How Evil Are Humans?

[CadyandZoe]

Yes, Gentiles are not referred to explicitly until Romans 9:24. However, they are present in Romans 9:8 in the "children of the promise", who are the Church:

Galatians 4
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

Paul describes the Galatian Church, comprised of both Jews and Gentiles, as the "children of promise".

I don't think I gave an adequate answer to your thoughtful post, so please allow me to try again.

To clarify, while the concept of "children of promise" is present in Paul's argument in Romans 9, it is not the main point he is trying to make. A quick overview of the first six verses of the chapter shows that his argument is entirely different. Therefore, it is safe to say that Paul did not set out to make that specific point in Romans 9.

As you correctly pointed out, everyone in Christ is considered as "children of promise", including all descendants of Jacob who are also in Christ. However, Paul utilizes this aspect to convey an entirely different point about Israel as a whole.

In this passage, Paul discusses the characteristics that will define "Israel" when God fulfills his prediction about the nation. Despite the apparent contradiction between the prediction and the gospel that Paul preaches, he presents a two-fold answer to the question. Firstly, he asserts that Israel will consist of "children of promise". Secondly, he explains that each individual who is alive during that time will be personally chosen by God. If God's prediction about the nation of Israel fails to come true, then the word of God has failed.

My post of "Two Israels" describes the differences specifically. "All Israel" and "of Israel" are mutually exclusive. They can be only bridged through Christ, wherein any one in "of Israel" becomes one in "all Israel" by receiving Christ.

According to Paul, there are two Israels, whom he describes as "all Israel" and "of Israel". The former are in Christ. The latter are outside of Christ.

It is important to understand that the distinction lies between an individual and a nation. God's prediction was related to a nation, and Paul informed his readers about the types of individuals that will be a part of Israel when the time comes. It should be noted that not all of Jacob's descendants will be a part of Israel at that time. Only those among Jacob's descendants who are also children of promise will fulfill the prediction God made about Israel.

Unbelieving Israel was blinded; believing Israel (the election) was not. (Romans 11:7).

In his writing, Paul maintains a clear distinction between individuals and the nation as a whole. He emphasizes this distinction in 11:5, where he refers to individual Jewish believers as a remnant. Paul explains that just as there was a remnant of Jewish believers in Elijah's time, there is also a remnant according to God's gracious choice during Paul's time. However, Paul concludes that while some individual descendants of Jacob obtained what they were seeking, Israel as a nation did not, and the remaining individuals were hardened.

The blindness was lifted when the fulness of the Gentiles (Romans 11:25) was realized by the proclamation of the Gospel to them, beginning some 3 1/2 years after Calvary with Paul's ministry. Multitudes from Israel have come to Christ ("all Israel", Romans 9:6; 11:26) in the more than 1,900 years since that time. Their future has never awaited.

It is true that what is said about individual descendants of Jacob is accurate. However, Paul argues that God has not yet fulfilled his promise to the nation of Israel. In fact, he poses a rhetorical question, asking whether God has given up on His plan to make an entire nation of Jacob's descendants become children of promise. This echoes our previous discussion. The answer is no, Israel, the nation, has not stumbled so as to fall.

God has been fulfilling His promise and saving "all Israel" (Romans 11:26) for more than 1,900 years.

I respectfully disagree with your interpretation because Paul maintains the distinction between Israel and the Gentiles even in Romans 11:25. If, as you suggest, "Israel" refers to the body of Christ, then it would be contradictory for Paul to suggest that a remnant of the body of Christ were hardened. However, he does mention hardening in a couple of other places in this context.

In Chapter 9, Paul discusses God's hardening of Pharaoh and how God can harden whoever he chooses. In Chapter 11:5, Paul speaks of the remnant of Israel that God has reserved for Himself, granting them His justifiedness, while the rest of Israel remains hardened. Therefore, it's clear that Paul is referring to only a fraction of the nation of Israel, not the body of Christ, that will remain hardened until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.

 

[Gabriel _Arch]

What makes you think that?

Knowledge of the definition of good and evil,right and wrong.

By the way, after they ate of that tree God observed they had become like "one of us". Knowing good and evil. Right and wrong.

Of course, they knew right from wrong. Everything about the account proves they knew right from wrong. What they didn't know was whether they were good or evil. God tested them with a commandment to obey. They disobeyed the commandment proving that they were evil.

They could not make a conscious choice when they did not understand the elements of God's ultimatum.

To choose to disobey wilfully,they would have to know what righteousness,right, and wrong,evil, meant so to decide the consequence they would endure after.

God tells us they did not.

Besides all that you're forgetting the Proverbs teaching about God.

You may think Adam and Eve made an informed choice. However, God tells us he made insured they would eat of that tree.


