Why did he do it?

[Reformationist]

Thx for reminding me of what I've been saying, I can certainly understand now why I am confusing you so much.

My pleasure.

I am saying Adam had the created ability to obey God, which Adam demonstrated

Okay. With ya here...

but because he was not perfect he could not obey Him consistently, which Adam demonstrated.

Oooohh. So close. I think the hang up for me with what you're saying is that you're deriving your view of his imperfection from the fact that he disobeyed, and you're going even further than that by saying that because he was not perfect he was unable to consistantly obey God. I don't think that is Scripturally supported nor do I think it makes any sense of the biblical account of the Fall. If some deficiency in Adam's constituent nature precluded the possibility of unwaivering obedience then I cannot see how it is possible to hold him accountable for his transgression. I can definitely get on board with your position if it is applied to post-Fall man but to apply it to pre-Fall man is premature, in my opinion.

As I said before, I don't understand what caused Adam to disobey but I do think he was created perfect. The difference between you and I is that I believe his perfection was mutable, even if I don't understand why it changed.

Adam did both, he obeyed God for a time but couldn't keep it up. So it is both yes and no.

Do you mean that Adam was capable and incapable of obedience?

On the other hand Christ did both, He obeyed God for a time and kept it up! Only the God/Man Jesus Christ could do it, obviously. So in Him is Yes and Amen!

Okay, well, I think we're getting a bit off topic. So, to summarize what I understand of your position, am I correct in understanding that you believe Adam sinned because he was imperfect?

Thanks,
God bless

 

[CalvinOwen]

Okay, well, I think we're getting a bit off topic. So, to summarize what I understand of your position, am I correct in understanding that you believe Adam sinned because he was imperfect?

Yes, and I believe in order to understand why Adam sinned we need to understand why Christ didn't and why God had predestined all of this. It really isn't off the subject, but rather very helpful.

 

[Asaph]

I've been following this thread as best I can anyway, and I wondered if it would be OK for me to propose something I've been working on lately. It is on topic, but I didn't want to risk interupting the discussion you already have going without asking first.

Also, I am not well versed in the Calvinist doctrine, so if it flies in the face of something that is obvious to you guys, please be gentile.

Asaph

 

[CalvinOwen]

I've been following this thread as best I can anyway, and I wondered if it would be OK for me to propose something I've been working on lately. It is on topic, but I didn't want to risk interupting the discussion you already have going without asking first.

Also, I am not well versed in the Calvinist doctrine, so if it flies in the face of something that is obvious to you guys, please be gentile.

Asaph

Sure, go ahead Asaph....

 

[Asaph]

Let me lay out the idea as an overview first, and if there isn't some sort of obvious fatal flaw I will go ahead and present the scriptural reasons for the conclusions I'm coming to.

In a nutshell, my contention is that the concept of "freewill" was not part of Adam's pre-fall existance, not because he was totally controlled by God, but that in his perfect communion with God freewill was not an issue. It was just not a part of existance. No need for it.

Enter the devil in Chapter three and the first thing he does is to present something previously unknown, "choice". The false concept of "freewill" is created, or introduced, where there was no need for it before.

The fruit of the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" is a paraphrase for the false notion of "freewill choices".

Asaph

 

[Reformationist]

Yes, and I believe in order to understand why Adam sinned we need to understand why Christ didn't and why God had predestined all of this. It really isn't off the subject, but rather very helpful.

My apologies CO. I did not mean to imply that the insight you are providing is not interesting so "off topic" was probably the wrong way to phrase it.

Let me see if I can take your position to its logical conclusion. Since you believe that Adam sinned because he was not perfect then does that mean that perfect obedience requires a prerequisite state of personal perfection? Also, and I'm not calling God's motives or authority into question, how can it be justifiable for God to create a being and demand of him perfect obedience if He didn't give him the necessary attribute to obey? Earlier you stated, "Adam was capable of obeying God and not sinning." You then reinforced that belief by saying, "Adam had the created ability to obey God." You then qualified your position by stating that "consistant obedience," something of which Adam was incapable, requires perfection, a trait Adam did not have.

