Total Inability: Genesis 1-4

[atpollard]

Indeed. The TULIP doctrine kills, steals and destroys ones faith and assurance of their salvation.

It is utter nonsense to claim that TULIP (with a P for Perseverance of the Saints) destroys assurance of salvation.

 

[marks]

Except I never claimed that men have no free will, so it is actually an irrelevant point.
Try reading the first few posts and see what I actually did write.

I was thinking of this part . . .

"We are (T)otally Incapable of choosing God on our own because sin causes us to always flee from God."

If that's so, then what is the meaning of a long and involved explanation of how no one can choose God, since it won't matter to any of them. Share the Gospel with the elect, see them saved, and get on with edifying them, that's what I say!

To the non-elect, it doesn't matter what you say, since they will never choose God anyway.

Not that I believe in an elect and non-elect preselected by God. The Gospel is to all, and all may receive.

Much love!

 

[atpollard]

atpollard: "What a coincidence! I have a full copy of MY Gospel and all of my Letters to the Church available online, too. Is that enough to prove that I am the Apostle John? :)"

Hardly, because you are apparently ignorant of the scholarly consensus that the Apostle John is not the author of the Gospel and epistles that bear "John's" name. Read almost any modern academic commentary on John to understand why.



atpollard: "Care to discuss the P, S and V texts that were assembled to form Genesis?"

No, because you haven't even identified the established sources correctly! Try JEDP.

atpollard: "Poor me, just having to trust God with no theology degree."

That's fine, but don't be proud of your lack of biblical education or act like it doesn't matter. In a sense, the Bible cannot be translated because a one to one correspondence between modern English and the original Hebrew and Greek is often lacking and the original words often derive their meaning from the cultural "language games" that determine their ancient usage and meaning. So an in depth education in the cultural background and historical situation of biblical texts can be important to any adequate understanding. That's why seminaries are needed and why good academically respectable commentaries on specific Bible books can be important for good Bible teaching by the laity.

Try responding to the serious posts directed to you rather than the humor directed to another.
However, your response speaks volumes about you and I simply don’t care what you have to say any longer.

The Gospel of John was written by John the son of Zebedee, as stated by Polycrates, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius. The opinions that nobody that was there in the first few centuries was as smart as the people of the 20th Century do not interest me.

 

[OzSpen]

An example would be nice. Again, your word does not mean as much as THE Word. Please, if you are going to correct me, by all means go ahead. But just saying this proves nothing; especially when your answer is 1 sentence long and includes 0 Scripture.

What is a strawman fallacy? Is the word 'strawman' in the Word? Is the word Trinity in the Word? Is the word Bible in the Word?

You are being contradictory here as your post is 2 lines long and contains NOTHING of the Word in it. Get real. We cannot have a conversation if you insist that every sentence must have Scripture in it. You don't do it yourself but you expect me to do it. That's hypocrisy.

 

[OzSpen]

What a coincidence! I have a full copy of MY Gospel and all of my Letters to the Church available online, too. Is that enough to prove that I am the Apostle John? :)

I actually believe you.
It is just that identities really cannot be accurately verified online, so claims of credentials have to be taken with a grain of salt. I have a friend who likes to challenge so-called “experts” in Greek that try to bully people online with a smattering of Greek words by asking them questions that require them to translate Kioine Greek for themselves to read his question. His goal is simply to expose false “scholars” so people will not accept their teaching just because they had a semester of Greek.

As for me, my degree is in Architecture with a single “Bible Course” at college that did far more harm than good. (Care to discuss the P, S and V texts that were assembled to form Genesis? ... I don’t.) So I just have to muddle through the best I can with what God breathed into His Scripture and what His Holy Spirit allowed me to understand out of that scripture. Poor me, just having to trust God with no theology degree.

[We lay Christians deserve some sort of handicap to level the playing field.] :)


[EDIT: Hey, I looked up that dissertation and it was by some guy named “Gear, Spencer D.” and not “OzSpen”. ]

Where do you think the 'Spen' in OzSpen comes from? My mother called me Spencer because she liked the name but then found out that the name of Winston Churchill was Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill. Now I'm privileged to be called 'Spencer' but OzSpen online.

