Understanding the nature of man and sin

[jeremiah1five]

Greetings, fellow seekers of truth! Today, let's delve into some profound insights from the Scriptures that shed light on the nature of man and the origin of sin. Drawing from Isaiah, Saul, and the book of Genesis, we can gain a deeper understanding of our existence and the need for redemption.

Isaiah, the prophet, unequivocally declares the uniqueness of God – there is only one God, and none can compare to Him. In His divine glory, God bestows sinlessness upon Himself alone, a characteristic not shared with any created being. This establishes a fundamental distinction between the Creator and His creation.

Genesis 2:7 reveals the remarkable creation of the first man from the dust of the ground. This act of divine craftsmanship underscores the intimate connection between humanity and the physical world. Saul, in 1 Corinthians 15, further emphasizes this distinction by highlighting the earthly origin of man and the heavenly nature of the Lord. The dichotomy between the earthly and the heavenly signifies the divine order and purpose in creation.

In Genesis 2:17, God issues a command to the man regarding the tree of knowledge, saying, "thou shalt not eat of it." This divine command introduces the concept of the Law, a moral standard that sets the stage for understanding sin. As Saul aptly articulates in Romans 7, the existence of the Law reveals our sinful nature. It is through the Law that we recognize our inability to attain sinlessness on our own.

Here lies a crucial theological point: Adam's sin does not arise from his actions alone but is rooted in his created nature. Sin is not a byproduct of sinlessness; rather, Adam's nature as a sinner leads to his transgression. This perspective challenges the notion that Adam became a sinner solely through his disobedience, suggesting that he was created with inherent tendencies toward sin.

This profound understanding aligns with the biblical narrative, emphasizing the fallen nature of humanity. Sin is not an external force imposed upon an inherently sinless creature but an outworking of the sinful nature with which we were created. This perspective lays the groundwork for comprehending the depth of God's grace and the necessity of redemption through Christ.

As we ponder these theological truths, let us engage in a thoughtful and respectful dialogue. How does this perspective on the nature of man and sin resonate with your understanding of Scripture? Let us explore together the richness of God's Word and seek a deeper revelation of His redemptive plan for humanity.

 

[Diserner]

No.

Putting sin before Adam's free will transgression, perverts the character of God and has a good God creating something evil.

Neither was Satan created sinful, he was perfect in his ways, creation was very good.

This is error and slanderous of the goodness and holiness of God.

However, Adam's one free will through delegation does produce the effect in humanity of a sin nature, so you are half right.

 

[jeremiah1five]

No.

Putting sin before Adam's free will transgression, perverts the character of God and has a good God creating something evil.

Do animals have free will?

Neither was Satan created sinful, he was perfect in his ways, creation was very good.

Define "good."

This is error and slanderous of the goodness and holiness of God.

Not if you know what I know.
Everyone has a measure [portion] of faith. Faith rests on knowledge. Thus, more knowledge means more faith. Less knowledge means less faith. There is no such thing as "blind faith" in Biblical Christianity. God always presents us with that which He wants us to trust. He always prepares His people, and this requires a transfer of information and knowledge, and once transmitted God may require us to trust "it."
So, maybe in my studies I know something you do not. Does Scripture and reason sound like a Biblical basis in which to examine these things? Or is it more important for you to maintain that which to this point in your life you've come to accept as true with no room to enlarge your understanding that maybe if God does indeed take us from glory to glory except you have arrived at the end and there is no more 'puffing up' God can do to you?

However, Adam's one free will through delegation does produce the effect in humanity of a sin nature, so you are half right.

Can't be half right. It's either I am right, or I am not for being half right is whole wrong.
Don't you think?

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Do animals have free will?

My cat seems to have free will. She doesn't do what I tell her.

Define "good."

God or of God.

Define bad:

Not God or not of God. I'm not making a joke here. We tend to think of evil as a thing, which is why some make the mistake of accusing someone (esp. Calvinists) of saying God created or is the author of evil. Evil isn't a "thing" to create, it's a description of anything that is not of God or anti-God. Satan does evil things. People do evil things. But evil itself isn't a thing.