So, here's where we are at so far: Adam was not perfect but could still obey, though not consistantly due to his being imperfect. Despite Adam's inherent deficiency, God still demanded of him perfect obedience.

The problem I have with your position is simple. If you are right then God demanded of Adam something that He never created Adam with the ability to do and then punished him for it. As I said before, this very position can accurately be applied to post-Fall man because post-Fall man is depraved by his own disobedience via Adam. IOW, God, being holy, still retains the authority to demand of His creation perfect obedience despite His knowledge that they are morally unable to acquiesce. The reason He is justified in doing so is because their state of depravity is due to the representative actions of Adam on their behalf. However, if we apply this reasoning to pre-Fall man then we have a God who demands of His creation something that he cannot accomplish and acts as if there is no reason why His creation should not have been capable of obeying.

Now, I know that these giants of theology that we all hold so near and dear are not infallible but I do want to point out to you that the virtually exclusive position on Adam's ability to consistantly obey was not just that he could but that he could quite easily.

Any thoughts?

God bless,
Don

 

[Reformationist]

In a nutshell, my contention is that the concept of "freewill" was not part of Adam's pre-fall existance, not because he was totally controlled by God, but that in his perfect communion with God freewill was not an issue. It was just not a part of existance. No need for it.

In discussions of free will, especially between parties that may use the phrase differently, I have found that it is always helpful to define the manner in which you are using it, so as to avoid any unnecessary confusion.

Here you say "free will" was not part of Adam's existance and you say that there was no need for "free will" to be part of his existance.

Let me see if I can understand where you're coming from. First, do you believe Adam had a will, i.e., was Adam a volitional creature or do you think he was merely a creature of instinct?

Thanks,
God bless

 

[Asaph]

In discussions of free will, especially between parties that may use the phrase differently, I have found that it is always helpful to define the manner in which you are using it, so as to avoid any unnecessary confusion.

Here you say "free will" was not part of Adam's existance and you say that there was no need for "free will" to be part of his existance.

Let me see if I can understand where you're coming from. First, do you believe Adam had a will, i.e., was Adam a volitional creature or do you think he was merely a creature of instinct?

Thanks,
God bless

I am saying that Adam was a completely volitional creature who had no use for volition in his perfect state of communion with the God. And it is critical to remember that we are talking about a state of existance which we then must try to comprehend and explain using a corrupted medium...language. So the inate ability to make choices was just a natural consequence of his intellegent being, but there was no active reason for it to be anything but an unrealized ability.

In that pre-sin state I don't think that being either a creature of will, or a creature of instinct, is enough choices. I am saying there is a third option, one of being in perfect communion with God. And in that state there was no need, even for a perfectly volitional creature, for choices.

Man, this is harder to explain than I thought. So if you have the time and interest, I would like to keep taking it one step at a time. Thanks for bearing with me.

Asaph

 

[Reformationist]

I am saying that Adam was a completely volitional creature who had no use for volition in his perfect state of communion with the God. And it is critical to remember that we are talking about a state of existance which we then must try to comprehend and explain using a corrupted medium...language. So the inate ability to make choices was just a natural consequence of his intellegent being, but there was no active reason for it to be anything but an unrealized ability.

In that pre-sin state I don't think that being either a creature of will, or a creature of instinct, is enough choices. I am saying there is a third option, one of being in perfect communion with God. And in that state there was no need, even for a perfectly volitional creature, for choices.

Ummm...volition is the power to make choices and the actual making of them so I'm not sure how we can say that Adam was a volitional creature without the need for choices. Volition, by definition, requires choices.

Man, this is harder to explain than I thought. So if you have the time and interest, I would like to keep taking it one step at a time. Thanks for bearing with me.