You say:

claims of credentials have to be taken with a grain of salt

That's not how I did research for John Dominic Crossan's views of the historical Jesus and it's not the way I'd investigate the credentials of anyone. I suggest you get more info on how to do historical research.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

It is utter nonsense to claim that TULIP (with a P for Perseverance of the Saints) destroys assurance of salvation.

It does destroy OSAS.

The P indicates that those who persevere to the end of life are saved saints.

 

[atpollard]

It does destroy OSAS.

The P indicates that those who persevere to the end of life are saved saints.

If by OSAS you mean the “say a prayer and go back to sinning” tripe that gets offered on Christian TV, then I agree. Meeting God is a life transforming experience ... if you have no change, then you ain’t met God.

 

[atpollard]

That's not how I did research for John Dominic Crossan's views of the historical Jesus and it's not the way I'd investigate the credentials of anyone. I suggest you get more info on how to do historical research.

Now that is just plain nonsense. I could do a word search for someone named Pollard and claim to be them and offer a story about my online name ... how would your “historical research” help you verify my real identity?

How will my learning the rigors of “historical research” allow me to prove your online identity matches some real world identity?

 

[prism]

prism,

Is ALL Scripture God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16-17 NIV) or only the NT when it comes to teaching on how we respond to God? In fact when Paul wrote to Timothy, the only Scripture available to them was the OT.

Yes...and?

By the way, citing a string of Scriptures without exposition is useless in explaining your point.

Scripture is sufficient and is it's own interpreter (as it is attended with it's Author, the Holy Spirit).

There is NT evidence that people can respond to the Gospel message, even though they are dead in sin. A classic example is recorded in Acts 16.

Ever hear of the power of the Gospel or the illuminating/quickening of the Spirit?

People choose (because of their free will) between alternatives: to respond in faith and repentance to the Gospel OR to reject the Gospel.

So free will applies equally to fallen man as it does to unfallen Adam?

There cannot be a Gospel response to receive salvation without human responsibility of the choice between Yes or No to the Gospel. Otherwise it is God’s authoritarian dictatorship that does away with certain biblical emphases.

Yes, the point is where does God's sovereignty stop and human responsibility begin? You seem to be stripping God of His 'free' will in favor of man's choice.

How can this be? It’s because God’s grace has been extended to everyone and they respond in faith or reject the Gospel. We have this partially explained in Titus 2:11 (NIV), ‘For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people’.

Salvation is offered to all but not all respond in faith. That’s not because of irresistible grace because ‘the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people’.

You seem to assume a level playing field. Many die and perish at age 23 rejecting the Gospel. Others, while rejecting the Gospel at 23 are allowed to live until past 60 and in that time come to faith. An offer in and of itself is not enough, many factors involving God's dealings go into one coming to faith. Here is just one...

And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
(Mat 16:16-17)

 

[Berserk]

atpollard: "However, your response speaks volumes about you and I simply don’t care what you have to say any longer."

Your ostrich approach the truth is giggle worthy. I dare you to start a new thread on Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel. You are obviously terrified of confronting the truth well established by modern scholarship.

atpollard: "The Gospel of John was written by John the son of Zebedee, as stated by Polycrates, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius. The opinions that nobody that was there in the first few centuries was as smart as the people of the 20th Century do not interest me."
Well, they should interest you because, of course, they include a detailed explanation of how these later patristic writers arrived at their erroneous perspective. But you evidently prefer to remain illiterate with respect to the contrary detailed evidential case.

 

[GodsGrace]

What a coincidence! I have a full copy of MY Gospel and all of my Letters to the Church available online, too. Is that enough to prove that I am the Apostle John? :)

I actually believe you.
It is just that identities really cannot be accurately verified online, so claims of credentials have to be taken with a grain of salt. I have a friend who likes to challenge so-called “experts” in Greek that try to bully people online with a smattering of Greek words by asking them questions that require them to translate Kioine Greek for themselves to read his question. His goal is simply to expose false “scholars” so people will not accept their teaching just because they had a semester of Greek.