Good is a thing, because God equals good. I would say "God is good" but that sounds like an attribute.

 

[jeremiah1five]

My cat seems to have free will. She doesn't do what I tell her.

Good one. But will your cat eat chicken feed?

God or of God.
Define bad:
Not God or not of God. I'm not making a joke here. We tend to think of evil as a thing, which is why some make the mistake of accusing someone (esp. Calvinists) of saying God created or is the author of evil. Evil isn't a "thing" to create, it's a description of anything that is not of God or anti-God. Satan does evil things. People do evil things. But evil itself isn't a thing.

Good is a thing, because God equals good. I would say "God is good" but that sounds like an attribute.

I meant using a good linguist define the word "good" in the Genesis creation narrative.
I prefer Strong's because he's never let me down and he doesn't "lead the witness" as do many linguists out there. He just gives the definition and the grammar behind it and sometimes the etymology and literary and cultural information behind its use.

So, what is the definition of the word "good" in the Genesis narrative.

 

[Diserner]

Do animals have free will?

I think they have limited free will, but no spiritual dimension of morality.

Define "good."

There certainly is more than one definition or range. But the ideas behind words are there real definitions, so a lot of words have metaphysical referents, that is, they are describing a spiritual or supernatural reality or substance.

There are two main aspects to good, one is moral good. This would be an aspect that reflects the attributes and character of God in the world, such as his holiness and desire to bring well being.

Another aspect to good could be a non-moral component. A fallen creation still has some goodness, but it is clearly not perfect. There are some who think death is "good," and by extension would be good in Eden or in the eternal heaven, but death is connected with sin and judgment.

Death can be a good thing in one sense, that judgment is a good thing, or as a means to be set free from a fallen world, but that is a redemptive good, or the lesser of two evils.

If we were to posit God's initial creation already had elements of judgment and imperfection in it, we could no longer support that attribute of God that he perfectly wants to bless and bring well being to his creation, as it would not be demonstrated by his actions.

There is no such thing as "blind faith" in Biblical Christianity.

I actually agree with you on this point, God does reveal himself before faith comes, but sometimes we don't see the WHOLE picture, just the part God wants us to see.

We could call this partial blindness, because God does require us to trust him in some things.

God always presents us with that which He wants us to trust. He always prepares His people, and this requires a transfer of information and knowledge, and once transmitted God may require us to trust "it."

I agree, but God is not obligated nor does he usually seem to fill in all the gaps for us.

We still have to trust him behind the scenes, or in ways that might not match our sinful intuition of morality, or satisfy our dependence on our fallen intellectual logical abilities.

So, maybe in my studies I know something you do not. Does Scripture and reason sound like a Biblical basis in which to examine these things? Or is it more important for you to maintain that which to this point in your life you've come to accept as true with no room to enlarge your understanding that maybe if God does indeed take us from glory to glory except you have arrived at the end and there is no more 'puffing up' God can do to you?

Well, I'm open. I've been TOO open at times, though, willing to accept things that contradict the character of God.

God does give us some things to ground truth in, since the devil's #1 job is to deceive us, and we must be aware of that constant possibility.

Can't be half right. It's either I am right, or I am not for being half right is whole wrong.
Don't you think?

No, people can have partial truths. that's a logical possibility.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

A fallen creation still has some goodness, but it is clearly not perfect.

“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11 there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”

 

[Diserner]

“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11 there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”

That's moral good.

The belief that, for example, physical bodies are inherently evil is a very gnostic type belief.

They are evil in the sense that they are not as good as they can be, but there is nothing morally evil about physical body in and of itself.

 

[jeremiah1five]

As we delve into the rich tapestry of the Scriptures, one word that stands out, resonating with profound significance, is "good." In Hebrew, this word is represented by the term טוֹב (ṭôb), a primitive root conveying the essence of being good or well in the widest sense. To explore its depth, let's turn to James Strong's definition, which encompasses a spectrum of meanings: be better, cheer, be good, make goodly, please, and do well, among others.