“The heart of man plans his way, but the Lord establishes his steps” (Proverbs 16:9)

They were evil for sinning? As ye judge so too are ye judged evil when you sin.

 

[Taken]

Actually repenting means turning away from

I believe Repent means being remorseful for an act against another AND amending the act is a remedy and turning away from repeating.

I’m Sorry, Pardon me, Excuse me, Forgive me are common use words men say to men for trespasses against another.

If one has hurt another’s “Feelings”, one can not monetarily, Fix, Amend their trespass.
If one damages, or steals an others vehicles or tools or animals ie possessions etc. The “sorry”, please “forgive me”…. Are coupled with ‘paying for the damage” for what one caused to another.

 

[Timtofly]

Did God mention consequences....like me, you can’t prove by scripture ..because consequences aren’t in his word...regarding Adam and Eve having that knowledge.

Because consequences are not the result of knowledge. Consequences were the result of disobedience, or obedience. Knowledge is the result of consequences.

How can one have faith and knowledge at the same time? Faith is the result of obedience, not the result of knowing something.

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good report. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

 

[CadyandZoe]

You gave no scripture, to say, that Adam and Eve knew what to die meant..or what good and evil were....none whatsoever..you gave your own commentary...

Yes, I gave you my explanation. But only to show you the logic of the passage at hand. In other words, I am helping you to see what the passage means to say.

and taking a verse out of scripture..means nothing about ,what it means to die..they never knew what it meant..my opinion.

Don’t force your own commentary onto me...as I rebuke it.

What do you mean "force"? How am I using force? I don't get it.

You posted this verse,
Now post the verse that Adam and Eve knew what to die meant.

My point is this, you don't need a verse that explicitly tells you what Adam knew because the text doesn't say that Adam didn't know. If Adam didn't know what "die" meant, Moses would have told you that.

Perhaps another example will help.

Imagine if I told you that Jim and Jane had a baby, but didn't provide any details on how the baby was conceived. You would likely assume that the baby was conceived in the usual way, just as most people would. This is because we share a common understanding about human biology and reproduction. Therefore, simply stating that Jim and Jane had a baby is enough to convey the basic information. Only if something unusual happened would I care to mention it. Only unusual facts or circumstances would need be mentioned. Since Adam understood the meaning of "die" then Moses left that part out.

Writers constantly make decisions about which information to include and which information to leave out. Some things are already understood and remain unspoken or unwritten due to common knowledge. Similarly, Moses didn't need to mention that Adam knew the meaning of the word "die" because it was already expected and usual. If Adam hadn't understood the word "die," only then would Moses have mentioned it. Do you see what I mean?

Is that my opinion? Maybe. I prefer to call it my judgment, given that my opinion has been formulated after careful thought. I might be wrong, but I don't think so.

What is at stake here? I can see this is really important to you and I would love to hear why.

 

[Ritajanice]

Yes, I gave you my explanation. But only to show you the logic of the passage at hand. In other words, I am helping you to see what the passage means to say.

What do you mean "force"? How am I using force? I don't get it.

My point is this, you don't need a verse that explicitly tells you what Adam knew because the text doesn't say that Adam didn't know. If Adam didn't know what "die" meant, Moses would have told you that.

Perhaps another example will help.

Imagine if I told you that Jim and Jane had a baby, but didn't provide any details on how the baby was conceived. You would likely assume that the baby was conceived in the usual way, just as most people would. This is because we share a common understanding about human biology and reproduction. Therefore, simply stating that Jim and Jane had a baby is enough to convey the basic information. Only if something unusual happened would I care to mention it. Only unusual facts or circumstances would need be mentioned. Since Adam understood the meaning of "die" then Moses left that part out.

Writers constantly make decisions about which information to include and which information to leave out. Some things are already understood and remain unspoken or unwritten due to common knowledge. Similarly, Moses didn't need to mention that Adam knew the meaning of the word "die" because it was already expected and usual. If Adam hadn't understood the word "die," only then would Moses have mentioned it. Do you see what I mean?

Is that my opinion? Maybe. I prefer to call it my judgment, given that my opinion has been formulated after careful thought. I might be wrong, but I don't think so.

What is at stake here? I can see this is really important to you and I would love to hear why.

You posted your commentary....what you believe of Adam and Eve....I don’t agree with it...they never knew what die meant....” My Opinion “....

There is no scripture that says Adam and Eve knew what “ DIE” meant....None!!


10
In Genesis 2, God warns Adam not to eat of a certain tree and threatens punishment or consequences if he disobeys:

17but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” ESV

However there is no hint of death in the creation accounts: it seems to enter the picture only after the act of disobedience. In which case how could Adam have understood the threat, having never seen an example of death..

 

[CadyandZoe]

Knowledge of the definition of good and evil,right and wrong.

By the way, after they ate of that tree God observed they had become like "one of us". Knowing good and evil. Right and wrong.

