I wonder though, how “fleshly desires” could have been present in the hearts of Adam and Eve prior to their Fall. How does that fit in with man and woman being created in God’s image (Genesis 1:26), or with God seeing all that he had made, and declaring it “very good” (1:31).
Believing man to have been created with free will, one might say that Adam and Eve were created with the potential to sin. Is this where you’re coming from, or how else might you explain your position?
Yea, I find that reading Scripture for all my life, I was reading things into Scripture that were not there because someone told me that it was only to find out that circular reasoning is all that they have to support such idea.
Before we insist on a belief, we should know where it came from first and can reasonably support this belief. Something, I find, lacking even in some of the most passionate of Christians.
Now, I am not saying at all that ‘Angels’, creatures of supernatural origin do not exist. I am saying that there is no biblical precedence for any of these supernatural creatures rebelling from God.
Yes, there appears to be passages of Scripture which seem at the surface, to support the fallen angel theory but when dug deep into it, just like conditional salvation from a perpetual tormenting place called ‘hell’, there is not much support found in Scripture in order to believe it. As the apostle Paul warned, many would turn aside to myths and not hold on to the truth.
So what are the principalities and powers and wickedness in high places? They are evil spirits, things which have power over the world and why sin continues to exist in humanity even though God, through Jesus Christ, has reconciled men to Him and conquered death and the grave.
What are these things? They are spirits created by God, humanity and the earth itself. Though they appear to have authority which is not under check by God, God is sovereign and intended humanity and the earth to create these spirits from the beginning for a purpose which will one day lead to God being all in all.
We are granted freedom of will within the habitation and limit of our creation, and whatever we bound on earth is bound in heaven and whatever we loose on earth is loosed in heaven. Spirits are what they are, they are the animated life, power, influence. They are the life-force behind things, ideas, people and animals.
So where is this high place? This high place is in the mind and this is the battleground.
Defining angels is easy, but to grasp what spirits are becomes a very difficult process since most people see spirits as beings and to make it easier to understand, teachers have given them anthropomorphic features and instead of recognizing that this is only a tool of language to help understand what spirits are, most people took it literally and spirits become like physical beings but with an ethereal and incorporeal body.
I know this isn’t the best of explainations. What is preventing you from doing what is good all the time? It is the principalities and powers in your mind waging war against you.
Sorry, Aaron, I must have glossed over that post. But thanks for your repeated explanation.
Hi HSMom,
Adam and Eve could not and would not have sinned had a desire not arisen within them that was in conflict with the command of God, to draw them away from obedience. I believe it was this desire in Eve (perhaps a desire of which she was not fully aware at first) that led to her seek to justify and rationalize doing what she and Adam had been commanded not to do (which is represented by her dialogue with the serpent). Recall James’ words: “Each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.” Thus, just like you and I, Eve was “lured and enticed” by her “own desire.” Again, it would have been impossible for her to sin if there had been no corresponding desire to do so.
Moreover, notice that, even before she ate from the tree, we read that she “saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that it was to be desired to make one wise…” (Gen 3:6). This corresponds to what the apostle John calls “the desire of the flesh, the desire of the eyes and the pride of life” (1 John 2:15-16), which was present in Eve prior to her even touching the fruit. The very fact that Adam and Eve sinned is evidence that their “love for the world” (which led to their disobedience) was greater than their love for God.
So how does this square with Adam and Eve having been created in God’s image, and being declared “very good” along with the rest of creation? Well, my understanding of the image of God in which mankind was created is that it’s a capacity to represent God in our having dominion over the earth (Gen 1:26-28). And God’s pronouncing everything “very good” simply means everything was just as he wanted it; everything was perfect for the purpose for which it was created. And since God doesn’t make mistakes, then it must mean that “the Fall” was a part of God’s redemptive plan all along.
I perceive you share truth, Aaron! There are no accidents in God and even my eggs are cooked every morning as He desires I should have them. The day I get a poached egg on my plate, I will know He is not in charge and the world is about to implode. 
In all seriousness if you would allow me to add to your message a few verses and thoughts.
**“For the Creation fell into subjection to failure and unreality, not of its own choice, but by the will of Him who so subjected it” Rom 8:20
“God has placed all people into the prison of their own disobedience so that he could be merciful to all people” Rom 11:32**
By holding on to the bane of the “free will doctrine” the proud soul (like Eve) is but giving evidence of the vanity, God has sowed in her. The rebellious soul is saying, “I will do it my way.” Consequently the soul must die to be raised. There she realizes the fullness of her vanity(frustration) and the totality of his mercy. Death is not a bad thing, but It is the fear of death that carries the sting.