When we consider this word in the context of our daily lives and endeavors, a powerful implication surfaces—one that speaks to the concept of doing things not just adequately, but exceptionally well, up to specification. It's about surpassing expectations, radiating excellence in all that we undertake.

In the realm of work and accomplishments, the notion of "good enough" often falls short of the mark set by the Scriptural understanding of טוֹב. It encourages us to pursue a standard of quality and excellence that goes beyond mere sufficiency. It beckons us to approach our tasks with a mindset of meticulous care and attention, ensuring that our efforts are not just satisfactory, but commendable.

In practical terms, when we apply the Hebrew definition of "good" to our professional and personal lives, it implies delivering a job well done, meeting or exceeding specifications. It invites us to embody a spirit of diligence, integrity, and craftsmanship in everything we do, mirroring the excellence that God Himself instills within us.

As we engage in our daily endeavors, let us reflect on the profound meaning encapsulated in the word טוֹב. May it inspire us to go beyond the ordinary, to pursue excellence, and to take pride in a job well done—to specification. In doing so, we not only honor the Scriptural wisdom but also glorify the One who empowers us to achieve greatness in all our pursuits.

May you navigate the path of doing good with excellence!

(This comment is "good" or "good [enough]" and "to specification" just as our target word is defined and as God has used it in the Genesis creation narrative.)

 

[jeremiah1five]

I think they have limited free will, but no spiritual dimension of morality.

I presume that you take the word "good" in the creation narrative as having some moral equivalency. Although you may say there is no 'spiritual dimension of morality' with regard to your cat whom you believe has free will, but I believe you think the word has some moral equivalency where man is concerned but that would contradict the Scripture in which the word "good" is used of man and the "grass and herb yielding seed." It cannot mean what you believe it means.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. Gen. 1:12.

But it can apply to both if the word is understood in the definition by Strong, that being "good [enough]" or "to specification," meaning God's creation was as He had specified and was "good [enough]" for His purposes.

There certainly is more than one definition or range. But the ideas behind words are there real definitions, so a lot of words have metaphysical referents, that is, they are describing a spiritual or supernatural reality or substance.

Well, let's not get too deep that our voice changes. The word "good" is used throughout the creative narrative and being that God uses it in calling the "grass and herb yielding seed" good, there cannot be any moral-ness to this word other than the understanding of "to specification."

There are two main aspects to good, one is moral good. This would be an aspect that reflects the attributes and character of God in the world, such as his holiness and desire to bring well being.

Another aspect to good could be a non-moral component. A fallen creation still has some goodness, but it is clearly not perfect. There are some who think death is "good," and by extension would be good in Eden or in the eternal heaven, but death is connected with sin and judgment.

Whether one sees as I see in the creative result of the first man being created 'fallen short of the glory of God,' just the mere fact that man was created is a 'fallen short-ness' in comparison to God who is Eternal. Adam had a beginning in time and God is Eternal. Holding man up in his natural, earthy creation against God who is Eternal and Spirit would mean just by virtue of his creation utilizing the standard of God by which ALL is judged means the first man was created 'fallen short of the [Eternal] glory of God.' Such a condition the word is "sin" which is "hamartia" meaning "missing the mark." This alone proves that the first man was created sin-ful, that is, "missing the mark" of the glory of God. Saul makes such distinction between the natural man (Adam) and the spiritual man from heaven (Christ) in 1 Corinthians 15.

Death can be a good thing in one sense, that judgment is a good thing, or as a means to be set free from a fallen world, but that is a redemptive good, or the lesser of two evils.

Death is sin and sin is death and neither can be a good thing in any sense before a Holy, Sinless, Eternal, and Righteous God. Forget the influence of creation in your thinking. There is only ONE God, there is NONE like Him, and He gives His Glory [which Eternalness, Sinlessness, Righteous, etc.] to no one - not even Adam. God is the standard by which everything and everyone is judged against and by having a beginning as Adam did this alone places him fallen short of the Eternal Glory that is God. Only One comparable to a Holy Father that can stand before Him blameless and equal and that is a Holy Son. Everything else falls short of this glory. The word for this existence is "sin."

