Cause verses Allows

[steaver]

How do you know he didn't know these things about God? Were you there?

The Hebrew "to know" carries with it the need to "experience" so one may "understand". So it is obvious that Adam could not "know" these things because without wrong doing there would be no "experience".

This means that Adam had a will and knew there was right and wrong..........

Remember that we are dealing with "the knowledge of good and evil". When you say Adam "knew" you are saying Adam experienced these things. Adam was given information, this is not "knowing" as the Heebrew expresses "to know". You was the first one to point this out to me several pages back, it seems that you are now abandoning this.

Many, many, many people have heard the gospel. Does this mean they all "know" Jesus Christ? No, telling someone something gives them a head knowledge (information), but it does not give them a Hebrew "to know" knowldege until they experience the thing first hand and personal.

This means that Adam had a will and knew there was right and wrong........

Secondly, you already argued that "the knowledge of good and evil" is a merism. In this you argue that Adam knew the good but not the evil. So you cannot now say Adam knew the evil (wrong) also.

:jesus:

 

[steaver]

See, you have argued that our position as believers today is superior to Adams because, having experienced sin and having experienced God's grace, we are able to now fellowship with God and we are now spiritually alive. Now you are saying that Adam was spiritually alive and had fellowship with God. So our experience today is superior to Adam's how?

Fellowship can be expressed in many ways. Adam talked with God, that is fellowship. We also talk with God. We know mercy, grace and justice. Adam did not know these things. We can appreceate God's goodness in these things because we have experienced them. Adam could not know these things until after he sinned.

Adam was not a three year old. He was an adult male who had demonstrated the cognitive ability to name the animals.

"Cognitive ability" is not our topic. Yes Adam had cognitive abilities.

You can tell your three year old not to pull the pin all day because he will be killed, but your three year old does not understand the consequences, so, yes, you would be responsible for his death.

My very point. Adam could not understand the consequence, "dead", having never experienced such a thing. God could tell Adam all day long, so is God in some way responsible for Adam's disobedience? Why place the granade in Adam's reach?

Note that Paul teaches clearly "As by one man sin came into the world and so death by sin, and so death came upon all men, for that all have sinned". Sin is not God's fault. Adam chose it willfully and knowingly and he, and thus we, are responsible.

Isn't that another interesting point? God cursed us as well as Adam, even before we were born.

Evil is a part of God's sovereign plan, yes. Evil is not a part of God's moral plan.

Ok

If God's plan is perfect as you define it, how can it be imperfect for those who are included in it? If it is perfect as you define it, how can Jesus conclude that it "could have been better" for some in it?

Because as I "define it" evil is included in God's plan. As you have agreed as well. The "plan" gives us a freewill to make choices. If we make bad choices bad things happen. It would be better for anyone to chose right over wrong.

Adam was given a choice. He could have obeyed God. Adam had the ability to chose obedience. So Adam is to be blamed. But this is not the issue. I agree that Adam is to blame for his sin.

But God knew Adam would fail. So if God did not want Adam to fail then God would have NOT placed the forbidden tree in Adam's reach. This is my topic of discussion. It's not that Adam had no choice or that Adam is not guilty.

Adam is guilty. My point is that God placed His own will into motion through Adam's sin.

:jesus:

 

[swaimj]

[FONT=&quot]We know mercy, grace and justice. Adam did not know these things. We can appreceate God's goodness in these things because we have experienced them. Adam could not know these things until after he sinned.[/FONT]

This concept seems to be the hinge upon which your argument hangs. You have not proven that this is true.

Adam could not understand the consequence, "dead", having never experienced such a thing

Steaver, everyone who is alive today is afraid of death, but no one who is alive today has personally experienced death. You might respond, "But not only had Adam not experienced death himself, he had not even seen another creature die". Still, even a child can understand a warning from his father and can sense that something bad will occur if he disobeys, even though he may not have experienced the actual punishment about which he is warned. Your argument here renders the warning about death as a useless warning to Adam and, from my own experience with my young boys, it is counter-intuitive.

[FONT=&quot]So if God did not want Adam to fail then God would have NOT placed the forbidden tree in Adam's reach.[/FONT]

"Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am tempted of God", for God cannot be tempted with evil neither does he tempt any man". The scriptures contradict your argument, Steaver.

 

[Marcia]

The Hebrew "to know" carries with it the need to "experience" so one may "understand". So it is obvious that Adam could not "know" these things because without wrong doing there would be no "experience".