As for me, my degree is in Architecture with a single “Bible Course” at college that did far more harm than good. (Care to discuss the P, S and V texts that were assembled to form Genesis? ... I don’t.) So I just have to muddle through the best I can with what God breathed into His Scripture and what His Holy Spirit allowed me to understand out of that scripture. Poor me, just having to trust God with no theology degree.

[We lay Christians deserve some sort of handicap to level the playing field.] :)


[EDIT: Hey, I looked up that dissertation and it was by some guy named “Gear, Spencer D.” and not “OzSpen”. ]

Don't take it with a grain of salt.

 

[OzSpen]

Yes...and?


Scripture is sufficient and is it's own interpreter (as it is attended with it's Author, the Holy Spirit).


Ever hear of the power of the Gospel or the illuminating/quickening of the Spirit?


So free will applies equally to fallen man as it does to unfallen Adam?


Yes, the point is where does God's sovereignty stop and human responsibility begin? You seem to be stripping God of His 'free' will in favor of man's choice.


You seem to assume a level playing field. Many die and perish at age 23 rejecting the Gospel. Others, while rejecting the Gospel at 23 are allowed to live until past 60 and in that time come to faith. An offer in and of itself is not enough, many factors involving God's dealings go into one coming to faith. Here is just one...

And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
(Mat 16:16-17)

atp,

I wish you would engage in discussion instead of making all these assertions that try to dumb me down.

 

[OzSpen]

Now that is just plain nonsense. I could do a word search for someone named Pollard and claim to be them and offer a story about my online name ... how would your “historical research” help you verify my real identity?

How will my learning the rigors of “historical research” allow me to prove your online identity matches some real world identity?

atp,

My mobile phone and Internet tethering was playing up this morning and my provider didn't want to grant me any more calls and texts even though I'd paid my bills and had 100GB in the data bank. Even though I could use the Internet and engage with the provider online, she still needed me to verify: My full name, mobile phone number, address, date of birth and email address.

There are ways and means today to prove a person is genuine and the real person associated with a piece of information.

It is more difficult for historical research (investigation of things in the past), but it can be done and is being pursued. I used this methodology in my PhD dissertation.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Yes, the point is where does God's sovereignty stop and human responsibility begin? You seem to be stripping God of His 'free' will in favor of man's choice.

prism,

Scripture is clear about the sovereignty of God and human responsibility: ' “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!' (Matt 23:37 ESV).

Also,

'And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself' (John 12:32 ESV).

AND,

'For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people' (Titus 2:11 ESV).

The power of the Gospel to draw all people (Rom 1:16), the above verses teach that it is effectual to save but it is never irresistible (Matt 23:37) and is extended to all people - not a select few.

That's Bible.

Oz

 

[Nancy]

It is utter nonsense to claim that TULIP (with a P for Perseverance of the Saints) destroys assurance of salvation.

It's more the L in limited atonement that bothers most.

 

[Nancy]

I was thinking of this part . . .

"We are (T)otally Incapable of choosing God on our own because sin causes us to always flee from God."

If that's so, then what is the meaning of a long and involved explanation of how no one can choose God, since it won't matter to any of them. Share the Gospel with the elect, see them saved, and get on with edifying them, that's what I say!

To the non-elect, it doesn't matter what you say, since they will never choose God anyway.

Not that I believe in an elect and non-elect preselected by God. The Gospel is to all, and all may receive.

Much love!

Hi Marks,
I have asked the same thing, concerning evangelization several times and never got one answer to it.

 

[prism]

atp,

I wish you would engage in discussion instead of making all these assertions that try to dumb me down.

View attachment 7119

You're assuming I'm trying to dumb you down.
My style is short and to the point, deal with it or ignore it.

 

[GodsGrace]

GENESIS 3:


[Genesis 3:1 NASB] 1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?"