Okay, but in what way did they know it? There is more than one way to know something.

Let's say a mother warns her son not to touch the stove because it's hot. By doing so, she makes her son aware of the danger associated with the stove. The stove can be dangerous when it's turned on. However, if the son accidentally touches the stove and gets burnt, he will understand the danger in a new way. He will have experienced firsthand what his mother had warned him about.

Adam and Eve had some knowledge of good and evil before they ate the forbidden fruit, but it was only after defying God's command and eating from the tree that they gained a deeper understanding of it. Initially, Adam knew that eating from the tree was wrong because God had forbidden it, and disobeying God is always wrong. However, after eating from the Tree, Adam knew it was wrong through his interaction with God. He learned about good and evil through experience, gaining knowledge through observation and communication with God.

The story of Adam and Eve teaches us that Adam learned about good and evil through observation. However, after eating from the Tree, he and Eve set their own standards of right and wrong instead of following God's standards. This was a significant change from before, when Adam was willing to let God decide what was right and wrong. Hence, the distinction between Adam before and after eating from the Tree is that he chose to establish his own principles to guide his actions and decisions.

Before eating from the tree, Adam already knew the difference between right and wrong. Therefore, his guilt was a natural consequence of his actions. He tried to hide from God in the garden and covered his body with fig leaves as a sign of both guilt and understanding. In this context, covering one's nakedness signifies an awareness of wrongdoing.

 

[amigo de christo]

You posted your commentary....what you believe of Adam and Eve....I don’t agree with it...they never knew what die meant....” My Opinion “.

How evil are humans . Several things we need to know . when understanding what evil is
we must see what GOD calls evil . We cannot base our idea of what is evil upon what man calls evil , nor compare ourselves
against others to determine evil .
example , its real easy for folks to think themselves good if they compare themselves to hitler .
OR if they compare what the world considers evil to be evil .
BUT WHEN WE COMPARE ourselves to GOD , its not real hard at all to see
ALL ARE EVIL and ALL NEED JESUS CHRIST .
GOD set the standards not man . IF we understand we would not be holding up rainbow flags and honoring anyones evil
let alone would we see ourselves as BETTER than .....
RATHER we would preach JESUS CHRIST and HIS teachings , the apostels teachings and all sound and holy doctrine .
What one generation calleth evil , another one might call good . and what one man thinks is good another might call evil .
BUT AS I SAID , its not man who determines a DARN THING . GOD DOES . What he calleth evil the lambs wont justify
and lambs KNOW EXACTLY WHO TO RUN TO , TO BE JUSTIFIED . JESUS CHRIST .
and JESUS CHRIST never has been or ever will be the justifyer or ministir of SIN either . As i love to say
and love even to say often , ITS BIBLE TIME my friends .

 

[Timtofly]

So who was Paul talking about when he said not all Israel are Israel?

"For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:"

Paul was willing to trade places for those no longer Israel.

Many just reconcile facts by saying the Gentiles are just Israel being returned to Israel. How does that include millions who died outside of Israel, even though they were of Israel?

Others claim it was not about the flesh, except that is exactly what Paul said:

"For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:"

Gentiles could become children of God. Gentiles could not become Israel. The church is being sons of God, not just simply being Israel.

 

[Timtofly]

No. I base scriptural knowledge on what is revealed.

Which is they knew they were naked and were not ashamed. Then Adam disobeyed God and physically died. Now they knew they were naked and now ashamed.

 

[Timtofly]

God Declared Jesus His Son, therefore Jesus IS Gods Son.

Matt.17
[5] While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.

Mark.1
[11] And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Why are you changing the point to being about Jesus instead of Adam? Adam disobeyed. Jesus obeyed. All are in a physical state of death, because Adam physically died the instant he disobeyed God.

Jesus always is the son of God. Adam started out a son of God, but then became the father of the physically dead humankind.

 

[Timtofly]

No I did not claim “repentance”.
Repentance is ASKING for forgiveness.

I quoted Scripture. Adam could have taken from the Tree of Life and eaten and Lived forever.

How, when he was outside of the Garden, and the tree of life was inside the Garden?

Your words implied Adam banned himself from the Garden:

Though Adam did not obey, (not innocent) he had opportunity to correct his error and remain with God, but didn’t.

How could Adam get back into the Garden? You imply Adam could have repented and ask God for mercy, but he did not take that initiative. That is why I asked how, and you have yet to provide a reasonable human understanding (nor scriptural) of what you meant.

 

[Timtofly]

No I am not arguing with Scripture.
I am disagreeing with your Understanding.

A physical living man Separated FROM God is wholly (body, soul, spirit) Spiritually DEAD.

What verse declares that when Adam ate he would be "only spiritually" dead?

You are still claiming like the deceiver did, "they did not surely die", but only spiritually died.