You are saying nothing new. I said Adam did not experience wrong doing until he sinned. This does not, however, mean he did not know good. I think that is the 5th time at least that I've said that.

Remember that we are dealing with "the knowledge of good and evil". When you say Adam "knew" you are saying Adam experienced these things. Adam was given information, this is not "knowing" as the Heebrew expresses "to know". You was the first one to point this out to me several pages back, it seems that you are now abandoning this.

I am not abandoning it. Adam knew good before the Fall. As I said several times, so many I'm tired of saying it, knowing good and evil is not the same as just knowing good. Adam was not a neutral robot; he was a man, made in the image of God, who had not sinned (before the Fall) and who had a relationship with God. Having a relationship with God would mean that Adam knew good.

Secondly, you already argued that "the knowledge of good and evil" is a merism. In this you argue that Adam knew the good but not the evil. So you cannot now say Adam knew the evil (wrong) also

Saying it again: Knowing good and evil, which in context and as many who have studied the Hebrew language have said, is not the same as just knowing good.

If Adam had a relationship with God before the Fall, which I assume you agree with (if not, we really are not on the same page or even in the same chapter) , how could he not know good? Having a relationship with God is knowing God and therefore, knowing good.

 

[steaver]

Adam knew what God meant because God created man in His image. This means that Adam had a will and knew there was right and wrong or God could not hold him accountable for disobeying Him.

And I said;

Steaver;

Secondly, you already argued that "the knowledge of good and evil" is a merism. In this you argue that Adam knew the good but not the evil. So you cannot now say Adam knew the evil (wrong)

And you said;

Marcia;

Saying it again: Knowing good and evil, which in context and as many who have studied the Hebrew language have said, is not the same as just knowing good.

Yes, in which you pointed out that "knowing good and evil" in context according to the Hebrew language carries with it an "experience".

Then you brought up "merisms". In which you said that to "know good and evil" would be to know good but not the evil.

So when you said "This means that Adam had a will and knew there was right and wrong..." you went against your own argument.

Did Adam know wrong (evil) or didn't he? If he did then "merism" is out. Or did you misspeak?


:jesus:

 

[steaver]

You are saying nothing new. I said Adam did not experience wrong doing until he sinned. .

You said

This means that Adam had a will and knew there was right and wrong

"to know" in Hebrew context means to experience something. Now you say Adam did not experience wrong but Adam knew wrong. You are contradicting yourself.

:jesus:

 

[steaver]

This concept seems to be the hinge upon which your argument hangs. You have not proven that this is true.

I have proven this true and so has Marcia. She pointed out that in order "to know" something in Hebrew context one must "experience" it. In order for Adam to experience these things (mercy, grace, justice) he must "know" or have "experienced" wrong doings. Since Adam had not experienced any such wrong doing, for evil was not in the world yet, Adam could not have "known" or "experienced" these attributes of God.

Steaver, everyone who is alive today is afraid of death, but no one who is alive today has personally experienced death. You might respond, "But not only had Adam not experienced death himself, he had not even seen another creature die". Still, even a child can understand a warning from his father and can sense that something bad will occur if he disobeys, even though he may not have experienced the actual punishment about which he is warned.

Impossible. A child does not have a sixth sense. Anything that a child senses would be from things experienced in the past.

Your argument here renders the warning about death as a useless warning to Adam and, from my own experience with my young boys, it is counter-intuitive.

It is not useless to God, for God does things with purpose. The purpose of the command was to teach Adam about God's mercy, grace and justice.

Tell the boys a hundred times what a hot iron will do to the flesh, yet until they experience it they will not understand. They must see it on another, or something like flesh, or feel it for themselves.

"Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am tempted of God", for God cannot be tempted with evil neither does he tempt any man". The scriptures contradict your argument, Steaver.

There can be no contradictions in the scripture. God did not tempt Adam, satan did that.

You have not answered yet, Why did God place a forbidden tree in Adam's reach KNOWING full well Adam would indeed disobey? You say God tempts no man and correctly so. So how do you reconcile the two?

:jesus:

 

[steaver]

Tell me something guys;

What do you believe is the number one thing God desires from His human creation, even from the beginning with Adam? There are several things, but first and foremost?

This may help us understand the "why" concerning the forbidden tree.