Asaph

I have the time and interest but I think you're going to have to give some type of Scriptural support for this view. The very notion that Adam, though volitional, had no need to choose is to take away any moral ramifications for his actions and reduce them to, well, I don't know. The very fact that Adam's disobedience carried moral and physical ramifications bespeaks the need for the disobedience to be viewed in light of it being the product of a choice. If he didn't disobey by choice then he had to have either disobeyed by coercion, ignorance, or necessity. I cannot really wrap my mind around what you're saying. What I will say is that part of your train of thought, if I'm understanding you correctly, is what prompted my starting this thread in the first place. If a creation had no inherent proclivity to sin, nor any dominating desire to do so, and was in full communion with God, why did he do it?

God bless

 

[Asaph]

Ummm...volition is the power to make choices and the actual making of them so I'm not sure how we can say that Adam was a volitional creature without the need for choices. Volition, by definition, requires choices.

I disagree about the need to actually chose to be considered volitional. This is what I got off dictionary dot com.

1. The act or an instance of making a conscious choice or decision.
2. A conscious choice or decision.
3. The power or faculty of choosing; the will.

So can I get at least a passive agreement on this point? It's important to the original question you proposed in the OP.

I have the time and interest but I think you're going to have to give some type of Scriptural support for this view. The very notion that Adam, though volitional, had no need to choose is to take away any moral ramifications for his actions and reduce them to, well, I don't know. The very fact that Adam's disobedience carried moral and physical ramifications bespeaks the need for the disobedience to be viewed in light of it being the product of a choice. If he didn't disobey by choice then he had to have either disobeyed by coercion, ignorance, or necessity. I cannot really wrap my mind around what you're saying. What I will say is that part of your train of thought, if I'm understanding you correctly, is what prompted my starting this thread in the first place. If a creation had no inherent proclivity to sin, nor any dominating desire to do so, and was in full communion with God, why did he do it?

God bless

There are two instances that most people think Adam made choices about in chapter two of Genesis. The first being that God "commanded" him not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and the second being that Adam must have "chosen" names for the animals. But neither of those things actually had to be about choices, and I don't think they did.

In the first instance the word that is translated "commanded" should be understood as "relayed the fact of". Read it very carefully and look up the Hebrew. God is not laying down the law, so to speak, He is relaying information for the benefit of Adam. There is no indication of Adam's acceptance or rejection of it. It is not a "choices" situation. It's just a fact relayed from one to the other.

In the second instance, Adam's naming of the animals doesn't have to be him chosing this or that, what is more likely is that he is performing an act of recognition. Sort of like, "Hey, would you look at that one. It eats ants. Must be an Anteater". Remember, Adam is completely innocent of good or evil at this point and he has thus far been presented with no either-or situations.

Let me stop here. This is complicated enough that I don't want to get too much in play all at once.

Asaph

 

[Reformationist]

I disagree about the need to actually chose to be considered volitional. This is what I got off dictionary dot com.

1. The act or an instance of making a conscious choice or decision.
2. A conscious choice or decision.
3. The power or faculty of choosing; the will.

Maybe it would be helpful if you could provide an example of a non-reflexive action that didn't involve choice but that did have moral ramifications. You see, the minute you remove choice from the equation it becomes arbitrary and has no moral basis. To claim that Adam's act of disobedience was not prompted by a desire to do what God said not to do removes from it the justification for moral ramifications. If Adam's choice was arbitrary it wasn't moral. Your examples in the latter half of your post are not sufficient for this type of discussion when you remove choice. If I recognize that an animal eats ants then my naming it "anteater" is not arbitrary. It is a choice based on the perception of my mind. If it weren't a choice then I would have been just as justified in naming it "frog."

