The Knowledge of Good and Evil

[_JJM]

What was the Knowledge of Good and Evil that Adam and Eve received and why does it continue to bring sin into our lives?

 

[bling]

What was the Knowledge of Good and Evil that Adam and Eve received and why does it continue to bring sin into our lives?

There is a whole lot going on in the garden and we learn a tremendous amount about: Man, sin, God, Satan, the system, evil, God’s desire, and the purpose.
God makes man as could as man could be made (very good) but this is not as good as something that was not made (Christ).
God who is Love, would be compelled by His Love to create beings that could Love like He Loves. Love is the greatest and most powerful gift God can give man since it is the power that even controls Him. The problem is that Love (Godly type Love as defined by Christ) cannot be forced on man (take it or I torture you) and it cannot be instinctively given to man (a robotic type of Love). It must be given as a free undeserving and unconditional gift (Charity) and it must be accepted by man as Charity or the transaction will not take place.
Man has instinctively a desire for self preservation (this is needed and good for man), but that is also an ego that results in concern for oneself to the point that borders on selfishness. Our egos and independence prevents us from easily being humble and accepting charity, so that is the real problem. Sin is not the “problem” since it has an easy solution (un-forgiven sin can be a huge problem).
Adam and Eve began without any knowledge of “good and evil”, but did have a rule for a wrong and a consequence for doing the wrong. Adam and Eve are most likely the best of all human representatives and given just one rule to follow, they failed. ). A&E would have accepted God’s love to them as a wonderful parent’s love to wonderful obedient children and did not need to be humble and accept charity. So the problem is they did not have Godly type Love since they did not need it (they had wonderful child to wonderful parent type love). If they had Godly type Love they would have obeyed (…if you Love me you will obey me…). The easiest and maybe the only way to initially accept God’s Love is by accepting God’s forgiveness. God does not desire us to sin, but well quench His own desire in order to provide us with the best way for us to accept His Love.
The “knowledge of good and evil” provides A&E and all of us with tons of ways to sin. These sins become burdens and we seek relief. God’s forgiveness (Love) provides the only relief.
We all think we would like to be in the Garden situation, but A&E has shown us (and them) that the Garden situation is a lousy place to try and fulfill our objective. Would you prefer to be in a place where your eternal close relationship with God was dependent on your personal ability to obey God or would you prefer to be in a place where your eternal close relationship with God was dependent on your accepting God’s forgiveness?

 

[_JJM]

There is a whole lot going on in the garden and we learn a tremendous amount about: Man, sin, God, Satan, the system, evil, God’s desire, and the purpose.
God makes man as could as man could be made (very good) but this is not as good as something that was not made (Christ).
God who is Love, would be compelled by His Love to create beings that could Love like He Loves. Love is the greatest and most powerful gift God can give man since it is the power that even controls Him. The problem is that Love (Godly type Love as defined by Christ) cannot be forced on man (take it or I torture you) and it cannot be instinctively given to man (a robotic type of Love). It must be given as a free undeserving and unconditional gift (Charity) and it must be accepted by man as Charity or the transaction will not take place.

I like this very much. You are saying God's love is charity and cannot be forced on or given to the instinct of man. It is a gift outside of us, given by God and must be accepted.

Man has instinctively a desire for self preservation (this is needed and good for man), but that is also an ego that results in concern for oneself to the point that borders on selfishness. Our egos and independence prevents us from easily being humble and accepting charity, so that is the real problem. Sin is not the “problem” since it has an easy solution (un-forgiven sin can be a huge problem).

I totally agree about the instinct of selfishness that is most likely that of self-preservation. This made me think that Adam and Eve did not trust that God was providing everything they needed and was protecting them from the one thing they could not handle. Yet, they saw the wisdom in the knowledge and made a personal decision to take it against his will. They didn't trust Him that it was not good for them. She was also led astray by the lust of the flesh, eyes, and pride of life.

Adam and Eve began without any knowledge of “good and evil”, but did have a rule for a wrong and a consequence for doing the wrong. Adam and Eve are most likely the best of all human representatives and given just one rule to follow, they failed. ). A&E would have accepted God’s love to them as a wonderful parent’s love to wonderful obedient children and did not need to be humble and accept charity. So the problem is they did not have Godly type Love since they did not need it (they had wonderful child to wonderful parent type love). If they had Godly type Love they would have obeyed (…if you Love me you will obey me&#8230. The easiest and maybe the only way to initially accept God’s Love is by accepting God’s forgiveness. God does not desire us to sin, but well quench His own desire in order to provide us with the best way for us to accept His Love.