“Resurrection Life is that which has died, but now lives. It has the
mark of the Cross upon it. It has passed through death once, and
death can no more touch it. If we have not already passed through
death then we are constantly fearful of dying, but the one who has
already died and lives again has nothing more to fear from death. As
we are decreased through the daily carrying of our cross, Christ in
us is increased, and the strength of His Life is matured through our
weakness.” (Brogden)
May we come to see our weakness as complete as He reveals His omnipotence. Then we shall awake, not seeing through the glass darkly, but to know as we are known and be as He is.
John
You know, every time I think of temptation scenarios like Adam and Eve and explanations of them like this one, I can’t help but think of that scene in the Lord of the Rings trilogy where Gollum is having that conversation between his two natures fighting within himself. I think that scene was beautifully done by Jackson and the actor who played Gollum. I can’t watch that scene (no matter how many times I watch it) without tearing up, because I think it does such a powerful job of demonstrating the struggle within all of us between spirit and flesh.
But yeah, I think you’re absolutely right on Aaron. Good explanation.
I need to watch those films again soon! It’s been a while. And I’m glad you made reference to the struggle between the spirit and flesh, because it made me think of Christ’s words to his disciples: “Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak” (Matt 26:41). Some object to the above interpretation of Genesis 3 on the basis that it seems to imply that Adam and Eve were created with a so-called “sinful nature.” But they were just created weak; all it took was a single commandment from God for covetousness to be produced in their heart, as was the case with Paul (Rom 7:1-11). They were alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and they died.
Concerning the sin of Adam and Woman (Although Eve in the garden, her name at the time was Woman [this is significant]).
Q: What was the lie in the Garden which beguiled/decieved woman into eating of the fruit?
A: **Gensis 3:3 **God did say,‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’ "
It is subtle and almost never caught, even by the most practiced of theologians. The question is why?
Woman believed a lie which was that ‘if she touch the fruit from the tree in the middle of the garden, she will die!’. That was not the command, neither from God or Adam.
Genesis 2:17 “You must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.”
Now, when Eve was convinced externally to touch the fruit and found she did not die, she then she in progression would assume that eating of the fruit would not kill them. The serpent deceived Eve and was a murderer in the beginning but the first lie was made within the minds of Adam and Woman as a result of adding to the command a ‘hedge’. This ‘hedging’ is actually a lie, and it is a study on it’s own. The laws we make up, even if for good intentions are the very laws which cause us to sin.
Genesis 3:17 To Adam God said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it, you are cursed – all the days of your life.
P.S.I do not find Adam and Eve were weak, nor were the born with a sinful corrupt nature, they were created with intelligence and emotions and as a result imagination and curiosity of discovery. They had the ability to independently think on their own, create their own understandings; this is called freedom of will. As a result of having freedom of will, but not having an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent nature, they were bound to make a mistake in judgment.
Yep. I think when most people read the Genesis account, when they see that all God created, he called “good”, they assume that means “perfect”. That assumption is probably where the objection comes from.
I agree with much of what you say above, Craig; however, it is my understanding that temptation always precedes sin. And if Adam and Eve sinned, then they were tempted. And I’m not sure how else to account for how easily they yielded to the temptation except to attribute it to a certain “weakness” with which they were created.
It’s interesting that you brought this up, because a couple weeks ago in church we were talking about the biblical examples showing us the need for law to be instituted as a “replacement” for true relationship. In other words, the more people refused to have true relationship with God, the more laws (rules) He had to institute to protect them from each other.
It seems that every broken relationship begins with one or more parties believing a lie and acting on it.
If you qualify and define weakness in that perspective, I agree with you, we are weak. In comparison though, anything which is does not have and omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent nature, is always weak in comparison. 
Our weakness? We were not God? hehe.
Man comparing himself to God. Now there is an exercise in [size=130]***futility ***[/size]or should I say, [size=150]vanity[/size]. 
Oh, that we all might realize that all that we possess must be seen as nought, that we might receive His All. Thank God there is crisis that befalls each of us, so we might realize the totality of our futility. What we don’t realize in this world we will in the next until God be experienced as All in All. [size=130]***That is the Good News and why judgement is the better part of mercy. We must be brought to nought to realize God’s gift of His All, through Christ Jesus. There is no greater paradox in the kingdom than the “Nought for the All”***[/size]
In His Sweet Lord Jesus,
John
This is actually not my personal position, although it used to be… I’ve changed some of my thoughts arounnd “free will” since moving toward Universalism, and based upon the Scriptures John referenced, Romans 8:20, 11:32.
I agree.
Yes!