If we were to posit God's initial creation already had elements of judgment and imperfection in it, we could no longer support that attribute of God that he perfectly wants to bless and bring well being to his creation, as it would not be demonstrated by his actions.

There was no "elements of judgment and imperfection" in the created man for a lamb was slain from [before] the foundation (creation) of the world that allowed a Righteous God to create an unrighteous being: Man, and not bring swift judgment upon him. For Christ's sake of a future birth as a man God cursed the ground and not the sinful couple for the plan was "good" ("to specification) that He would in TIME atone for the sin of man's creation which was done in eternity before God created heaven, earth, and man (Rev. 13:8). Consider the following verses as they apply to this question for there were several things revealed in Scripture of God's plan of man in His Mind:

19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,1 Peter 1:19–20.

4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Eph. 1:4.

50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; Lk .11:50.

34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: Mt. 25:34.

24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world. Jn. 17:24.

3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. Heb. 4:3.

8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Rev. 13:8.

Given the knowledge of a heavenly Tabernacle which was model for the earthly Tabernacle, it seems to me that before God created heaven, earth, and man He was active in the plan for man.
Christ was foreordained, a people were chosen, a kingdom was prepared, God's prophets were murdered, the Father so loved the Son, and works were performed [from] before the foundation of the world. Considering creation and all in it seems to me there is "specificity" ("good") involved. It was, after all, the Father's plan, the Son implemented the plan, and the Holy Spirit is in the world today to apply the plan to God's chosen elect.

I actually agree with you on this point, God does reveal himself before faith comes, but sometimes we don't see the WHOLE picture, just the part God wants us to see.
We could call this partial blindness, because God does require us to trust him in some things.

I think it is total blindness and only with the Holy Spirit His Presence brings us a partial unveiling but still we only 'know in part.'

I agree, but God is not obligated nor does he usually seem to fill in all the gaps for us.

He will bring His plan to fruition and fill those gaps at the end.

We still have to trust him behind the scenes, or in ways that might not match our sinful intuition of morality, or satisfy our dependence on our fallen intellectual logical abilities.
Well, I'm open. I've been TOO open at times, though, willing to accept things that contradict the character of God.

That's why I'm here on this question. To plant and/or water.

God does give us some things to ground truth in, since the devil's #1 job is to deceive us, and we must be aware of that constant possibility.

The angels that sinned are locked up and this was done between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; 2 Peter 2:4.

We are all alone with our sin and without external influence. Temptation is from within, not from without:

14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. James 1:14.

No, people can have partial truths. that's a logical possibility.

I think whole truth partially held. In other words, we all have a measure of faith. Faith rests on knowledge. We don't know everything but whole truths partially held (know in part.)

 

[Diserner]

We are all alone with our sin and without external influence. Temptation is from within, not from without:

14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. James 1:14.

Wow, this is a very, very strange belief, something like an extreme Full Preterist is the only place I've heard a thing like that.

Our own lust does not exclude demonic temptation or influence, and all of Scripture says Satan is still active in the world, despite your odd take on one unusual proof text about certain angels locked up (nowhere says all of them).

The prince of the power of the air, the roaring lion, the one we are warned about and Revelation attributes the origin of all sin to, we cannot possible just take this obscure text over all that.

But, you seem to have the mistaken notion that the ability to sin, is sin itself. Once you rid yourself of that idea, and we can see Jesus himself was tempted and had to use his free will, we can see that God made Adam upright, and Satan was perfect in all his ways, UNTIL—UNTIL iniquity was found in them.

That is they self-originated their own sin, they were not created in such a way that God forced them to sin.

God forbid.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Wow, this is a very, very strange belief, something like an extreme Full Preterist is the only place I've heard a thing like that.