They had one commandment and broke it. Then they received the knowledge that was not for them to have. God did not want them to have this knowledge in the flesh.

The “knowledge of good and evil” provides A&E and all of us with tons of ways to sin. These sins become burdens and we seek relief. God’s forgiveness (Love) provides the only relief.

So you see the knowledge as a set of commandments or rules? I also believe this knowledge to be consciousness of law. Interesting how this law was not for man to handle in the flesh. They felt ashamed after having received it since it exposed their flesh as corrupt.

We all think we would like to be in the Garden situation, but A&E has shown us (and them) that the Garden situation is a lousy place to try and fulfill our objective. Would you prefer to be in a place where your eternal close relationship with God was dependent on your personal ability to obey God or would you prefer to be in a place where your eternal close relationship with God was dependent on your accepting God’s forgiveness?

Good point. I like to think about how God looked for them in the Garden, but they were the ones who hid. God has shown us that he will not condemn us according to this knowledge in the flesh, since it was never made for us. He condemned them for not trusting him that the knowledge was not for them. Are we not self-condemned if we don't believe that the knowledge is not good for us in the flesh? I think we stand self-condemned before him with our multitude of sins since they are a witness that we did not trust that he does not condemn us by the knowledge.

It's really interesting since the sin we are ALL judged by is the original sin.

Will we trust that the knowledge is not for us and trust that he has covered our shame?

Or will we take the knowledge and live by it, hiding from God, condemning ourselves and our neighbors by it?

 

[bling]

Is there something inherently bad about “knowledge”?
Eve did a lot of stuff wrong prior to “sinning” that was not sin at the time, because there was no God given “rule” against it like: lust, covet, selfishness, prideful and not seeking wise council. So why not take the tree away and pull satan out of there?
All those actions of Eve would be displeasing to God, but would not be obvious to the point of being undeniable and God wanted the sin to be undeniable and obvious to make the point. God would have realized like all of us that Adam and Eve would eventually sin given their condition, but sin is not the problem. It does not mean Adam and Eve are going to hell since outside the Garden after sinning they could rely on a Loving God to forgive them (faith) and have a new and better garden for them with in after death (hope).
Remember man’s objective while on earth is to obtain and possible grow Godly type Love (the greatest power in the universe and beyond). If man’s object was “not to sin”, we would all fail, even if the “rules” where made extremely easy (the Garden).
Unfortunately sin seems to be required for humans to accept God’s gift of Love. Humans will initially only accept God’s free undeserving and unconditional gift of Love (Charity) in the form of forgiveness and even that way people refuse it. Once we do accept this Love (forgiveness) sin is no longer required.

 

[yashua1970]

What was the Knowledge of Good and Evil that Adam and Eve received and why does it continue to bring sin into our lives?

First there was no "Original Sin" It is not taught anywhere in the bible.
Did you know there are three schools of thought about the idea?
Many Christians who profess to believe in the doctrine of original sin do not know what it teaches. Even more Christians are ignorant of its history and origin: that it had its roots in a heathen philosophy, that it has evolved, and that it was made a dogma of the Roman Catholic Church in the fifth century A.D., primarily by the influence of Augustine.
1. The Augustinian Theory
2. The Federal Theory
3. The Theory of Mediate Imputation

Second.
The tree represents the "opening of the eyes" or a revealing.
God created it, and it was ordained that they eat from it.
Has mama ever told you not to do something, and you really didn't understand the outcome?
Of course you have, and what did you do?
You did it anyway.
Did mama suppose you would do it anyway?
You bet. It is the "order and nature" of things

Third. The knowledge is the same knowledge that you received when mama told you not to touch that burner for in the day you do it will hurt.
We all eat from the same tree, and experience the same thing, separation. When you were a child you did not know the difference between right and wrong. It's called innocence, or ignorance. Then your eyes were opened to the truth of "good and Evil (separation)." You judged the burner to be bad (or you separated it into an idea), but in truth it is neither bad nor good, and that is our problem as people. We do not judge rightly all the time, only some of the time. What we call evil, God calls good, because God created "ALL" things for their specific purpose, and it is good.