Excellent observation, very cool.
Perhaps free will in a limited sense, but more than that, here is where we see God’s likeness?
That is the point, John. Man recognizing that he is nothing, and God is everything there was no missing this understanding. Freedom of will exists to show us that we are under God and only through Him is nothing impossible because He is Sovereign One. We have freedom of will, but neither power, knowledge or presense to accomplish our goals and therefore must trust God in all things. Free-will serves a purpose, it doesn’t mean it does not exist, it means it exists for a time and will be no more.
Perhaps. It is true we are God’s Children and as an infant we are not fully capable as the adult who birthed us so we are His likeness because we are of the same Family. Yet, the likeness actually talks about when we are doing as He does, then we truly have put on the full image of God.
I need really to bite my tongue concerning free will. Maybe I will go into that discussion but not here.
Craig, I think you should do your freedom of will post somewhere on here, because it’s certainly distinct from the usual position(s) on what is commonly called “free-will”, which I understand from you is a different concept. I come down on the sovereignty side of things myself, but I liked your explanation of the concept of freedom of will vs. freewill on wisefire.
I can almost agree with that except to say, He does as He does and we rest.
Our maturity as sons of God, is measured by the realization of our futility in the face of the Almighty. When we realize, by the Holy Spirit, our complete futility we will be as Jesus, Who realized He could do nothing of Himself. Free will is an empty illusion, sowed into the soul of man that he might experience the full measure of the emptiness of himself.
Agreed, Yes, putting on the full image of God does not come by works, it comes by resting in Him.
2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 are the only verses in all of Scripture that I believe make reference to “fallen angels.” But notice that the fall of these angels is referred to by Peter and Jude as a subject with which their audience was already well-acquainted; the language presupposes the readers’ familiarity with the “historical” information. But at the time during which Peter wrote, the Hebrew text that makes up our Old Testament was the only inspired source of historical information that God made available to man, and it makes no mention of rebel angelic beings. Anything alluded to in the New Testament that could only be revealed to us by an inspired source, but which is not found in the Old Testament, is necessarily derived from an uninspired source. As such, we should not understand the account of the sinning angels as being sanctioned by the NT authors who allude to it; it is, instead, an historical fiction of uninspired origin. That Peter understood this account to be fictional is evident from the fact that he says that the “angels” were “cast into Tartarus” (tartaroo) - which, in Greek mythology, is a subterranean prison in the netherworld. Tartarus is not a literal place with any real existence; it is a mythological location originally conceived in the minds of pagans. But if Tartarus is not a literal place, then the “angels” that Peter refers to as having been cast there cannot be literal beings. It is all fictional.
Moreover, there is very good evidence that the account to which Peter and Jude allude is from the apocryphal Book of Enoch (or the tradition on which the work is based).
Jude says the angels “did not stay within their own position of authority” and Peter says they “sinned.” The author of the Book of Enoch says they kept not their “holy and everlasting station,” and “sinned.”
Jude says they “left their proper dwelling.” This agrees perfectly with Enoch, who says, “they deserted the lofty sky,” and that they had ''forsaken the holy heaven" - i.e., they left heaven of their own accord.
Peter and Jude say the angels were bound in “chains of darkness, reserved unto the judgment of the great day.” This is almost the exact language of the book of Enoch, which says, “Bind Azazyel hand and foot, and cast him into darkness,” and “there leave him, even to the great day of judgment.” And again, we read, “Bind them [the rebel angels] seventy generations underneath the earth, even to the day of judgment.”
Peter says they were “cast down to hell,” (tartaroo) the prison of the pagan netherworld. The author of Enoch has it “underneath the earth,” which is where Tartarus was thought to be located. In some manuscripts of the Book of Enoch, the word even appears in chapter 20 (“Uriel, one of the holy angels, who presides over the world and tartarus”).
Other similarities could be cited, but these should be sufficient. These similarities are simply too exact to be the result of coincidence. Of course, there is no reason to think James or Peter were endorsing the authority of the book, or the truth of the tradition. Peter no more accepted the doctrine of the heathen Tartarus than Christ did the uninspired tradition on which the parable of the rich man and Lazarus is based. Peter and Jude are simply enforcing their exhortation by referring a popular tradition with which their readers would have been familiar. They are not sanctioning this story as truth by their reference to it, but are simply employing it to serve their purpose as an illustration of the point at hand. We know that the Book of Enoch was a popular and well-known work in the first century; it is likely that those against whom the apostles wrote (i.e., the false teachers that would soon be among them) were strongly attached to these very writings, and might be more effectually silenced by an appeal to them than even to the canonical Scriptures.