Our own lust does not exclude demonic temptation or influence, and all of Scripture says Satan is still active in the world, despite your odd take on one unusual proof text about certain angels locked up (nowhere says all of them).

Yes, it does exclude "demonic temptation or influence." Read again how MAN is tempted. It says "of his own lust."

14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. James 1:14.

I don't add to the bible. I take what is written, line upon line. If it says, "of his own lust" then I take it as written without adding mt own preferences and theories.

The prince of the power of the air, the roaring lion, the one we are warned about and Revelation attributes the origin of all sin to, we cannot possible just take this obscure text over all that.

James 1:14 is obscure? It says plainly: "of his own lust." Receive or reject. There is no medium.

But, you seem to have the mistaken notion that the ability to sin, is sin itself.

13 As saith the proverb of the ancients, Wickedness proceedeth from the wicked: Sam. 24:13.

It's the same as saying, "sin comes from sinner."

Once you rid yourself of that idea, and we can see Jesus himself was tempted and had to use his free will,

Christ was predestined. How do you get free will out of that unless you believe Christ had the free will to disobey the Father. But that would not be true for in His birth He was called "Holy", and sin does not come from holiness. Sin comes from sinner. The last Adam proved this. He was holy, He was sinless, and He did no sin. Adam was created sinful, missing the mark of the glory of God. He sinned because hewas a sinner.

we can see that God made Adam upright, and Satan was perfect in all his ways, UNTIL—UNTIL iniquity was found in them.

Again, God is Eternal. By virtue of their creation - man and Satan - they were created 'fallen short of the Eternal glory of God." The word "perfect" with regard to Lucifer means "complete." Pretty much the same as the word "good" in Genesis narrative ("to specification.")

That is they self-originated their own sin, they were not created in such a way that God forced them to sin.
God forbid.

God forces no one to sin. If they are God, they will not sin. If they are created man and non-elect angel, they will sin - and they did. Sin comes from sinner.

 

[Diserner]

Sin comes from sinner.

This is only true post fall, because all people were in Adam when he fell.

Each angel falls individually, there is no angel babies or angel genetics, and only 1/3 of the angels fell, so 2/3 have never sinned.

It seems you just reject free will as an actual concept, because there is actually no logical problem with holy things sinning.

Saints are called "holy" and yet they sin, which completely disproves your logic.

Our own lusts pulling us aside—which is our sin nature, you have that right—does not exclude the "enticed" part of the verse which you just seem to completely ignore.

And by the power of grace, even people with a sin nature can resist sin.

I would spend some more time in prayer to see whatever brought in these strange things.

 

[civic]

Genesis 1- everything that was created was very good. Sin/evil is the opposite of good.

When we begin with God and His trustworthy word which declares His creation was very good then we can conclude sin/evil did not exist at the time of creation. It was a direct result of not trusting Gods word as good and true and pride and disbelief that caused sin and evil to come into existence as a result.

 

[Diserner]

Genesis 1- everything that was created was very good. Sin/evil is the opposite of good.

When we begin with God and His trustworthy word which declares His creation was very good then we can conclude sin/evil did not exist at the time of creation. It was a direct result of not trusting Gods word as good and true and pride and disbelief that caused sin and evil to come into existence as a result.

Do you believe animals died before the Fall?

 

[civic]

Do you believe animals died before the Fall?

personally ? no

death was the result of sin- no sin=no death.

 

[Diserner]

personally ? no

death was the result of sin- no sin=no death.

Agreed.

 

[jeremiah1five]

This is only true post fall, because all people were in Adam when he fell.

So, tell me then, what was Adam's make-up in his creation? Was he "holy" or "sinless, attributes of God in which Isaiah says God gives none of these glories to no one.

Each angel falls individually, there is no angel babies or angel genetics, and only 1/3 of the angels fell, so 2/3 have never sinned.

I doubt there was one angel and from him generations of angels were born. But none of the angels nor man possess any of the Deific Attributes, Nature, or Glories of God. And this is why they sinned. If one was holy like Jesus they would never sin. If one was sinless like Jesus they would never sin.