 

[ittarter]

Many Christians who profess to believe in the doctrine of original sin do not know what it teaches. Even more Christians are ignorant of its history and origin: that it had its roots in a heathen philosophy, that it has evolved, and that it was made a dogma of the Roman Catholic Church in the fifth century A.D., primarily by the influence of Augustine.
1. The Augustinian Theory
2. The Federal Theory
3. The Theory of Mediate Imputation

You are plagiarizing here. Please cite your sources.
Also, ALL the "schools of thought" mentioned here support the principle of original sin, although interpreting it in different ways. So, what are you trying to accomplish? Do you want to repudiate the theory of original sin altogether? If so, you will need to say more.

Second.
The tree represents the "opening of the eyes" or a revealing.
God created it, and it was ordained that they eat from it.
Has mama ever told you not to do something, and you really didn't understand the outcome?
Of course you have, and what did you do?
You did it anyway.
Did mama suppose you would do it anyway?
You bet. It is the "order and nature" of things

This psychological interpretation is certainly possible, given Adam's childlike naivete, but it's best to use it in light of numerous literary and rhetorical features throughout the text, not the "typical" experience of childhood in the modern world.

Third. The knowledge is the same knowledge that you received when mama told you not to touch that burner for in the day you do it will hurt.
We all eat from the same tree, and experience the same thing, separation. When you were a child you did not know the difference between right and wrong. It's called innocence, or ignorance. Then your eyes were opened to the truth of "good and Evil (separation)." You judged the burner to be bad (or you separated it into an idea), but in truth it is neither bad nor good, and that is our problem as people. We do not judge rightly all the time, only some of the time. What we call evil, God calls good, because God created "ALL" things for their specific purpose, and it is good.

This philosophical interpretation has not a hint of support from the text itself, at least none that I have ever seen. The expression "good and evil" is used elsewhere in Genesis to mean "everything" (just as the modern English expression "near and far" means everything in between, too) so one possibility often suggested is that Adam would be omniscient, like God. The main problem with that, of course, is that Adam doesn't appear to become omniscient. The other big problem is that God, in Genesis, doesn't seem to be omniscient anyway. If we take the serpent's words at face value ("like God, knowing good and evil") which is also arguably questionable, then Adam's knowledge must match God's knowledge, after eating the fruit. Also, the possibility that Adam could have God's knowledge and live forever is an impossible thought for God (see the end of chap. 3).

 

[ittarter]

What was the Knowledge of Good and Evil that Adam and Eve received and why does it continue to bring sin into our lives?

In my opinion, the knowledge of good and evil means ethical choice. Before eating the fruit, Adam merely does what he is told (thus the need for the snake to "tell" the woman to eat, who in turn "tells" the man to eat). Unquestioning obedience. For some reason, immortality is possible if there is only one in a hierarchical chain who makes such choices (i.e. God) while the rest simply do as they are told. In this situation, man is exempt from responsibility, and therefore from consequence (i.e. death). If man becomes cognizant of ethical choice and begins to control his destiny and make decisions, he must also suffer the consequences. Thus he is ejected from the garden -- part of man's evolution toward self-determination of identity, purpose, and destiny (according to the book of Genesis taken as a whole) -- and must forge ahead according to his own limited but developing ability to judge right from wrong, good from evil.

Clearly Adam stands as a symbol for humanity, and thus his battle is our own, both historically (as mankind marches onward, from civilization to civilization), psychologically/socially (as individual human beings are born, go through the process of childhood and adolescence in preparation of adulthood), and spiritually (as mankind recognizes its insoluable relationship with God, not as one of unquestioning obedience but rather of mature judgment of right and wrong -- this having both clear benefits and consequences, much like Adam's forced ejection from paradise). That's why we have "inherited" Adam's choice at the tree of knowledge -- because we are Adam.

This is probably my favorite text in the Bible. The most important thing to consider here. in my opinion, is how these two chapters fit with the entire message of Genesis. If you lose sight of the forest for the trees, you run the risk of misreading the early chapters of Genesis.

 

[yashua1970]

You are plagiarizing here. Please cite your sources.
Also, ALL the "schools of thought" mentioned here support the principle of original sin, although interpreting it in different ways. So, what are you trying to accomplish? Do you want to repudiate the theory of original sin altogether? If so, you will need to say more.

This psychological interpretation is certainly possible, given Adam's childlike naivete, but it's best to use it in light of numerous literary and rhetorical features throughout the text, not the "typical" experience of childhood in the modern world.

