Hello Alan,
OK, I will try again to answer your questions. This time I hope my answers are acceptable to you because I doubt I will have the time to answer them again. I do have to work for a living. And I have an awful lot to do in the next few days.
You wrote; I'll present why the Bible itself seems to invalidate your reasoning. First, Romans 5:12 is quite clear about the origin of sin: quote: Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned. (NASB) This "sin" is obviously what we're talking about -- the inherent inability of humans to fully obey God, whether they want to or not. If through the "one man" Adam this sin "entered," then until he committed his first act of sin, this inherited sin was not in the world, i.e., "inherited sin" did not exist. Furthermore, if upon Adam's sinning, "death through sin" entered into the world, then human death did not exist prior to Adam's sin, i.e., humans did not die until Adam sinned. Indeed, Romans 5:14 emphasizes this idea: "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam." But because we know that humans have existed in one form or another for hundreds of thousands of years, and depending on how we define "human," for millions of years, and they certainly died, and unlike the JWs and various young-earth creationists you admit that humans existed long before any "Adam" of a few thousand years ago, then you must admit that your ideas conflict with the Bible's direct statements.
No, I do not admit this. "The Fall" of mankind doctrine, which you refer to, is based on what I believe is a misunderstanding of the apostle Paul's words in Romans 5:12-20 and 1Corinthians 15:21,22.
Romans 5:12 tells us that "sin entered into the world through one man, and death through sin." But as we read further we find that the kind of "sin" that first entered into the world through Adam, the "sin", which was responsible for bringing about his "death", was the "sin" of "breaking a command".(verse 14) And we are told that the kind of sin committed by Adam "is not taken into account (or imputed KJV, NAS) when there is no law."(verse 13)
Nevertheless, verses 13 and 14 clearly tell us that "before the (Mosaic) Law was given," "from the time of Adam to the time of Moses," "sin was in the world." So, since the kind of sin committed by Adam "is not taken into account (or imputed) when there is no law," the "sin" that "was in the world" "before the (Mosaic) law was given" must have been a different kind of sin than Adam's sin. It must have been unimputed sin.
And since Romans chapter 5 makes it clear that the kind of "sin" that first entered into the world through Adam was "imputed" sin, it leaves open the possibility that unimputed "sin" may have been "in the world," not just "before the (Mosaic) law was given," but also before Adam disobeyed God in Eden.
Because these verses tell us that Adam was the first man to sin by "breaking a command" from God, it follows that the "death" that "entered into the world" as a result of Adam's new kind of sin would have been Adam's new kind of death, death as a penalty imposed by God for "breaking a command" from God.
However, Romans 5:15,17 and 18 do tell us that "many died by the trespass of one man," "death reigned through that one man" and "as a result of one trespass was condemnation for all men." 1Corinthians 15:21,22 repeats this same thought by saying that "death came through a man" and "in Adam all die."
With these verses in mind, many feel that Adam must have been the first man and we must all be his descendants because, they say, these verses clearly indicate that all people inherit a "fallen" nature from Adam. And they say that it is this "fallen" nature inherited by us because of Adam's disobedience that brings upon us God's condemnation. They maintain that these verses prove that human beings were not "sinful" creatures until after Adam's spiritual, physical and genetic natures were somehow radically changed at the time he disobeyed God in Eden. Then, they say, when Adam fathered children after his nature had been corrupted, his children and all their descendants inherited Adam's "corrupted," "fallen," "sinful" nature.
Advocates of "The Fall" doctrine also insist that Adam must have literally been the first man. Because if he was not, then we are not all Adam's descendants. And if we are not, then we could not all have inherited Adam's "fallen," "sinful" nature. And if we did not, then they say, we do not all need God's forgiveness through Jesus Christ, as the Bible tells us we all do.(Romans 3:23,24; 1John 2:2)
However, I contend this doctrine of "The Fall" of mankind must be an incorrect understanding of Scripture because it contradicts several clear teachings of the Bible.
For instance, though the Bible tells us God does not hold children responsible for the sins of their parents (Deuteronomy 24:16; 2Kings 14:6; Ezekiel 18:20), the doctrine of "The Fall" of mankind says that all who have not accepted Christ as their Lord will be eternally condemned by God because of something Adam did.
Some may argue this point, reminding us that God has taken the lives of "innocent" children along with their "guilty" parents when executing a judgment in the past. However, those Divine judgments were not eternal judgments. For Jesus Himself told us that everyone who lost their lives in such past judgments by God will receive a resurrection from the dead. And He told us that they will then all be judged as individuals, and not by their parents past behavior.(Matthew 11:20-24; John 5:28,29)
The Bible also clearly tells us that God will hold each one of us responsible for his or her own unrighteousness, not for Adam's. (Romans 14:10-12, 2Corinthians 5:10) And the Scriptures say that we all need the forgiveness God offers us through Jesus Christ, because we have all personally "sinned" and have all personally "fallen short of the glory of God."(Romans 3:23)
The doctrine of "The Fall" must also be an incorrect understanding of Scripture because it is in conflict with proven science. The science of genetics has determined that information coded within the nucleotide sequences of human RNA and DNA is fully responsible for determining what characteristics will be inherited by a couple's children. And this branch of science has proven conclusively that a human being's genetic code cannot be altered by actions as ordinary as those performed by Adam in the garden of Eden.
