An honest look at "free-will" #1: Gen.3:4-6

[canadyjd]

HP: Satan was evidently telling them that they would become as wise and powerful as God Himself and that they would be able to exist independently of Him.

The lie they would be as wise as God is directly connected with "knowing good and evil". Isn't that correct?

There is nothing in the passage that would indicate that before they chose to eat they did not understand good.....Just because the tree was named the tree of the knowledge of good and of evil does not mean they had to experience its evil effects to understand right from wrong and to make intelligent decisions regarding obedience and shunning the wrong, or that any knowledge of either moral action could only be understood subsequent to disobedience.

The fact that the tree had the name "the knowledge of good and evil" doesn't indicate to you they didn't know good and evil before they ate of it? Why name it "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" if they already knew good and evil? That makes no sense.

Prior to the fall, scripture says they were naked and not ashamed. After the fall, scripture says they knew they were naked and tried to clothe themselves with leaves.

Doesn't that indicate they knew something about "nakedness" after the fall, that they didn't understand before the fall?

peace to youraying:

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

It makes no sense to me you say, "The fact that the tree had the name "the knowledge of good and evil" doesn't indicate to you they didn't know good and evil before they ate of it? Why name it "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" if they already knew good and evil? That makes no sense."

God informed them beforehand, so they knew. And that the tree was so called, presupposes they knew what its name was all about. They were aquainted with the concept -- they understood what evil and what good would be and was; evil was not to trust God and good was to trust Him. So they acted against their better knowledge, and that was their sin. Sticking out their hands, plucking and eating the fruit, was the result of, and not the origin, of their sin already.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

HP: Where is the Scripture that states or implies that man is not even now created with the ability to resist sin or choose righteousness at least at first light of moral agency? The very fact that God blames and punishes man for disobedience is a living testimony, if in fact God is Just as He says He is, that man indeed has all the requisite abilities to obey His commands from first light of moral agency, if they only would. God is no taskmaster, demanding obedience upon pain of eternal damnation for failure to do the impossible.

Call me a dreamer if you so wish, but you are kicking at the pricks when you deny such a clearly understood first truth of reason. It is a first truth of reason that if one is to be blamed or praised one has to be able to do something other than what one does under the very same set of circumstances. You might as well believe that God will send one to hell for being born with blue eyes or black hair as to believe differently.

GE:

Surely you describe your concept of the issue very well, "first truth of reason". Paul uses the almost identical words to describe the "wisdom of the world", but he calls it a "beggarly first principle" -- a "principle of the world" -- or of the intelligence of man, that is.

So yes, yours makes perfect 'sense', is 'logical' and intelligent : exactly why it cannot be the truth which is of God, for that which with God is wisdom, with man is foolishness, and vice versa.

Let's face the fact of Grace, that it requires this foreign, strange, and indeed hostile, inimical, opposing, offensive, 'first principle' wherby the natural, original, basic, essentially human 'first principle' shall be overcome, be crucified, and subjected, daily and constantly and for as long as a man shall live, in order for God to create in him the New Man, to the image of Jesus Christ.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Can..: The lie they would be as wise as God is directly connected with "knowing good and evil". Isn't that correct?

HP: It would appear that your position is that if they had not experienced the consequences of disobedience they did not yet understand good from evil. That is simply not the case. I do not comprehend heaven or hell as they are for I have not experienced either. Just the same, I am told by God that they exist, and am warned to shun the one and fight the good fight of faith for the other.

There are a lot of voices, even some on this list, that corrupt the truth of those eternal resting places, and there are certainly some that will be deceived thereby. Still the same, that in no way suggests that they do not have the insight granted to them by God to make the right choice, shunning the evil and doing the good.


To suggest that Adam and Eve did not understand good from evil, disobedience from obedience, sin from righteousness, is simply unfounded. The forbidden tree being named the knowledge of good and evil by no means establishes the fact that they knew what the good was, for they experienced it walking with God in the garden.

They also knew everything they needed to know about evil, for it was none other than disobedience. It was not the name of the tree that was important, but rather the fact that God placed it there as a necessary test of their obedience as moral agents. This tree served as the possibility of contrary choice, without which morality, with all of it’s faucets including love and selfishness, could not have existed.

Can..: The fact that the tree had the name "the knowledge of good and evil" doesn't indicate to you they didn't know good and evil before they ate of it?

HP: There was a sense in which they understood, and a sense in which they did not understand for they had never experienced disobedience or the consequences thereof. They understood enough about both obedience and disobedience to know what God had commanded and clearly understood that God required obedience.