This philosophical interpretation has not a hint of support from the text itself, at least none that I have ever seen. The expression "good and evil" is used elsewhere in Genesis to mean "everything" (just as the modern English expression "near and far" means everything in between, too) so one possibility often suggested is that Adam would be omniscient, like God. The main problem with that, of course, is that Adam doesn't appear to become omniscient. The other big problem is that God, in Genesis, doesn't seem to be omniscient anyway. If we take the serpent's words at face value ("like God, knowing good and evil") which is also arguably questionable, then Adam's knowledge must match God's knowledge, after eating the fruit. Also, the possibility that Adam could have God's knowledge and live forever is an impossible thought for God (see the end of chap. 3).

You are plagiarizing here. Please cite your sources.

I'm sorry I didn't think it was that important, but it is A. T. Overstreet, from "Are men born sinners" The Myth Of Original Sin.

So, what are you trying to accomplish? Do you want to repudiate the theory of original sin altogether? If so, you will need to say more

Simply put there is no original sin, but If you want to be specific and trace the "first" recorded instance of "Sin" it was as Jesus stated emphatically

"He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning.

Not Adam.

But guess what:

“Behold I have created the smith that blows the coals in the fire, and that brings forth an instrument for his work; and I [God] have created the waster [Heb: ‘destroyer’] to destroy” (Isa. 54:16).

Satan the Devil was a liar “…from the beginning.” But didn’t he once “abide IN the truth” before he became Satan? Never.
The phrase, “…and abode not in the truth…” is proof against any such theory. Someone suggested that Satan once did stand in the truth, and this verse is telling us that he “…did not continue standing in the truth…” That is not what this phrase is stating. Notice a few other translations of this phrase:

Young’s Literal Translation: “…and in the truth he has not stood….”
Green’s Interlinear Greek-English New Testament: “…and he has not stood in the truth…”
Emphatic Diaglott Interlinear: “…has not stood in the truth…”
​

No, Satan the Devil has never stood in the truth. He was a liar and a murderer “…from the beginning.” And so we have proof that God created Satan just as he is.
About five times a year I get a long email from someone trying to prove to me that the “serpent in the Garden” was not Satan, but Adam’s carnal mind, or some other such thing. God tells us, however, who Satan really is: “that old serpent." Proof:

“And the great dragon was cast out, that Old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan” (Rev. 12:9).
​

Is this not the same “crooked serpent and dragon” mentioned in Isa. 27:1 which God will yet punish:

“In that day the Lord with His sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea” (Isa. 27:1).
​

The word “liviathan” means: “SERPENT.”
The word “dragon” means: “figuratively the constellation of the dragon; a sea SERPENT.”
God is not going to “punish” a constellation in the sky or a fish in the sea. This is speaking of that great and wicked spirit: Satan, the Devil, that Old serpent, the dragon, the crooked serpent, the destroyer, the accuser, the Adversary.
Did “…the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan…” (Rev. 20:2), form himself out of a perfect angel/cherub, or did God form this serpent as he now is? Answer:
“By His spirit He [God] has garnished [adorned] the heavens; His hand has formed the crooked serpent” (Job 26:13).



So where is your original sin? Jesus the Christ stated that "the devil sinneth from the beginning."


And:


“By His spirit He [God] has garnished [adorned] the heavens; His hand has formed the crooked serpent” (Job 26:13).



But will you believe it? Probably not. Most people have been, by so-called Theologians "taught," but very few have actually "believed" what their Bible "taught" because it doesn't line up with their traditions taught by men.

 

[ittarter]

I'm sorry I didn't think it was that important, but it is A. T. Overstreet, from "Are men born sinners" The Myth Of Original Sin.

Thanks. It's always important, because if you don't provide a citation most readers will incorrectly suppose that you wrote it yourself, and this amounts to academic fraud and intellectual theft. Furthermore, knowing the author, a well-read reader is able to contextualize the claims made in the citation within the overall framework of the author's thought and history.

Simply put there is no original sin, but If you want to be specific and trace the "first" recorded instance of "Sin" it was as Jesus stated emphatically

"He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning.

Not Adam.

With respect to the OP, we are currently reading and interpreting the Genesis account, not Jesus' words. Regardless, since Jesus does not say that the devil was the first to sin, there is no reason to use this passage to help make sense of original sin.