I do not believe the Bible teaches that mankind "fell." Rather, I believe it tells us that God originally created the human race as free people. Free to do both right and wrong. In the exact same way we are free to do so today. Unfortunately we often choose to do what is wrong rather than what is right. God, however, cannot do wrong. For God is "incorruptable".(Romans 1:23) So, because we can and often do behave unrighteously, and because God cannot and never does behave unrighteously, we are less righteous than God. And, because "all unrighteousness is sin" we are all born "sinful." (1John 5:17, New American Standard Bible; Psalms 51:5)
Being able to do wrong, Adam was, from his very beginning, also less righteous than God. And he later proved his "sinful" condition by his behavior. Because Adam in paradise could not manage to obey one simple command from God, he clearly demonstrated that he and the entire human race, including those who had lived before him and those who would live after him, were far less righteous than God.
So, with these things in mind, Paul accurately referred to Adam when he wrote, "by one man's disobedience many were constituted sinners."(Romans 5:19, Amplified Bible) This is true because Adam's disobedience demonstrated that the entire human race was not only capable of doing wrong but incapable of not doing wrong. So, after Adam failed a simple God given test of his righteousness, God had good reason to retroactively condemn the entire human race as being deserving of the deaths they had been suffering, and undeserving of eternal life, a gift God had not yet given to any human being.
So, if mankind did not "fall," what did happen in Eden? I believe those who adhere to the doctrine of "The Fall" also basically misunderstand the events which transpired in Eden.
The Genesis account clearly indicates that Adam and Eve were created mortal with a dying nature just like us. The story of Adam and Eve told in Genesis makes clear that their being able to live forever was not a part of their original physical nature. Rather, Adam and Eve's ability to live forever depended entirely on their eating from a tree "in the middle of the garden" of Eden, "the tree of life."(Genesis 2:9) Genesis tells us that Adam and Eve were going to be allowed to continue to eat from that tree only if they passed a God given test, a test which we are told they failed. After failing that test God expelled Adam and his wife from the Garden of Eden and prevented them from ever again eating from "the tree of life."
Genesis indicates that had Adam and Eve been allowed to continue eating from "the tree of life" their lives would have been prolonged indefinitely. (Genesis 3:22-24) But when God prevented them from ever again eating from "the tree of life" they died what were apparently natural deaths. A careful reading of the Genesis account shows us that living forever would have been as unnatural for Adam and Eve as it would now be for us.
Genesis does not indicate that Adam and Eve originally had eternal life programmed into their genetic codes by God and later had their genetic codes reprogrammed by God in order to remove eternal life from those codes. Rather, Genesis indicates that Adam and Eve would have lived forever only if God had graciously given them eternal life from an outside source, "the tree of life." Of course, that "tree of life" was meant to picture Jesus Christ. For, as we have seen, God was going to give Adam and Eve eternal life from an outside source, "the tree of life," only if they passed a very simple test. And the Bible tells us that we will be given eternal life from an outside source, Jesus Christ, only if we pass a very simple test. That test is to simply believe in our hearts that Christ's death was sufficient payment to buy every human being God's full forgiveness, forgiveness for both our sinful nature and our sinful acts.
I see no other way to understand the Bible's story of Adam and Eve. And the traditional concept of "The Fall," I am convinced, is in conflict with several clear teachings of Scripture, proven science and a natural reading of the events which took place in the garden of Eden.
You wrote: Second, according to everything I've read in the New Testament, Jesus himself certainly never had to experience an inability to obey God in order to understand "why God's ways are best."
Of course not. Because, as nearly all Christians believe, Jesus was God. Thus he has always known "why God's ways are best."
You wrote: But if Jesus was that different from other humans, then he could not have been an exact substitute for Adam.
The JW version of the Ransom doctrine is quite different from the Christian version of the Ransom doctrine. The Christian version of the ransom doctrine is this: God allowed his only begotten Son to pay for the unrighteousness of billions of human beings with his own life. But how could God consider only one death, a death which only lasted from Friday afternoon until the following Sunday morning, to have equal or greater value than many billions of human deaths, deaths which would last forever? He could do so because he considered the three days of life which his only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, gave up to be more valuable than many billions of eternal human lives. Why? Because God knew that Jesus Christ was far more than a human being. God also knew that Jesus Christ was far more than "a perfect human being," or "Adam's equal" as some of the cults like to call him. God knew that Jesus Christ, as his only begotten Son, was also God. And because Jesus Christ was God, his father considered his death, and his three lost days of life which followed his death, to be a far greater loss than many billions of eternal human deaths. Some say that God requiring the life of his own Son to pay for our sins was an example of "primitive thinking." Christians say it was an example of God's great mercy and his amazing love. For the Bible tells us that God loves us all so much that he was willing to buy us all eternal life, even though to do so he had to pay for it "with his own blood." (Acts 20:28 NIV, NASB, KJV) The JW NWT has rearranged the word structure here and added the word son in brackets to this verse, to make it say that God purchased us, "with the blood of his own [son]" rather than "with his own blood."