God bless

 

[Asaph]

[/list]Maybe it would be helpful if you could provide an example of a non-reflexive action that didn't involve choice but that did have moral ramifications. You see, the minute you remove choice from the equation it becomes arbitrary and has no moral basis. To claim that Adam's act of disobedience was not prompted by a desire to do what God said not to do removes from it the justification for moral ramifications. If Adam's choice was arbitrary it wasn't moral. Your examples in the latter half of your post are not sufficient for this type of discussion when you remove choice. If I recognize that an animal eats ants then my naming it "anteater" is not arbitrary. It is a choice based on the perception of my mind. If it weren't a choice then I would have been just as justified in naming it "frog."

God bless

Well first, we have not gotten to any moral choices or ramifications yet. Being perfectly moral for the pre-sin Adam is not a choice, it's just a fact. This is why I wanted to take this one step at a time.

Secondly, you do not have to make a choice of any kind when you look at your finger to know it is your finger. That is a recognition of something that already is what it is. If you call it a toe, then and only then have you made a choice.

Asaph

 

[Reformationist]

Well first, we have not gotten to any moral choices or ramifications yet. Being perfectly moral for the pre-sin Adam is not a choice, it's just a fact. This is why I wanted to take this one step at a time.

Okay. So where are we at at this point?

Secondly, you do not have to make a choice of any kind when you look at your finger to know it is your finger. That is a recognition of something that already is what it is. If you call it a toe, then and only then have you made a choice.

Asaph

Looking at your finger and recognizing it's your finger isn't volitional so your analogy isn't applicable. However, you had to choose to look at your finger, correct?

God bless

 

[Asaph]

Okay. So where are we at at this point?


Looking at your finger and recognizing it's your finger isn't volitional so your analogy isn't applicable. However, you had to choose to look at your finger, correct?

God bless

It certainly can be something a volitional creature does though, which is exactly what I am saying Adam did with the animals. Therefore it is an applicable analogy.

But two things. One, I am going beyond the bounds of most of the forums by discussing these things here rather than just asking questions. I am not a member of this forum and I do not want to be in violation of the rules. Can I get a little grace concerning the rules, or at least a heads up if I am offending anyone?

Secondly, can you agree that it might be possible that although Adam was a volitional creature, he may have had no reason to use it prior to Genesis three? Or in other words prefall?

Asaph

 

[Reformationist]

It certainly can be something a volitional creature does though, which is exactly what I am saying Adam did with the animals. Therefore it is an applicable analogy.

Asaph, you're losing me. We're not talking about non-volitional actions of volitional creatures. That has no bearing on the Fall nor why Adam chose to disobey. If we're going to go that route we may as well start including Adam's non-volitional act of breathing.

I am going beyond the bounds of most of the forums by discussing these things here rather than just asking questions. I am not a member of this forum and I do not want to be in violation of the rules. Can I get a little grace concerning the rules, or at least a heads up if I am offending anyone?

So long as you do not claim that our views are unbiblical and require us to prove them to you I have no problem with your participation. In fact, I am rather enjoying it despite the fact that I'm still trying to figure out what your point is.

Secondly, can you agree that it might be possible that although Adam was a volitional creature, he may have had no reason to use it prior to Genesis three? Or in other words prefall?

Asaph

So I'm clear, are you simply asking if there's a possibility that this was the first situation in which Adam could choose to disobey so his obedience is of no real substantiativevalue in this discussion? If so, sure. Is there any biblical reference for when God put the tree in the Garden and then made it off limits?

Also, and I say this simply for the sake of discussion, just because it's a possibility doesn't mean that it's something we can build off of if there's no Scriptural support for it.

God bless

 

[Asaph]

Asaph, you're losing me. We're not talking about non-volitional actions of volitional creatures. That has no bearing on the Fall nor why Adam chose to disobey. If we're going to go that route we may as well start including Adam's non-volitional act of breathing.

Hold on and you'll see why I've been trying to keep you from jumping to the sinful Adam scenerio.