According to Genesis, it is very clear that Adam and Eve were the first to disobey God. The snake is called "crafty," but nowhere does it actually disobey God and thereby be the first to sin. Furthermore, since (as I have already said) Adam stands as representative of the human race -- unlike the snake -- then it stands to reason that we inherited our penchant for sinning from Adam, not the snake.

But guess what:

“Behold I have created the smith that blows the coals in the fire, and that brings forth an instrument for his work; and I [God] have created the waster [Heb: ‘destroyer’] to destroy” (Isa. 54:16).

Satan the Devil was a liar “…from the beginning.” But didn’t he once “abide IN the truth” before he became Satan? Never.

There is no reason to suppose that Isaiah 54:16 makes any reference to the devil.

The phrase, “…and abode not in the truth…” is proof against any such theory. Someone suggested that Satan once did stand in the truth, and this verse is telling us that he “…did not continue standing in the truth…” That is not what this phrase is stating. Notice a few other translations of this phrase:

Young’s Literal Translation: “…and in the truth he has not stood….”
Green’s Interlinear Greek-English New Testament: “…and he has not stood in the truth…”
​

Emphatic Diaglott Interlinear: “…has not stood in the truthn
​

Since you didn't provide any citation for this passage, I can only suggest that the perfect tense of "stand" does not mean that the situation could have never been different. However, since you have not yet established that the devil was the first to sin, the point is moot.

No, Satan the Devil has never stood in the truth. He was a liar and a murderer “…from the beginning.” And so we have proof that God created Satan just as he is.
About five times a year I get a long email from someone trying to prove to me that the “serpent in the Garden” was not Satan, but Adam’s carnal mind, or some other such thing. God tells us, however, who Satan really is: “that old serpent." Proof:

“And the great dragon was cast out, that Old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan” (Rev. 12:9).
​

Is this not the same “crooked serpent and dragon” mentioned in Isa. 27:1 which God will yet punish:

“In that day the Lord with His sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea” (Isa. 27:1).​

The truth is actually more complex. The New Testament regularly interprets the symbol of the snake as representative of the devil. The majority of the Hebrew Bible, however, has a very different concept of "the tempter" (Heb. hasatan).

The word “liviathan” means: “SERPENT.”
The word “dragon” means: “figuratively the constellation of the dragon; a sea SERPENT.”
God is not going to “punish” a constellation in the sky or a fish in the sea. This is speaking of that great and wicked spirit: Satan, the Devil, that Old serpent, the dragon, the crooked serpent, the destroyer, the accuser, the Adversary.
Did “…the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan…” (Rev. 20:2), form himself out of a perfect angel/cherub, or did God form this serpent as he now is? Answer:
“By His spirit He [God] has garnished [adorned] the heavens; His hand has formed the crooked serpent” (Job 26:13).



So where is your original sin? Jesus the Christ stated that "the devil sinneth from the beginning."


And:


“By His spirit He [God] has garnished [adorned] the heavens; His hand has formed the crooked serpent” (Job 26:13).

Again, there is no reason to suppose that this "fugitive serpent" is an oblique reference some pre-historical fallen angel.

But will you believe it? Probably not. Most people have been, by so-called Theologians "taught," but very few have actually "believed" what their Bible "taught" because it doesn't line up with their traditions taught by men.

Your elitist comments are hardly indicative that you have interpreted the biblical texts wisely.

Perhaps you should read my own interpretation of Genesis 2-3 and tell me what you think.

 

[DonnyT]

What was the Knowledge of Good and Evil that Adam and Eve received and why does it continue to bring sin into our lives?

Yes, God who has infinite knowledge is beyond good and evil. I don't think evil is solely for the purpose of having a greater appreciation for who God is, however, but simply for the understanding. If God drew a line on a piece of paper, what defines the line? The dark line or the white paper around the line. If it was all white or dark there would be no line. In order for things to exist, the line must be drawn and the distinction must be made. IMO this is the understanding that God wants us to have.

Dark cannot exist in light and vice versa. How does God circumvent this? When we were given the knowledge, through the tree of knowledge of good and evil, we became evil and thus here we are today. But we are made good again through Jesus' sacrifice. Now we have the knowledge of good and evil and yet are good. A perfectly round square.