It seems you just reject free will as an actual concept, because there is actually no logical problem with holy things sinning.

Free will in man (and angel) is an illusion. If man has free will then it would be free from ever being violated by another will such as God's will in which God's will overrules man's will. God would be sinning if this were the case. Plus, there is predestination in Scripture such as Jesus Christ was predestined. If we are Christ-followers and He had free will then so we. But being that He was the complete opposite of the first man and possessed sinlessness and holiness and did not sin this would prove that Adam was created "missing the mark" and "fallen short of the glory of God for as we know he sinned, and sin does not come from "holy" or "sinlessness." Unless one does not fully understand the contrast between the first and last Adam.

Saints are called "holy" and yet they sin, which completely disproves your logic.

There are two perspectives that should be noted. The Eternal perspective of God in Eternity in which He ever saw His elect as "holy, righteous, sinless," and the perspective of man in TIME in which I am a sinner, I sin, and will sin until the morning I die. When God contemplated His Elect He contemplated them as "holy, righteous, sinless" for that is the only way He can see them for there is no sin in God. It was by virtue of His Elect being blown into the loins of Adam by which we/they became lost for we were now 'outside' of God.
Make the distinction because both perspectives are evidenced throughout Scripture.

Our own lusts pulling us aside—which is our sin nature, you have that right—does not exclude the "enticed" part of the verse which you just seem to completely ignore.

Jesus was tempted the same way. However, the flesh - although holy - had no chord to ring in Him for the Logos was always Present.

And by the power of grace, even people with a sin nature can resist sin.

It's not the "acts" of sin of which Christ died for but for the sin nature as the Doctrine of Imputation declares in 2 Cor. 5:21. It was a nature-swap. He takes our sin nature, and we take His righteous nature. This is what Peter is speaking about when he says we "partake of His divine nature." He didn't die for our sinful acts (which are only the symptom), He died for our sin nature (which is the cause) from where our sinful acts originates.

I would spend some more time in prayer to see whatever brought in these strange things.

Good for you. It may take time for you. But if what I say is sound understanding God will build on it if He wants this knowledge further imparted to you.

 

[TedT]

Here lies a crucial theological point: Adam's sin does not arise from his actions alone but is rooted in his created nature. Sin is not a byproduct of sinlessness; rather, Adam's nature as a sinner leads to his transgression. This perspective challenges the notion that Adam became a sinner solely through his disobedience, suggesting that he was created with inherent tendencies toward sin.

No sir...
Adam's created nature was not sinful but he had the ability to choose to become sinful by his free will.

Putting sin before Adam's free will transgression, perverts the character of God and has a good God creating something evil.

[edit:]
Satan's fall was before the creation of the world so before Adam there were myriads of sinners, all created by their free will, NOT GOD"S will.

And does not jeremiah 1 five's thesis also apply to Adam's progeny, the rest of mankind? That is, are they not created in Adam's sin or nature or whatever has us separated from GOD, (or however people like to say it so it lessens their feelings of blasphemy that they think GOD creates evil people) proven by being under the curse of death and with no righteousness?

Death is the wages for sin.
Infants die.
Therefore they are sinners, not just created as tabula rasa.

IF GOD's perfection and glory demands that they only die for their wilful choice to sin and not by HIS will...then when did they make that choice? I suggest that the many hints that we existed as living spirits before the creation of the physical universe solves this and many other quirks of ordinary theology...

 

[TedT]

However, Adam's one free will through delegation does produce the effect in humanity of a sin nature, so you are half right.

So GOD delegated me to be created as a sinner by delegating me to have Adam's sin nature by HIS will, NOT BY MY FREE WILL???!!!

Your thesis solves nothing...

Putting sin before Adam's free will transgression, perverts the character of God and has a good God creating something evil.

What does it matter if HIS righteousness is impugned by creating sin before a free will choice to sin if it is before or after Adam??? It is wrong at any time!