So I'm clear, are you simply asking if there's a possibility that this was the first situation in which Adam could choose to disobey so his obedience is of no real substantiativevalue in this discussion? If so, sure. Is there any biblical reference for when God put the tree in the Garden and then made it off limits?

That goes back to a few posts ago. God did not "make" the tree off-limits. He was only passing information to Adam about the hazards of the tree.

Also, and I say this simply for the sake of discussion, just because it's a possibility doesn't mean that it's something we can build off of if there's no Scriptural support for it.

God bless

Well I'm claiming there is scriptural support for it clearly in Genesis Two. But all I need to continue is your agreement that it might be the case. And here is why.

Gen 3:1
3:1 Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Has God indeed said, 'You shall not eat of every tree of the garden'?"
NKJV

That bolded portion is the first time a human has ever been presented with a choice. Eve begins to answer correctly but adds to the Word of God. She is already decieved at that point. A little further down the scripture states that Adam was there at the time. So he sees Eve eat and not die, as he would have expected, so when he is presented with the choice, and without deception on his part, he choses the knowledge of good and evil. The works of the flesh.

The choice itself was the sin. And every choice ever made afterwards was sin. Every excersize of "freewill" is always a choice towards sin and never towards righteousness.

Asaph

 

[Reformationist]

Hold on and you'll see why I've been trying to keep you from jumping to the sinful Adam scenerio.

I'm trying but there are only two chapters in the Bible prior to the Fall so there isn't a whole lot to work with.

That goes back to a few posts ago. God did not "make" the tree off-limits. He was only passing information to Adam about the hazards of the tree.

Wait a minute. In Genesis 2:16 & 17 God says, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." You're contending that God was merely informing Adam about the dangers of the tree? What made it dangerous? Are you contending that what made it dangerous was that having a knowledge of good and evil carries with it the invariable danger of death? I don't have a clue how you can come to this conclusion. The tree is off limits because God made it off limits. There were moral repercussions, i.e., death, because God assigned moral repercussions to violating His command to not eat of the tree.

Well I'm claiming there is scriptural support for it clearly in Genesis Two.

Okay.

But all I need to continue is your agreement that it might be the case.

Might be the case is going to far. Possibility? Possibly.

And here is why.

Gen 3:1
3:1 Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Has God indeed said, 'You shall not eat of every tree of the garden'?"
NKJV

That bolded portion is the first time a human has ever been presented with a choice.

This is erroneous. The minute God said that they were allowed to eat of any tree but the tree of knowledge of good and evil they were presented with having to make a choice. Before the law (do not eat from this tree), there was no law to break so there was no choosing between obedience and disobedience. Regardless of whether God was merely "informing them of danger" or laying down the law, He said don't eat of the tree. So far as I can tell, telling them to not eat of the tree was the first time they were told not to do something. At that point they had to make a choice. Obey or disobey. The choice you refer to is a choice but it's not the first choice they are presented with.

Eve begins to answer correctly but adds to the Word of God. She is already decieved at that point. A little further down the scripture states that Adam was there at the time. So he sees Eve eat and not die, as he would have expected, so when he is presented with the choice, and without deception on his part, he choses the knowledge of good and evil. The works of the flesh.

The point you are trying to make is a perilous one. If what you are purporting is true then Adam's choice to do as God told him to not do can carry no moral ramifications. The fact that it did carry moral ramifications means that Adam had to have made a choice between doing as God said and doing contrary to what God said. This is the height of disobedience. The reason Adam's choice carried with it moral ramifications is because it is clearly Adam's act of defiance. Adam is choosing to decide for himself what is acceptable, even if that means choosing contrary to what God says is not acceptable. On top of all that, you seem to excuse Adam's disregard for the command of God by saying that he chose under the false banner that he would not die despite the fact that the Lord said he would.

The choice itself was the sin.

Asaph, this makes absolutely no sense. Sin is acting or desiring contrary to the law of God. Sin is only sin when it has a moral foundation. Would Adam be guilty before God if Eve fed him the apple while he slept?