 

[_JJM]

An article I wrote which shows my understanding of the knowledge of Good and Evil:

Penal Substitutionary Atonement (psub) is in opposition to the Abrahamic promise since it teaches that legal requirements must be met before a man can be accepted by God. Abraham received blessing because he trusted in God. This is against the understanding of the fleshly man. The fleshly man perceives a code of requirements in his conscience that must be met for justification. The man of flesh assumes that it was God’s original will to place these requirements in his mind.

Yet when we go back to the Garden, we see that God did not will this Knowledge for the first man, and warned him not to take it into his conscience. They were fooled by the Devil to rebel and take this knowledge for themselves. It was the Devil's will to establish the law on earth. By it he accuses a man and destroys his faith in God. Now, the man of flesh without faith is alienated from God and is in perpetual hatred against his brother due to this rebellion, having the heavenly knowledge in a vessel in which it was not intended. This is the original sin.

When we go to Sinai, we see Moses destroying the covenant stones of letter in the face of Israel’s sin. Moses was never rebuked for this. He knew the laws were of heaven. He was told to make new stones and place them in the shadow of the heavenly places where they belong.

The church wants to satisfy the law in the flesh through penal substitution atonement doctrines, yet the Gospel says the law on earth is abolished for the believer in Christ. The Devil was disarmed when the handwriting of requirements was erased at the cross. Those captive to its hopeless requirements are set free by placing faith in Christ.

The great error of Penal Substitutionary Atonement is it does not place the law in the right perspective. It places King Jesus on the earthly throne, not the heavenly. It demands that God be satisfied according to the law in the flesh, when this is a direct contradiction of His will. The original Gospel preached the revelation that the law is to reside in the heavenly places, not on earth. This message was nonsense to the fleshly minded Hebrews, since they were convinced that God himself had brought the law to them, to establish their righteousness before Him. Though who brought it to them? Moses? He smashed it. This was a shadow of that which ocurred at Calvary.

Falling into the same error, the Gentile Church, in a desperate search to find a model that continued to satisfy the Devil's accusations according to the Law of the Letter, while simultaneously explaining its disappearance at the cross, constructed the doctrine of Penal Substitution. Man has broken the law with his flesh and must be punished point for point. Since man can not survive the wrath of God according to fleshly law and live, then Jesus must have in our stead. Instead of throwing 1st covenant stones at us, God threw them at Jesus.

Though we neither see nor hear anything of this legal penalty paid at Calvary in the Gospels. All we see is Jesus freely forgiving anyone that asks, never mentioning consequence according to law for those that believe in God. He was put to death by the Devil's court, full of people sick with the notion that man must pay an eternal penalty according to fleshly law. The Lord Jesus endured the wrath of Satan, given up by God to him, not beaten up by God with him.

The law of the letter was abolished in Christ, since he is the authority, and he gave himself up to death. This is against the understanding of the fleshly man. A man sick with consciousness of law in the flesh is blinded by pride and lack of faith by holding onto it. He is unable to humiliate his arrogant mind to realize that it was not God's intention from the beginning to reveal this heavenly knowledge to him due to his inherent inability to handle it. Man was asked to trust God that law was not for him. Man trusted the Devil instead. Jesus trusted God that law was not for man in the flesh. Penal Substitution will not offer God this same trust.

Now the Church, just like the rebellious Jews, has such a firm hold on that original sin that we cannot fathom that Christ was suffering for any other reason than to pay a wrathful God according to the consequences of a fleshly law.

That a righteous and just God would fix Adam's mistake, and not hold the man born in the flesh eternally accountable to the heavenly ordinances, and ask us to do the same for each other, and that this is salvation for man, is considered as hypocrisy and shallow. Yet no other message is seen at Calvary. This is the message - the law is spiritual, not for the fleshly man. Yes, the original message was shallow to the religious establishment, and remains so in the general assembly of Gentile synagogues worldwide confused with penal substitution doctrines, since it seeks no judicial retribution for infractions against the Law of the Letter, toward any party, vicarious or otherwise, from those who believe.

So what of law? How do we respond to the Knowledge of Good and Evil? We know that it is the wisdom of God. God declared, "He has become like one of Us to know good and evil." We cannot ignore the presence of this heavenly knowledge in the conscience. The knowledge is not evil, though we were for taking it, and we are self-condemned in our own thoughts due to the corruption it exposes in our flesh. We have it and can't forget it, so our task is to believe in it, since it is of God. It was like this from the beginning.