Observation: Wherever you go, temptation will find you … even in paradise.

Speculation: Since temptation is unavoidable, the key must be how we deal with it.


[Genesis 3:2-3 NASB] 2 The woman said to the serpent, "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; 3 but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'"

Observation: “or touch it” … Even people that were created “very good” and “blessed” and had never ‘sinned’ still felt it worthwhile to add to the word of God with a “thou shall not” that God did not say.

Why doesn't Genesis 2:17 say THOU SHALT NOT?
God tells Adam YOU SHALL NOT EAT (nasb) that's the same as
THOU SHALL NOT.

Speculation

: It is innate in all people to “miss the mark” when it comes to understanding the commands of God and we all want to add what makes sense to what scripture actually says. Thus the benefit of an honest challenge to our assumptions and a hard “second” look at scripture.

I haven't found this to be true for me.
I've strived to understand scripture, and not by my own power but by those that know more than I do. I do believe that anything one learns must be reconciled to scripture...especially the N.T.
This I don't find difficult to do when what I learn is the truth.
How to know the truth?
Because God is not the author of confusion and everything in the bible MUST reconcile with everything else.

The reason I have a big problem with calvinism is precisely because God is THE intelligent being....THE Sovereign being,,,and a being of Love, and thus there's no way He would, without conditions created by Him, punish a human, the supreme creation of His, to eternal torment without the PERSON HIMSELF choosing so.

It is God's DESIRE that all men be saved. We know the verses.
Why is this not acceptable to you?
He is just and so set the conditions by which we CAN be saved IF we WANT to be.

[Genesis 3:4-5 NASB] 4 The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die! 5 "For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."


Observation: Temptation calls into question the truthfulness of what God said and promises people what they most desire … to be like God.

Speculation: All men want what the serpent tempted Eve with. We all question the truth of the word of God and we all want to be god of our own lives (or to choose a god of our liking). That is what pre-fall Eve wanted and that is what all post-fall mankind wants in its natural (pre-salvation) state.

Agreed. Some want to be like God, some are treated like gods and so it's confirmed in their mind that they are, maybe some just want to do whatever they want to and God is an inconvenience to them...but for whatever reason, yes, pre-salvation man is not in tune with God --- even those that are "good" persons.
This is due to depravity...the sin nature.
But not such a total depravity that a man cannot think...
God gifted us with a brain.
1 Corinthians 2:14 Not going to use scripture,,,but this came to mind and also this:
1 Corinthians 15:1-2 We RECEIVED the gospel Paul taught..We are SAVED BY IT...
IF WE HOLD FAST...
If WE hold fast.

[Genesis 3:6 NASB] 6 When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make [one] wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.


Observation: Here we have the very first recorded exercise of moral free will. Eve knows what God wants, so her conscience is intact, and she is able to reason. Using her 100% untainted free will, Eve chooses to believe God lied to her, directly disobey the command of God, and to rebel against the authority of God by trying to become like God. Adam, who is just as much morally untainted, uses his 100% untainted free will to believe that God personally lied to him (face to face), to disobey the command that God gave him personally, and to join in the rebellion to become gods. We have a 100% record of free will, unfallen human beings choosing to embrace rebellion and reject God.

Speculation: “The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree”. What Adam and Eve were, we are (only more so). It is innate in human nature to want to be a god and to reject the authority of God Almighty.

We cannot even depend on our conscience, or let it be our guide.
We can ONLY depend on our conscience IF it is properly formed with the teachings of God.

It begins to be formed somewhat by society (not really much anymore), and by whatever exposure we have to the teachings of God. Maybe from parents, church, a movie, something a friend said,,, etc.

As we grow we most times come to understand that some kind of a decision must be made for God or against Him....WE make that decision; whether to accept or deny.
Someone on this forum states that this is us trying to be God...
NO. This is us trying to be close to God...
and because I believe we still have our free will intact.


1 of 3

 

[GodsGrace]

2 of 3

[Genesis 3:7 NASB] 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings.