And every choice ever made afterwards was sin. Every excersize of "freewill" is always a choice towards sin and never towards righteousness.

And people have a problem with reformed doctrine. Free will is nothing more than the ability to choose according to your greatest desire or inclination. I agree that the greatest desire or inclination of unregenerate man is only and always contrary to the law of God so it is, therefore, sinful. However, when the Holy Spirit quickens us from death in our trespasses and sins to life in Christ by regenerating us our liberty to choose good over evil is restored, though our new nature still battles against our old, carnal nature. Once regenerate, by the grace of God, man can and does freely choose to do good.

Sorry but, based on the evidence you've presented so far, I'm going to have to disagree.

Maybe you can come up with something else.

God bless

 

[Asaph]

Of course there's more. Surely you've had enough dialog with me to know that.

I'm trying but there are only two chapters in the Bible prior to the Fall so there isn't a whole lot to work with.


Wait a minute. In Genesis 2:16 & 17 God says, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." You're contending that God was merely informing Adam about the dangers of the tree? What made it dangerous? Are you contending that what made it dangerous was that having a knowledge of good and evil carries with it the invariable danger of death? I don't have a clue how you can come to this conclusion. The tree is off limits because God made it off limits. There were moral repercussions, i.e., death, because God assigned moral repercussions to violating His command to not eat of the tree.

Gen 2:8-9
8 The LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed. 9 And out of the ground the LORD God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
NKJV

This verse does not say that God planted the Tree of Life nor the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden. In fact, the structure of the paragraph is such that a distinction is made between all the trees of the garden and these two.

It is easy to read this verse and skip over what is actually being said. It appears that the last sentence is an afterthough. But God having afterthoughts is a concept that bothers me, so I'm not willing to read into it something that is not there. So as far as I'm concerned, all God is really saying is that they were there. Furthermore, the only trees that God does say he planted were those that were pleasent to the sight and good for food. Never does God say that the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was pleasent to the sight and good for food. The only person to say that is a deceived Eve.

Gen 3:4-6
4 Then the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.
NKJV

Your supposition that God was laying down the law by commanding them not to eat of that tree is reading a whole lot of information into the scripture that is just not there. He is not laying down the law, He is merely stating fact to His beloved, fully obedient, perfect child. This goes back to one of my earlier posts. Applying a post-sin mindset to pre-sin existance is just our nature, but it has to be gotten past if we are to understand. The perfection of his existance and the uninhibited nature of the communion between God and Adam (or all of creation for that matter) precludes law or the need for law. God is merely informing Adam of something he didn't already know.

This is erroneous. The minute God said that they were allowed to eat of any tree but the tree of knowledge of good and evil they were presented with having to make a choice. Before the law (do not eat from this tree), there was no law to break so there was no choosing between obedience and disobedience. Regardless of whether God was merely "informing them of danger" or laying down the law, He said don't eat of the tree. So far as I can tell, telling them to not eat of the tree was the first time they were told not to do something. At that point they had to make a choice. Obey or disobey. The choice you refer to is a choice but it's not the first choice they are presented with.

Again, God is not laying down the law. He is merely providing factual information to His creation. There is no need for law in a state of perfection, there is only Life.

The point you are trying to make is a perilous one. If what you are purporting is true then Adam's choice to do as God told him to not do can carry no moral ramifications. The fact that it did carry moral ramifications means that Adam had to have made a choice between doing as God said and doing contrary to what God said. This is the height of disobedience. The reason Adam's choice carried with it moral ramifications is because it is clearly Adam's act of defiance. Adam is choosing to decide for himself what is acceptable, even if that means choosing contrary to what God says is not acceptable. On top of all that, you seem to excuse Adam's disregard for the command of God by saying that he chose under the false banner that he would not die despite the fact that the Lord said he would.

I don't think it's so much perilous as it is complicated by my inability to communicate the way I wish I could.