:jesus:

 

[Eric B]

That is correct Eric. As my original question stated "(not for sin)". God's will is for His children to suffer so they may identify with Jesus Christ in His sufferings. Therefore, what does (b) God wish to be done by us? Suffer for the name of Jesus Christ. As Christians we are to pray for deliverence, this is good, but we are also to praise God and glorify Jesus Christ as we suffer, for this is the will of God for His children.

Rom 8:17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with [him], that we may be also glorified together.

Expect sufferings as Christians. It is God's will for us to glorify Jesus Christ.

God does not do anything without a purpose. Having the account of Job recorded as sacred scripture makes it a lesson for everyone of us, not just a lesson for Job. God brings suffering upon all of His children to refine them into the image of Jesus Christ. Job is an example of suffering, not for sins, but for God's glory and sovereignty over all to be revealed. The scripture is clear that we should not suffer as sinners.

Not all are delivered from this suffering. Some must suffer even unto death, others choose to suffer unto death and refuse deliverence. Stephen was stoned to death. Paul suffered a tormentor from satan who God said, after Paul petitioned Him, He would not remove it from him. Suffering is part of being a Christian and God wills it upon us, sometimes to teach us, sometimes to glorify Christ, sometimes for both.

The scripture teaches that it pleased God to bring suffering upon Jesus. And just as Jesus suffered by the will of God likewise must His children suffer.

Problem with this is, are we really "suffering" the same way as those Biblical examples? I see teachers today taking every little bad thing that happens to us as a "test" by God "to see how we react, or develop patience in us"; including such mundane trivialities as a driver cutting us off at the intersection. Of course, major calamities will then be included in that as well, with God "sovereignly" choosing when/who to unleash or withhold all of this on. (And a multi-million industry has been made packaging this concept up in books, audio, video, broadcast, speaking engagements, etc. promising "victory" if you "follow the steps" to a "right attitude" in the God-ordained "trials").

Yet, these are the same things everyone in the world goes through. The non-Christians are not enjoying some painless picnic, (though some with money and power sure try and may come closer to it on the surface). So I believe this trivializes the plights of those who genuinely did and still do actually suffer FOR Christ's name!

So again, the scriptures have been misapplied in this respect. You cannot turn them into a textbook on how God desires to cause people pain.

 

[steaver]

Problem with this is, are we really "suffering" the same way as those Biblical examples? I see teachers today taking every little bad thing that happens to us as a "test" by God "to see how we react, or develop patience in us"; including such mundane trivialities as a driver cutting us off at the intersection. Of course, major calamities will then be included in that as well, with God "sovereignly" choosing when/who to unleash or withhold all of this on. (And a multi-million industry has been made packaging this concept up in books, audio, video, broadcast, speaking engagements, etc. promising "victory" if you "follow the steps" to a "right attitude" in the God-ordained "trials").

All of God's children suffer in differing ways. Some ways are more horrific than others. Nevertheless, the scripture holds truth no matter what the degree of the suffering evaluated by man may be.

Are we, meaning you and I, suffering as they did? Maybe not, I know I haven't suffered as much as Job has. And when suffering comes upon me I am always reminded of the examples God has given in the scriptures of suffering and realize that it could be much worse.

There are many Christians who suffer horrific things every day. Just watch the world news or listen to the testimonies of missionaries.

Yet, these are the same things everyone in the world goes through. The non-Christians are not enjoying some painless picnic, (though some with money and power sure try and may come closer to it on the surface). So I believe this trivializes the plights of those who genuinely did and still do actually suffer FOR Christ's name!

I pray you will not speak this way brother. Each of God's children has different levels of tolerance which God knows very intimately. He says He will not put on us more than we can bear. He knows what we can bear and He knows that each one of His children is unique. Some He will suffer unto even death, some will suffer imprisionment or torture and some may only suffer insult and ridicule.

The non-Christians are not in focus here for they cannot suffer for the sake of Christ. However, much of their pain and suffering is also ordained by God to their benefit, that they may look up and call upon His name.

So again, the scriptures have been misapplied in this respect.

I must disagree brother. Everything written is written for our education, for our benefit. The scripture is specifically clear, God wills His children to identify with Christ in His sufferings by suffering. Christ suffered and so must we, the degree (as judged by us) should not be a matter of contention.

Why do you think Jesus was required to suffer? Yes, we needed an atonement, a sacrificial Lamb. But why the beating beyond recognition, why the horrific death of a Roman cross? The Father could have slain Jesus without all of the torture. Why the tremendous suffering?