"And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:"

I have posted several scriptures from Paul that declare two different physical bodies. One of life and one of death.

Adam existed in both bodies in the Garden, unlike humans who now only experience the physical body of life in Paradise.

Why is human understanding so blind to seeing that before Adam disobeyed he had the physical body of life, and after he disobeyed, he had the physical body of death?

You do know that physical is not the opposite of spiritual? The soul has both a body and spirit, and they are not the opposite of each other nor at odds with each other. The body is physical, the spirit is spiritual. Both are from God. The earth did not change from spiritual to physical. The earth was just placed under the curse of sin and death. Only Adam and Eve physically changed, because they died like God promised they would.

In their physical body of death they had eyes that could see their nakedness and shame. It was not that they suddenly had wisdom and knowledge. It was the point they experienced death, and the result was knowledge. They were just as naked in their body of death as they were in their body of life. The change was now in the shame aspect of being in death.

 

[Jack]

What’s that got to do with anything your post doesn’t help and isn’t debating and just turns people defensive and the topic at hand gets put aside because of silly statements like what you just said.

Please don’t side step what I’m saying I’m using your what you said to show you the truth only those who accept Jesus as their saviour can enter heaven so they are saved in the same way as gentile Christians

Listen to what Paul said

Galatians 3:28​

28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Guess where Jesus will return. Hint: Not Canada! It's called Israel, the Land of the Bible.

 

[Timtofly]

They were aware of it because they had already seen it happen to animals. Although Moses doesn't directly mention this, he assumes that the reader can deduce this from the warning itself.

Adam and Eve were the first of creation to die. Nothing had ever died prior to Adam's disobedience.

That point was made in Genesis 2. Not even plants, trees, nor any growing thing out of the ground had sprouted out of the ground, by way of a seed, "dying", and being "reborn" into a new plant or tree. The first animal to ever die was killed by God to clothe Adam and Eve with. That is what we can deduce from the first few chapters of Genesis. We literally don't have to assume anything.

Moses even distinguished between wild and domestic, where humans tilled the earth. All that death, and rebirth happened only after God cursed the ground. The only thing that died when Adam disobeyed was Adam, and Eve who was a part of Adam. Eve did not die when she ate, because she was able to hand the fruit to Adam, and Adam did not see her in a state of death. The command was given to Adam, not Eve. Though Eve was a part of Adam, it was Adam who had to disobey, not Eve.

If plants and trees never died, why do you think animals died? It was sin that came first and then death when it comes to creation. God pointed out their sin, and then killed an animal to cloth them as a type of covering typifying the death of Jesus on the Cross. The curse of sin and death was given after the conversation about Adam's disobedience. Adamkind died the instant Adam disobeyed both physically and spiritually. That is what God said would happen. Adam passed the image of death on to Seth.

 

[Peterlag]

Present day humans are incredibly WICKED. Millions DEMAND their 'right' to murder millions of unborn babies. Politicians are LYING THIEVES! Need I mention lawyers? Corporations? Big Lying Pharma? And as wicked as humans are, imagine how wicked humanity must have been for God to drown everyone on Earth but 8! God is justified! It's a miracle that God has mercy on any of us! If you love God with all your heart be thankful! It's a gift.

Ephesians 2
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,
9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.

Put me down for Righteousness and not wicked.
2 Corinthians 5:21b
...that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

 

[Marty fox]

Guess where Jesus will return. Hint: Not Canada! It's called Israel, the Land of the Bible.

Once again you are completely avoiding my reply to you and quoting some random saying that has nothing to do with our discussion we not discussing where Jesus will return we are discussing who is all Israel

Please deal with the subject and stop avoiding it’s a disrespectful and an unethical way to debate. I am trying to debate in respect and love as brothers in Christ

 

[Jack]

Once again you are completely avoiding my reply to you and quoting some random saying that has nothing to do with our discussion we not discussing where Jesus will return we are discussing who is all Israel

Please deal with the subject and stop avoiding it’s a disrespectful and an unethical way to debate. I am trying to debate in respect and love as brothers in Christ

Trying to STEAL Israel's identity is not disrespectful and unethical? You're not Israel!

 

[rwb]

Once again you are completely avoiding my reply to you and quoting some random saying that has nothing to do with our discussion we not discussing where Jesus will return we are discussing who is all Israel

Please deal with the subject and stop avoiding it’s a disrespectful and an unethical way to debate. I am trying to debate in respect and love as brothers in Christ

You're a rare breed Marty fox! Love & blessings.

 

[rwb]

Trying to STEAL Israel's identity is not disrespectful and unethical? You're not Israel!

You're right there is not one single Gentile Christian called Israel! However every Gentile of faith with Jews of faith are called "the Israel of God." One is an ethnic people, the other all people of faith.