Observation: Adam and Eve gained experiential knowledge of sin … they knew what it was to be in rebellion against God. As a result, they lost the freedom to be naked and unashamed (Gen 2:25) and felt the shame that they wanted to hide. They made covering of leaves to attempt to hide their nakedness (guilt and sin), but their covering was inadequate.

Speculation: We are born with an innate urge to sin (to be a god and rebel against God), but something still changes when we sin for ourselves. We are “spiritually dead” in our sins and we have lost that original communion and communication with God that Adam and Eve were born with and is our forfeited birthright as beings created in the image of God. Even in our ignorance, we instinctively attempt to clothe our spiritual nakedness in some sort of man made “religion” that is inadequate to the task. This is part of our natural spiritual “Total Inability”.

Were their eyes opened when they sinned....or did God open their eyes so they could see their sin? Monergism/Synergism
Does God have to do everything? Or do we sin on our own?
Does God make man sin? Is this part of determinism?
If so, how could a just God hold us responsible for our sins?
I'm willing to accept responsibility for my sins....BUT only IF it's not God that determined that I should commit any particular sin -- which is what calvinism teaches; total determinism.

God gave us "religions" precisely to help us to understand Him.
Why else would we have religions?

We are responsible for our sins because WE choose to commit them.
We are not so depraved that we cannot think or choose.
We still have a brain, though tainted by the sin nature,,
we still can choose NOT to sin, although not as easily as when we live with the Holy Spirit.

Tertullian said: 160-225 AD
I find, then, that man was by God constituted free, master of his own will and power; indicating the presence of God's image and likeness in him by nothing so well as by this constitution of his nature.

For it was not by his face, and by the lineaments of his body, though they were so varied in his human nature, that he expressed his likeness to the form of God; but he showed his stamp in that essencewhich he derived from God Himself (that is, the spiritual, which answered to the form of God), and in the freedom and power of his will. This his state was confirmed even by the very law which God then imposed upon him. For a law would not be imposed upon one who had it not in his power to render that obedience which is due to law; nor again, would the penalty of death be threatened against sin, if a contempt of the law were impossible to man in the liberty of his will.

So in the Creator's subsequent laws also you will find, when He sets before man good and evil, life and death, that the entire course of discipline is arranged in precepts by God's calling men from sin, and threatening and exhorting them; and this on no other ground than that man is free, with a will either for obedience or resistance.

source: CHURCH FATHERS: Against Marcion, Book II (Tertullian)


John 11:25-26
Why did Jesus say that whoever believes in Him shall not die?
Since calvinism believes statements as this to be simply a declaration and not an exhortation...
Did Jesus say these words only to aggravate, abuse, and frustrate those that ARE NOT saved which the Father did NOT draw to Him??

[Genesis 3:8 NASB] 8 They heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.


Observation: The often repeated “free will” mantra is that people choose to come to God for forgiveness. Here are two people that have no experiential reason to fear God (God has never harmed them) and the very first opportunity they have to exercise their free will and run to God, they exercise their free will and run and hide instead.

Speculation: How much more reason do we, living today, have to run and hide from the presence of God to hide our far greater sins? This is “Total Inability” of people to choose to come to God for forgiveness because of our human nature.

First, there is no greater sin today.
What could be a greater sin than to damn the entire human race?

After Adam sinned,,,the sin nature entered into the world and into human beings.
OF COURSE they were afraid of God. They not only knew the good now...they also knew evil. This is why they wanted to cover themselves. Of course, it wasn't sufficient, and God covered them in animal skin...the first sacrifice for man.

If a person is normal, and they're told not to do something, and they do it and something bad happens, they DO feel guilty about it. Same with Adam and Eve.
They gained a conscience...
they did not lose free will because it's continued to be seen throughout scripture.

If you check the preternatural gifts....FREE WILL IS NOT ONE OF THEM.
Free will was a NORMAL attribute that they had which WAS NOT taken away.