You wrote: [So according to you] God deliberately created humans so that only a small, random fraction of them would end up gaining the prize of eternal life. ... Why not just create ALL of them with the desire to choose to live a perfectly righteous life?
I guess you know the standard answer to this question. God wanted to give us free will. If he created us all with a built in desire to live a perfectly righteous life we would not really have "free will."
You wrote: My point is that the practically complete randomness of genetic tendencies plus the virtually complete randomness of environmental factors, which factors are incorporated into the final human product solely via genetic programming -- all of which effects would be known to an omnipotent Creator God -- result in whatever choices each person makes.
From what you just wrote it seems that you believe there is no such thing as free will. Our every move and every decision is fully determined by a combination of our genetic programming and our environment.
You wrote: Since God created humans with all their abilities and tendencies, including being affected by environmental factors, the final result must be according to God's will. And if you claim that the final result is that only a small fraction of humans will want to obey God, then that is according to God's will.
Again, your questions seem to based on a certainty that true free will does not exist, that our genetics and environment fully determine all of the choices we make in life. I do not believe this is true. I think your belief is influenced by the JW teaching that we are purely physical beings. The Bible teaches differently. The Bible teaches that we all have spirits within us which return to God upon our death. (Eccl. 3:21; Acts 7:59) I believe these spirits within us are not affected by things such as "bad genetics" and allow us all to exercise a truly free will in spiritual matters.
You wrote: [All things] are entirely according to the will of the Creator. You can't possibly disagree with this, because to do so would be to say that humans were created to act opposite to the will of the Creator -- a logical absurdity.
I believe that humans were not created TO act opposite to the will of the Creator. I believe we were created with FREEDOM TO ACT opposite to the will of the Creator.
You wrote: infant snakes know instinctively how to hunt and what to hunt for. ... the basics are the same: creatures act entirely according to the way they were created.
As I stated earlier, I think your belief is influenced by the JW teaching that we are purely physical beings. The Bible teaches differently.
: You wrote: you're saying that the observation that few people today, who don't have the ability to live perfectly righteous lives, actually choose to try to obey God is proof that if they had the ability, they wouldn't choose to. Don't you see how silly this is?
No, I don't. I believe that any person who would choose to live a perfectly righteous life, if they had that ability, would now, lacking that ability, choose to live their life as best they could.
You wrote: What do you think the "nature" is that God pre-programmed into humans throughout human history, going back as far as you care to go, down through Adam and Eve, through Jesus' day, and up through today?
Our nature is and always has been one which craves and enjoys things such as affection, security and physical pleasure. Protecting and defending ourselves and our loved ones has always been a very important part of our nature. Curiosity has also always been a big part of our nature. If we are told something is bad for us by someone else, our nature is such that we usually insist on finding out for ourselves if it really is bad for us. If we are told something is bad for us and we think that doing that something may bring us affection, security or physical pleasure our nature is such that we will probably do it anyway until we find out for ourselves that it really is bad for us. Or if we believe doing something we have been told is bad for us may result in helping ourselves or our loved ones we will probably do it anyway until we find out for ourselves that it really is bad for us. I believe God gave us all this nature because he wants all who decide to do things his way to know why his way is the best way.
You wrote: You're postulating that most humans, even if created "incorruptible," would still choose to disobey God.
No, I am not. To be incorruptible means to not have the ability to do wrong. I have said that I believe that if most people had the opportunity to become incorruptible they would pass on that opportunity. I said, "Once we are given incorruptibility we will no longer have the ability to do wrong." You sort of proved my contention when you replied, "I don't think I'd ever want to give that up."
I wrote: I believe that when Christ said most of us would end up on the road to destruction he was only predicting the future. Knowing the future and purposefully creating the future may be very different things, even for God.
You replied: What you're saying is that God created a world without purpose, since he has no control over what the future will bring. If he has no control, then he is not omnipotent. If he has no desire to control it, but wants to let it roll on randomly, then he is responsible for whatever nasty things happen due to "time and unforeseen circumstance."
I do not see how God giving people freedom to make choices and encouraging us to make good choices by offering us eternal life if we will constitutes God creating "a world without purpose" and letting things "roll on randomly."
I wrote: But now we get into questions of man's "free will" and "predestination," subjects which I told Jan I prefer to let professional theologians argue about.
You replied: Well, I think that to be a complete human being you have no choice but to consider these things.
Actually, I have. As I think I told Jan, I believe that for God it is possible to have both predetermined all of our futures and at the same time given us all total free will to determine our own futures. To us this sounds like an impossible contradiction. But I believe doing both of these things at the same time was and is entirely possible for the God who created our universe. Just as Christians believe that when Jesus Christ walked this earth he was both fully God and fully man. Christians do not consider such things to be contradictions. Rather we consider them to be "divine paradoxes." For as Jesus said, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God." (Mark 10:27)
Mike