Can…Why name it "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" if they already knew good and evil? That makes no sense.

HP: God could have named it whatever He so desired. Again, the name is not as important as the opportunity and possibility of contrary choice, the very foundation of moral agency and accountability.

Can: Prior to the fall, scripture says they were naked and not ashamed. After the fall, scripture says they knew they were naked and tried to clothe themselves with leaves.
Doesn't that indicate they knew something about "nakedness" after the fall, that they didn't understand before the fall?

HP: Certainly experience brings added knowledge, but that does not indicate the total lack of knowledge before the fall of good and evil. There is much about the rewards and punishment in the future that we do not know or understand, yet that is no indication we do no understand the consequences of our choices in the here and now at least to the degree necessary for God to hold us accountable for our personal understanding of selfishness and or benevolence, rewards and or punishments, as we now possess it.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

GE: Surely you describe your concept of the issue very well, "first truth of reason". Paul uses the almost identical words to describe the "wisdom of the world", but he calls it a "beggarly first principle" -- a "principle of the world" -- or of the intelligence of man, that is.

HP: First truths of reason are not wisdom derived as a result of man’s reasoning in and of himself, but are truths of reason that are founded upon a-priori ideas granted to man by God Himself, without which you and I could not reason in accordance to truth and justice in the least.

 

[canadyjd]

HP: It would appear that your position is that if they had not experienced the consequences of disobedience they did not yet understand good from evil.

No, my position is that scripture clearly says they did not know good or evil prior to eating from "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil". After they ate, "their eyes were open". Scripture tells us when they understood good and evil. It was after they ate from the tree.

I noticed that you avoided answering my question, again. The deception, the lie of Satan, was that they would "be like God, knowing good and evil". The desire for wisdom is directly connected to "knowing good and evil". There are implications to those words. I wish you would take an honest look at these words of scripture.

HP: God could have named it whatever He so desired. Again, the name is not as important as the opportunity and possibility of contrary choice, the very foundation of moral agency and accountability.

God named it the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" because that is exactly what it was. That is why scripture tells us that after they ate, "their eyes were opened". The name of the tree is, therefore, highly important. The fact Eve desired to be as wise as God when considering good and evil (that very possibility is a deception of Satan) is also very important.

As for the rest of what you said; God does not have to work out His plan of redemption to fit a man-made system of ethics.




Again, I implore you to address the text. The deception of Satan was that Eve could be like God, knowing good and evil. Isn't that correct?

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

God informed them beforehand, so they knew. And that the tree was so called, presupposes they knew what its name was all about. They were aquainted with the concept -- they understood what evil and what good would be and was; evil was not to trust God and good was to trust Him. So they acted against their better knowledge, and that was their sin. Sticking out their hands, plucking and eating the fruit, was the result of, and not the origin, of their sin already.

Scripture clearly says they did not know good or evil prior to eating from "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil". After they ate, "their eyes were open". Scripture tells us when they understood good and evil. It was after they ate from the tree.

The text does not say they did not trust God. The text does not say they acted against their better knowledge. Scripture says Eve was deceived. Adam listened to his wife.

Scripture also tells us that sin entered the world through the transgression of the command. When they ate of the tree, sin entered. Not when they reached for it, not when they thought about it.

peace to youraying:

 

[BobRyan]

You claim they did not know good from evil - right from wrong and that God took two people that had no clue about what is wrong or even right - and condemned the entire human race to hell because "they chose wrong".

The Bible never says "they did not know what is good" - NOR does the Bible ever say "They did not know right from wrong" - NOR does the Bible say "They did not know good FROM evil" --

What is says is that they had not "experienced" both good and evil. The wooden interpretation you are making here makes it appear that Adam did not know who his wife was until they had children.

How sad that you spin that into "they did not know good from evil".

But the obvious point is that when Satan said the wrong thing Eve CORRECTED him instead of saying "sounds good to me - what do I know".

Let's read Gen 3 instead of pretending that it does not exist.

 

[BobRyan]

Notice this quote - what is "Satan's claim"??

Is the "no free will" side arguing here that "Adam did not know how to follow instructions, did not know what was right AND could not tell right from wrong"???

As we study the Words of God spoken to Adam and Eve here - does HE argue "they did not know the difference"??

Genesis 3
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'?''
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[/b].'''
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.''

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.
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.
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.
9 Then the LORD God called to the man, and said to him, "" Where are you?''
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.''
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.''