The Abrahamic promise of justification by faith is foreign to the psub model, as it was given without any requirement except belief in God. Penal Substitutionary Atonement teaches that a man has a legal debt to God according to his infractions against the law of the letter, and Jesus was a judicial substitute whom God poured his wrath into as he would a criminal, in his place. It teaches that we who have faith could not pay this legal debt without being utterly destroyed, so Jesus paid it for us. Yet the Abrahamic promise of justification by faith was given without any debt requirement other than belief.

Melchizedek, high priest of Jerusalem forever, presented no letters in stone to Abraham to live by for justification. There is no debt to be paid for the believer. Why pour wrath into the Eternal King for infractions against a law that he has declared rescinded for those who believe? How can the Law of the Letter annul the original Covenant of Faith?

Penal Substitutionary Atonement satisfies man's desire for retribution, not God's.

Find Liberty in the message of peace. The handwriting of requirements was erased in the body of Christ.

 

[bling]

i read you earlier, how about responding to this?
There is a whole lot going on in the garden and we learn a tremendous amount about: Man, sin, God, Satan, the system, evil, God’s desire, and the purpose.
God makes man as could as man could be made (very good) but this is not as good as something that was not made (Christ).
God who is Love, would be compelled by His Love to create beings that could Love like He Loves. Love is the greatest and most powerful gift God can give man since it is the power that even controls Him. The problem is that Love (Godly type Love as defined by Christ) cannot be forced on man (take it or I torture you) and it cannot be instinctively given to man (a robotic type of Love). It must be given as a free undeserving and unconditional gift (Charity) and it must be accepted by man as Charity or the transaction will not take place.
Man has instinctively a desire for self preservation (this is needed and good for man), but that is also an ego that results in concern for oneself to the point that borders on selfishness. Our egos and independence prevents us from easily being humble and accepting charity, so that is the real problem. Sin is not the “problem” since it has an easy solution (un-forgiven sin can be a huge problem).
Adam and Eve began without any knowledge of “good and evil”, but did have a rule for a wrong and a consequence for doing the wrong. Adam and Eve are most likely the best of all human representatives and given just one rule to follow, they failed. ). A&E would have accepted God’s love to them as a wonderful parent’s love to wonderful obedient children and did not need to be humble and accept charity. So the problem is they did not have Godly type Love since they did not need it (they had wonderful child to wonderful parent type love). If they had Godly type Love they would have obeyed (…if you Love me you will obey me…). The easiest and maybe the only way to initially accept God’s Love is by accepting God’s forgiveness. God does not desire us to sin, but well quench His own desire in order to provide us with the best way for us to accept His Love.
The “knowledge of good and evil” provides A&E and all of us with tons of ways to sin. These sins become burdens and we seek relief. God’s forgiveness (Love) provides the only relief.
We all think we would like to be in the Garden situation, but A&E has shown us (and them) that the Garden situation is a lousy place to try and fulfill our objective. Would you prefer to be in a place where your eternal close relationship with God was dependent on your personal ability to obey God or would you prefer to be in a place where your eternal close relationship with God was dependent on your accepting God’s forgiveness?

 

[Hismessenger]

To say that there was no original sin is to lack the understanding of what sin truly is. Sin is the rebellion to the will and command of God. If they did not commit an original sin then what do you call their rebellion to the command/will of God, if not sin?

hismessenger

 

[_JJM]

Sin is not imputed where there is no law. Sin is of the flesh, because the flesh has knowledge of law. Law in the conscience came with the KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL, therefore sin came for man.

 

[pehkay]

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil symbolizes an organic, spiritual reality, which is personified in Satan as the embodiment of sin (1 John 3:8; Rom. 8:3), whose life and sinful nature constitute and animate the life of those who, by organic identification, are fellow partakers of sin (7:17, 20, 23). Through this living and growing tree of death, the many have been constituted sinners and by nature are children of wrath and sons of disobedience (5:19; Eph. 2:2-3; 5:6; Col. 3:6). The tree of the knowledge of good and evil has incorporated all humanity into the satanic life and nature (1 John 5:19), producing an unholy fellowship among all who take fellow delight in sin (1 Cor. 10:20; Rom. 1:32), who seek their own glory (John 7:18), and whose high thoughts rise up against the knowledge of God (2 Cor. 10:5). This exaltation of high thoughts primarily manifests itself in the pursuit of all forms of human wisdom, but particularly religious wisdom, since humanity has usurped the place of God by creating gods of their own making (Rom. 1:22-23, 25).