-apologetics makes me want to barf. It deceives even those who love God. It keeps us from recognizing the full truth of why we were created to begin with, and the telos or end God has planned for us (what the finished creation is supposed to be). It keeps us covering up our role in our development into the very image of Christ, in the name of grace-grace-grace-grace-grace and a narrative of a vague, purposeless existence after we get 'saved.'

Though I disagree in so many ways, I very much enjoyed your book and your critical spirit with which you fearlessly seek to find the truth and to demonstrate it. You seem to be nothing less than a brilliantly astute student of the Word, and a fine brother in the Lord. Bless you.

I would look forward to your very able defenses of your own work, if you are willing to help me understand you better, and any criticisms of my points in this post or the thread I allude to.

In the mean time, keep on rockin in the free will! LOL

[Eyelog]

... Neither is unselfishness possible without a self. In fact, both selfishness and unselfishness demand not only a Self, but an Another apart from the Self.
... Here are two questions worth asking: Do you really believe in individual, sentient existence? If you answer yes, then upon what basis is it, if not individual Choice? This whole question is about the definition of personhood. Remember, when the Bible tells us "In Him we live and move and have our being," this can only refer to the form of our being. Otherwise there is no final, sentient distinction between "God" and "us".

Love your point about there always being a self, even when we sing, "So long Self" - Mercy Me http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...LyXw7_8eKAZ9Ow

I've been making this point many times in my own writing. Of course, 'self' isn't the issue, but the old anthropos vs. the new anthropos, sometimes translated as old/new self, man.

To me, the first Adam/old man vs. the second or last Adam (Jesus)/new man is is the crux of the believer's destiny to fulfill the Father's telos. But He wants US to do it, as we engage Him in the process ....