14 The LORD God said to the serpent, "" Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you will go, And dust you will eat All the days of your life;

15 And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel.''


16 To the woman He said, ""I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.''


17 Then to Adam He said, ""Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, "You shall not eat from it'; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life.
[/quote]

 

[canadyjd]

You claim they did not know good from evil - right from wrong and that God took two people that had no clue about what is wrong or even right - and condemned the entire human race to hell because "they chose wrong".

I didn't claim they "chose" wrong. Eve was deceived. Adam listened to his wife.

I didn't say God condemned the entire human race to hell. You must be thinking of another thread.

The Bible never says "they did not know what is good" - NOR does the Bible ever say "They did not know right from wrong" - NOR does the Bible say "They did not know good FROM evil" --

You are simply wrong here. Scripture clearly says they did not know good and evil prior to the fall. That is why their eyes were opened (to the knowledge of good and evil) after the fall.

What is says is that they had not "experienced" both good and evil. The wooden interpretation you are making here makes it appear that Adam did not know who his wife was until they had children.

God did not name the tree "the tree of the experiences of good and evil". He named it "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." Your interpretation is unbiblical.

How sad that you spin that into "they did not know good from evil".

No need to spin the very plain words of the text. Some folks just simply won't accept what scripture says because it doesn't fit what they want to believe.

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

Is the "no free will" side arguing here that "Adam did not know how to follow instructions,

I guess you are referring to me as the "no free will" side, though I would not presume to speak for everyone who does not see "free will" in scripture.

I am only repeating scripture. Eve was deceived. Adam listened to his wife.

... did not know what was right AND could not tell right from wrong"???

That is what the text says.

As we study the Words of God spoken to Adam and Eve here - does HE argue "they did not know the difference"??

God doesn't argue with them at all. He states very plainly what was done and what the consequences would be.

It is interesting that God asks them "have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?" when they told Him they were "naked". God knew their "knowledge" of nakedness came from eating from the tree. Eating from the tree "opened" their eyes to good and evil.

peace to youraying:

 

[BobRyan]

"Eve was deceived. Adam listened to his wife."

Well at least we agree on "one thing"

Quote:
... did not know what was right AND could not tell right from wrong"???

That is what the text says.

That would have been a good time to QUOTE a text that said
"Adam did not KNOW what was right"
or
"Adam could not tell right from wrong"

instead of making up the idea that experiencing right but not EXPERIENCING both right AND wrong is the same thing as not KNOWING the difference.

In other words you keep dodging the salient point's proof for your own argument. And the reason is because no such text exists.

But in places like Isaiah 9 we DO have OT references to "not yet KNOWING right from wrong" for children. But that language is NOT used in Gen 2 or 3.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[canadyjd]

That would have been a good time to QUOTE a text that said
"Adam did not KNOW what was right"
or
"Adam could not tell right from wrong"

I have posted the text many times. You keep denying the meaning of the words. I can only keep pointing you to scripture. The tree was the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil". That means there was no knowledge of good and evil prior to their eating the fruit of the tree. That is why God named it so.

This is demonstrated by the fact that prior to eating the tree "they were naked and not ashamed" and after they ate of the tree "their eyes were opened", they knew they were naked and sought to cover themselves.

You continue to refuse to address my question. The deception of Satan was that Eve would "be like God, knowing good and evil". Isn't that correct?

peace to youraying:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Can: You continue to refuse to address my question. The deception of Satan was that Eve would "be like God, knowing good and evil". Isn't that correct?

HP: Again, only if you desire to believe the lies of the deceiving devil.

Let me ask you, how does the realization of committed sin with all its evil influence and penalties, make you like God? What is it about sin that you think man has to commit it to be like God?

 

[canadyjd]

HP: Again, only if you desire to believe the lies of the deceiving devil.

Let me ask you, how does the realization of committed sin with all its evil influence and penalties, make you like God? What is it about sin that you think man has to commit it to be like God?

I have repeated said it was a "deception"; a lie from Satan. That has always been my point. I have never said they were actually "like God" after they ate of the fruit. Just the opposite.

The lie from Satan was that they would "be like God, knowing good and evil". Eve saw the fruit was desireable to make one wise. What does that mean? It means to be wise when discerning good and evil. That is the context. That is what it means. It was a deception, a lie, from Satan. Eve was deceived into believing she would be as wise as God when discerning good and evil.

You said, "sin with all its evil influence" came into the lives of Adam and Eve. What is "evil influence" and how does that "evil influence" effect "free-will". If there is an "evil influence", doesn't that necessarily mean the human will is no longer free?

peace to youraying:

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

HP:

"If one reaches the point of total enslavement of the will, and no possibility exists other than to yield to the selfish desires that result from the allurement of sin, one would cease to be held accountable .... "

GE:

Repetition of the Reormation-issue!