Term
PRETERNATURAL GIFTS

Definition
Favors granted by God above and beyond the powers or capacities of the nature that receives them but not beyond those of all created nature. Such gifts perfect nature but do not carry it beyond the limits of created nature. They include three great privileges to which human beings have no title--infused knowledge, absence of concupiscence, and bodily immortality. Adam and Eve possessed these gifts before the Fall.

nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
24b) Integrity of Nature and Preternatural Gifts

Aside from supernatural grace, the first man’s nature was in a state of integrity, that is, he was endowed with the preternatural gifts: integrity (sent. fidei proxima), immortality (de fide), impassibility (sent. comm.), and infused science (sent. comm.).

The preternatural gifts were benefits with which God endowed human nature through Adam and Eve.6 These gifts were adequate to the human condition but exceeded its proper end.


This could easily be found on the internet.
FREE WILL WAS NOT a preternatural gift...
but a NORMAL GIFT that we STILL RETAIN.

 

[GodsGrace]

3 of 3

[Genesis 3:9 NASB] 9 Then the LORD God called to the man, and said to him, "Where are you?"

Observation: God initiated contact with the people that were trying to hide from Him. God called to a specific person, not a general call to whomever might be listening.

Speculation: God always initiates contact because God must initiate contact; fallen people only want to hide from God. God always calls specific individuals because nobody would respond if they had a choice in the matter.

There were no other individuals to call except for Adam and Eve!
He called BOTH OF THEM and asked what they had done.
God wishes ALL to be saved, but not all will be because not all follow God...as you stated at the beginning of this O.P.

2 Peter 3:9
1 timothy 2:4
Romans 1:16
Romans 2:11
Acts 10:34

[Genesis 3:10-12 NASB] 10 He said, "I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid myself." 11 And He said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?" 12 The man said, "The woman whom You gave [to be] with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate."


Observation: Adam was confronted by God and showed no intention of revealing what he had done, but just made empty excuses rather than confess and repent. God knows what happened (omniscience) and invites Adam to confess his sin. Adam responds in typical fallen human fashion by first blaming others (Eve) and then blaming God (“whom you gave me”) for the sin, but never accepting responsibility for his actions. This is human nature without any “special curse”.

Speculation: What Adam was, we still are. We have no intention of coming out of hiding to face God if we have a choice. God must draw us out individually and confront us with the reality of our sin. We will and do respond just like Adam, by first blaming everyone else and then blaming God for our sins. Adam was “Totally Unable” to do what was right and face God, confess his sin and repent of that sin all under the power of his free will … and we have the exact same “Total Inability” as children of Adam.

Interesting, but not correct.
Even after Adam and Eve both sinned, they continued to believe in God and lived with Him in their "knowledge"....they did not abandon Him and were most probably saved.

Genesis 4:1-4
Eve said she had Cain with the help of the LORD.
In verse 3-4 we read that Cain and Abel brought offerings to the LORD...
Why?
Apparently their parents had taught them about God and taught them to respect Him and thus they brought the offerings.

[Genesis 3:13 NASB] 13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?" And the woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."


Observation: Eve only confronts her sin when forced to confront it by God, and she uses her free will to choose to blame someone else rather than acknowledge, confess, repent and ask forgiveness.

Speculation: Eve is no less “Totally Unable” to do what is right than Adam was. This is the “Total Inability” of the human free will to do what God requires without some external compulsion by God.


[Genesis 3:21 NASB] 21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.


Observation: God clothed Adam and Eve to cover their nakedness. Human attempts to cover nakedness are always inadequate. Something had to die to cover their nakedness … sin has a blood cost.

Speculation: Only God can cover the shame of our sin and guilt. All human efforts to cover our sin and guilt are “Totally Ineffective”. Only the shedding of blood, from the sacrifice chosen by God, by the hand of God, will cover our sin and guilt … anything and everything we do to “help” God is “Totally Ineffective”.

I've already commented on this.
And also there is an "external compulsion" by God.
Again:
Romans 1:19-20
God reveals Himself...even atheists know about God...
It's up to US to accept Him or reject Him.

Very nice O.P.