What I am saying is that when Adam is actually faced with a choice he chose the flesh over Life. He chose the way of the devil over the way of God. He chose works over grace.

Gen 3:5
5 For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.
NKJV

I believe this is where Adam sinned. We know from later accounts (in Ezekiel I think. I can look it up and provide it if necessary.) that this is the sin of the devil. That he would be like God, and that he would accend his throne above God.

It is my contention that the first "freewill choice" ever made was Adam's decision toward sin, and every "freewill choice" since has been exactly the same.

Asaph, this makes absolutely no sense. Sin is acting or desiring contrary to the law of God. Sin is only sin when it has a moral foundation. Would Adam be guilty before God if Eve fed him the apple while he slept?


And people have a problem with reformed doctrine. Free will is nothing more than the ability to choose according to your greatest desire or inclination. I agree that the greatest desire or inclination of unregenerate man is only and always contrary to the law of God so it is, therefore, sinful. However, when the Holy Spirit quickens us from death in our trespasses and sins to life in Christ by regenerating us our liberty to choose good over evil is restored, though our new nature still battles against our old, carnal nature. Once regenerate, by the grace of God, man can and does freely choose to do good.

Sorry but, based on the evidence you've presented so far, I'm going to have to disagree.

Maybe you can come up with something else.

God bless

And I completely disagree. If you think that we as Christians are supposed to chose good over evil then you are still eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God has not called us to chose good. He has called us to chose Life. There was another tree in the garden. The Tree of Life. As soon as Adam chose the tree of the knowledge of good and evil God removes the Tree of Life from the garden. I believe this was an act of Mercy. One that would eventually bring Adam and Eve back to God in full communion with Him.

Man, I think I have answered all your points, but the posts are getting so long that if I missed something please forgive me and restate it if need be. I have not gone into who the Tree of Life was and that sort of thing yet because this is a lot of information to be laying out and too much all at once dilutes the points that need to be made.

Have a great day in the Lord,
Asaph

 

[Reformationist]

Of course there's more. Surely you've had enough dialog with me to know that.

Gen 2:8-9
8 The LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed. 9 And out of the ground the LORD God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
NKJV

This verse does not say that God planted the Tree of Life nor the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden. In fact, the structure of the paragraph is such that a distinction is made between all the trees of the garden and these two.

It is easy to read this verse and skip over what is actually being said. It appears that the last sentence is an afterthough. But God having afterthoughts is a concept that bothers me, so I'm not willing to read into it something that is not there. So as far as I'm concerned, all God is really saying is that they were there. Furthermore, the only trees that God does say he planted were those that were pleasent to the sight and good for food. Never does God say that the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was pleasent to the sight and good for food. The only person to say that is a deceived Eve.

Gen 3:4-6
4 Then the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.
NKJV

Your supposition that God was laying down the law by commanding them not to eat of that tree is reading a whole lot of information into the scripture that is just not there. He is not laying down the law, He is merely stating fact to His beloved, fully obedient, perfect child. This goes back to one of my earlier posts. Applying a post-sin mindset to pre-sin existance is just our nature, but it has to be gotten past if we are to understand. The perfection of his existance and the uninhibited nature of the communion between God and Adam (or all of creation for that matter) precludes law or the need for law. God is merely informing Adam of something he didn't already know.

Asaph, unless you are contending that the tree of Life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil are not created things then I don't see the point in your distinction. It's seems more a distinction without a difference.

Again, God is not laying down the law. He is merely providing factual information to His creation. There is no need for law in a state of perfection, there is only Life.

Sorry but I don't think I'm the one reading things into Scripture. I think that God telling Adam not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil is clearly Him placing a choice before Adam, i.e., I'm telling not to eat and if you disobey you violate the covenant between us and incur the penalty of death. Obey and all is well.

I don't think it's so much perilous as it is complicated by my inability to communicate the way I wish I could.

Or my ability to understand.

What I am saying is that when Adam is actually faced with a choice he chose the flesh over Life. He chose the way of the devil over the way of God. He chose works over grace.

Okay. Why did he choose the flesh over life? Why did he choose the way of the devil over the way of God? Why did he choose works over grace?

It is my contention that the first "freewill choice" ever made was Adam's decision toward sin, and every "freewill choice" since has been exactly the same.

So when believers freely choose to obey God it is a choice toward sin?

And I completely disagree. If you think that we as Christians are supposed to chose good over evil then you are still eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God has not called us to chose good. He has called us to chose Life. There was another tree in the garden. The Tree of Life. As soon as Adam chose the tree of the knowledge of good and evil God removes the Tree of Life from the garden. I believe this was an act of Mercy. One that would eventually bring Adam and Eve back to God in full communion with Him.

Again, I think you are making a distinction without a difference. Choosing life is choosing good over evil. The truth of human nature after the Fall is that we do have a desire for things contrary to the law of God. We must make a choice to embrace the things that God has said are pleasing over the things that are not pleasing to Him.

Man, I think I have answered all your points, but the posts are getting so long that if I missed something please forgive me and restate it if need be. I have not gone into who the Tree of Life was and that sort of thing yet because this is a lot of information to be laying out and too much all at once dilutes the points that need to be made.

I don't think you've missed anything but I don't think you've shown that your view is supported by Scripture either.

Have a great day in the Lord,
Asaph

You too my friend.

God bless

 

[CalvinOwen]

My apologies CO. I did not mean to imply that the insight you are providing is not interesting so "off topic" was probably the wrong way to phrase it.

Let me see if I can take your position to its logical conclusion. Since you believe that Adam sinned because he was not perfect then does that mean that perfect obedience requires a prerequisite state of personal perfection? Also, and I'm not calling God's motives or authority into question, how can it be justifiable for God to create a being and demand of him perfect obedience if He didn't give him the necessary attribute to obey? Earlier you stated, "Adam was capable of obeying God and not sinning." You then reinforced that belief by saying, "Adam had the created ability to obey God." You then qualified your position by stating that "consistant obedience," something of which Adam was incapable, requires perfection, a trait Adam did not have.

So, here's where we are at so far: Adam was not perfect but could still obey, though not consistantly due to his being imperfect. Despite Adam's inherent deficiency, God still demanded of him perfect obedience.

The problem I have with your position is simple. If you are right then God demanded of Adam something that He never created Adam with the ability to do and then punished him for it. As I said before, this very position can accurately be applied to post-Fall man because post-Fall man is depraved by his own disobedience via Adam. IOW, God, being holy, still retains the authority to demand of His creation perfect obedience despite His knowledge that they are morally unable to acquiesce. The reason He is justified in doing so is because their state of depravity is due to the representative actions of Adam on their behalf. However, if we apply this reasoning to pre-Fall man then we have a God who demands of His creation something that he cannot accomplish and acts as if there is no reason why His creation should not have been capable of obeying.

Now, I know that these giants of theology that we all hold so near and dear are not infallible but I do want to point out to you that the virtually exclusive position on Adam's ability to consistantly obey was not just that he could but that he could quite easily.

Any thoughts?

God bless,
Don

Sorry I haven't responded earlier, I've been out of town.

We all know Adam obeyed God and then one day disobeyed Him. I'm not qualifying my position by saying the obvious, I'm only restating the obvious to avoid confusing you anymore.

Why did God command Israel to keep His Law when He knew they couldn't or wouldn't? This doesn't seem fair either. Why did God create man knowing He was going to disobey Him, couldn't God have created Adam to ensure He would never disobey Him like He did the elect angels?

When we try to measure God by our standards of reason I think we get into trouble. I believe strongly God created Adam to be saved by Jesus Christ and therefore the fall was predestined and according to God's will. That's why Adam was not created to be perfect, like the elect Angels were.