What makes you think 'one would cease to be held accountable' if one reaches the point of total enslavement of the will'? For it is THEN, THAT, 'no possibility exists other than to yield to the selfish desires that result from the allurement of sin'. That's logic and sense and truth, not beating about the bush. When Adam fell, he fell into total depravity -- out of which to get, he neede the Saviour no less!

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
That would have been a good time to QUOTE a text that said
"Adam did not KNOW what was right"
or
"Adam could not tell right from wrong"

I have posted the text many times. You keep denying the meaning of the words. I can only keep pointing you to scripture. The tree was the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil". That means there was no knowledge of good...

No - that means you have INFERRED INTO the text that which it never said.

In Isaiah 9 we DO see a Bible reference to an infant that is too young to know "Good FROM Evil" -- but that is NOT the language we see in Gen 3 -- so you have inserted it "by inference" for us as IF what you infer should be READ from the text as though actually printed there.

Clearly they DID "Know Good" for they "Knew God".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

This is demonstrated by the fact that prior to eating the tree "they were naked and not ashamed" and after they ate of the tree "their eyes were opened", they knew they were naked and sought to cover themselves.

The fact that clothing was needed after the fall does not mean "they did not know good". God never says "They were naked for they did not yet know what was good".

There again you have your inference where no mention of GOOD is listed NOR is a mention of "not knowing good from evil" listed. Rather we just have the fact that they became aware that they were "unclothed" and immediatly tried to correct that situation.

God declared to Moses that it was not right - it was sin - to appear before the Lord unclothed - is it your inference that God made Adam sin so that He could condemn mankind to hell and then at last have a story for his own tortured death on the cross?

Are you really thinking this through?

You continue to refuse to address my question. The deception of Satan was that Eve would "be like God, knowing good and evil". Isn't that correct?

Yes that was the lie he was telling.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[canadyjd]

No - that means you have INFERRED INTO the text that which it never said.

OK, let's see. Scripture says Adam and Eve were naked and not ashamed before they ate of the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil". After they ate of the tree, "their eyes were opened" (often used as a metaphor for receiving knowledge) and they knew they were naked. So....

I "infer" that Adam and Eve did not know good and evil prior to eating from the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil", that is why God named it so and that is what the text says.

You "infer" that Adam and Eve did know "good" prior to eating from the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil", because they knew God. The text doesn't say they knew "good" before they ate of the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil", but you "infer" they did, because they knew God.

I notice immediately that the text doesn't say the tree was "the tree of the knowledge of evil", but the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil." I wonder if, or why, God would deceive us like that? Why would He say it was the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" when in fact, it was the "tree of the knowledge of evil?" He certainly could have named the tree, "the tree of the knowledge of evil", but He didn't.

I think I have the answer. God didn't deceive us. It really was the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" not just the knowledge of evil.

And yet, somehow I am the one trying to make the text say something it never said?

In Isaiah 9 we DO see a Bible reference to an infant that is too young to know "Good FROM Evil" -- but that is NOT the language we see in Gen 3

I couldn't find anything in Chapter 9 of Isaiah. Are you referring to Chapter 7v.16? "for before the boy will know to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken." Surely you realize this verse is speaking of the Christ as a child, don't you?

We aren't discussing Isaiah, anyway. We are discussing Gen.3. Let's figure out what Gen. 3 means before we go to another verse.

so you have inserted it "by inference" for us as IF what you infer should be READ from the text as though actually printed there.

You keep saying that but repetition will not make it true. I am clinging to the text and making logical conclusions based on the plain language.

In that light, what does "their eyes were opened" mean? Doesn't that refer to "knowledge" coming their way? Since they just ate from the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil", surely these words must mean they had gained "knowledge of good and evil".

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

God declared to Moses that it was not right - it was sin - to appear before the Lord unclothed -

Without a reference to a passage of scripture I can only guess it had something to do with temple worship ceremonies. It really wouldn't matter anyway. After the fall, sin entered into the world, and our relationship with God was altered.

is it your inference that God made Adam sin so that He could condemn mankind to hell and then at last have a story for his own tortured death on the cross?

No I didn't say God made Adam sin so He could condemn mankind to hell and have a story for His own tortured death of the cross.:BangHead:

Are you really thinking this through?

I am thinking this through very carefully; and trying very hard not to bring pre-conceived notions to the text and then trying to make the text fit.

Yes that was the lie he was telling.

And the lie, the deception, was directly connected (in the text) to the ability of Eve to use her own wisdom when knowing good and evil, isn't that correct?

peace to youraying: