Question 92 of the Westminster Larger Catechism

[Jon_]

Someone want to step up to this one? (Too bad reformationist is MIA, he would love this thread.)

The topic is question 92 of the Westminster Larger Catechism is:

Question 92: What did God at first reveal unto man as the rule of his obedience?

Answer: The rule of obedience revealed to Adam in the estate of innocence, and to all mankind in him, besides a special command not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, was the moral law.



Is this consistent with Romans 5:12-13, though?

(Rom. 5:13 KJV) (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.


​

I have five questions related to this topic:

1) Why is it called the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil?

2) If man was born with a conscience and the ability to tell right from wrong, why call it the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil?

3) Why does Genesis 3:7 say that after eating the fruit, "their eyes were opened"?

4) What is the significance of their eyes being opened to good and evil if they already knew the difference between good and evil?

5) What is the significance of Adam telling God that he was naked and God asking him who told him he was naked?

 

[AndOne]

I'm going to take a quick stab at this - if you want me to elaborate I'll give it a try.

I would say that the sum total answer to the last three questions is because man was not yet "Totally Depraved" before he ate the fruit. Once they ate the fruit - that was when man was changed into the worthless creature that he is - and hence has passed on to all generations since.

As to the first two questions - that is a tough one. I would have to say that the significance of the title falls in line with that until "the fall," man had really not experienced evil - or known it. Once the act of disobediance was committed he was plunged headlong into his depraved state and then truly experienced it. Man may have known that it was wrong to eat of the fruit - but did he know it was evil?

I just read about this in "The Institutes..." by Calvin - who says that the significance of the fall was in the act of disobediance. Man stopped trusting in God at that point - and that was his downfall. To disobey the magnificant creator of the universe was the height of pride as well as arrogance - and as Adam and Eve soon found out - evil.

 

[Jon_]

I'm going to take a quick stab at this - if you want me to elaborate I'll give it a try.

I would say that the sum total answer to the last three questions is because man was not yet "Totally Depraved" before he ate the fruit. Once they ate the fruit - that was when man was changed into the worthless creature that he is - and hence has passed on to all generations since.

As to the first two questions - that is a tough one. I would have to say that the significance of the title falls in line with that until "the fall," man had really not experienced evil - or known it. Once the act of disobediance was committed he was plunged headlong into his depraved state and then truly experienced it. Man may have known that it was wrong to eat of the fruit - but did he know it was evil?

I just read about this in "The Institutes..." by Calvin - who says that the significance of the fall was in the act of disobediance. Man stopped trusting in God at that point - and that was his downfall. To disobey the magnificant creator of the universe was the height of pride as well as arrogance - and as Adam and Eve soon found out - evil.

Good reply, Dave. The effects of Total Depravity do lend themselves well to the last three questions. On the first two, I think you might really be onto something when you said this:

Man may have known that it was wrong to eat of the fruit - but did he know it was evil?

Maybe we should ask, Did man really have a conscience before the fall?

Ooo, provocative.

 

[Irishcat922]

I think the WCF is absolutly correct on this point, I think the mistake is seeing the moral law as only that which was delivered at Sinai. The moral law is the conscience that every man was created with as well as Adam. Adam knew the difference between right and wrong, but only what The Lord had told him, he had no experience of right and wrong until he ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. I think that knowledge was experiential.

WCF Chapter XIX

Of the Law of God
​

​

1. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which He bound him and all his posterity, to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it.

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

Rom 2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

 

[Antman_05]

What did God at first reveal unto man as the rule of his obedience?

The rule of obedience revealed to Adam in the estate of innocence, and to all mankind in him, besides a special command not to eat of the fruit of the tree knowledge of good and evil, was the moral law. (Gen. 1:26–27, Rom. 2:14–15, Rom. 10:5, Gen. 2:17)​

http://www.christianforums.com/t1540304-question-92-of-the-westminster-larger-catechism.html#_ftn1http://www.christianforums.com/t154...he-westminster-larger-catechism.html#_ftnref1The Westminster larger catechism : With scripture proofs. 1996 . Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor, WA.
This is the scripture proof they give so maybe look at that then line the other scripture up.

 

[Jon_]

I think that knowledge was experiential.

Good one!



Great deduction, Irishcat. The Hebrew noun for knowledge is "da'ath." This noun is derived from the verb "yada." Yada means a) to know by observing and reflecting, and b) to know by experiencing. We know that Adam's sin was the first imputed sin:

(Rom. 5:12-13 KJV) Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 13) (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.


​

If Adam was indeed given a moral code, then he must not have violated it because it would have been imputable sin. But did he resist it of his own nature, or by God's grace?

(Rom. 7:8 KJV) But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.


​

We know that Adam was not born Totally Depraved. He was not born with a sinful nature, which is precisely why satan had to tempt Eve to partake of the fruit. Without a sinful nature, they would have never desired sin naturally. So Adam was fully capable of resisting sin in the garden because he had no sinful nature. There was nothing in him that desired rebellion.


And yet he chose rebellion. Perhaps his inexperience with the effects of sin of led him to believe the serpent. Perhaps, not having knowledge of good and evil, he could not resist the temptation of the serpent for own lack of experience on the matter. God said he would die, the serpent said he would not. Adam had not experienced evil. How was he to gauge it?

This might be likened to a parent telling one's child not to take things without asking. But later, when the child is playing with a friend, the friend suggests they play with little Susie's Big Wheel. The child was told not to take things without asking. "Nonsense!" proclaims the friend. Big Wheels were made for fun! No one is playing with it right now, so we should ride it and have fun. And then, the child, having little experience (as opposed to no experience such as Adam) of good and evil, concedes, and they take the Big Wheel.

Has the child violated the parent's commandment? Absolutely. Is the parent to blame for the child's behavior? Of course not. Is the friend at fault for the transgression? Only for the temptation, which is sin in itself. The child is still guilty of the sin, whether or not he knew the difference.

Is it not true that ignorance of the law is no excuse for the violation of it? Even if you don't know that stealing is illegal, it's still illegal, and you're still guilty if you do.

Is this accurate of the dynamics of the garden?