:jesus:

 

[Marcia]

Yes, in which you pointed out that "knowing good and evil" in context according to the Hebrew language carries with it an "experience".

Then you brought up "merisms". In which you said that to "know good and evil" would be to know good but not the evil.

So when you said "This means that Adam had a will and knew there was right and wrong..." you went against your own argument.

Did Adam know wrong (evil) or didn't he? If he did then "merism" is out. Or did you misspeak?


:jesus:

I said that to know "good and evil" did not meant that Adam did not know good before.

Adam knew there was right and wrong before the Fall because God told him not to eat from a certain tree, and he knew that was wrong, but he experienced evil and its repercussions (knew it firsthand) when he sinned.

Adam knew good before the Fall because he had a relationship with God, whch entails knowing good, because he knew God.

I am only repeating myself and it's getting old.

 

[Eric B]

All of God's children suffer in differing ways. Some ways are more horrific than others. Nevertheless, the scripture holds truth no matter what the degree of the suffering evaluated by man may be.

Are we, meaning you and I, suffering as they did? Maybe not, I know I haven't suffered as much as Job has. And when suffering comes upon me I am always reminded of the examples God has given in the scriptures of suffering and realize that it could be much worse.

There are many Christians who suffer horrific things every day. Just watch the world news or listen to the testimonies of missionaries.

I pray you will not speak this way brother. Each of God's children has different levels of tolerance which God knows very intimately. He says He will not put on us more than we can bear. He knows what we can bear and He knows that each one of His children is unique. Some He will suffer unto even death, some will suffer imprisionment or torture and some may only suffer insult and ridicule.

The non-Christians are not in focus here for they cannot suffer for the sake of Christ. However, much of their pain and suffering is also ordained by God to their benefit, that they may look up and call upon His name.

I must disagree brother. Everything written is written for our education, for our benefit. The scripture is specifically clear, God wills His children to identify with Christ in His sufferings by suffering. Christ suffered and so must we, the degree (as judged by us) should not be a matter of contention.

Why do you think Jesus was required to suffer? Yes, we needed an atonement, a sacrificial Lamb. But why the beating beyond recognition, why the horrific death of a Roman cross? The Father could have slain Jesus without all of the torture. Why the tremendous suffering?

I'm sorry, but most "suffering" we experience is not for Christ (someone persecuting us for holding onto His name, instead of whatever god or leader they are trying to get people to worship), it is just a part of normal life; hence, the mention of non-Christians. So then these scriptures, written to people actually suffering FOR Christ, are being misused when you try to take them and use them on any suffering.

This teaching leads to all sorts of problems. So you see someone suffering more than you, and then instead of comforting him, many would be telling him God has decided he can take it, and it comes off as what Jesus said about people laying burdens on others that they themselves would not lift with one of their fingers; like "I'm too good for that". then, from this point, we add that suffering is to make us more Christ-like, so then it makes those who suffer less look good, like they must already be more Christlike, hence, not need the suffering.
It's precisely the attitude of Job's friends, and precisely the lesson being taught there!

And if you're saying that even the suffering of the non-Christians is being measured out, then God is then the cause of all suffering in the world; tormenting every person with the same kinds of things for one reason or another (For non-Christians, to bring them to Christ; then, as Christians, to make them more like Christ).
It would be much easier to say that suffering is a result of the Fall, and affects every man, and that only some of it will be for Christ. What you're saying would assume the world would be Heaven if it weren't for God sending every misfortune, and it seems that's what He's been primarily doing in the world.
So I still wonder, why in this belief system, is God so wrapped up in suffering. In this view, rather than simply ahving a place in His plan, it seems that it is what He is all about.

So this teaching presumes way too much, and leads to more possible presumption.

 

[steaver]

Adam knew there was right and wrong before the Fall because God told him not to eat from a certain tree, and he knew that was wrong, but he experienced evil and its repercussions (knew it firsthand) when he sinned.

Adam knew what it was to eat something. Adam knew what is was NOT to eat something.

Adam's responsibility was to obey the do's and don'ts commanded by God. He didn't need to understand why in order to comply.

Only God knew "right and wrong" or "good and evil" before Adam's sin.

When Adam disobeyed, then and only then did Adam know right and wrong.

Adam knew "do and do not" as commands from God. Adam did not not the good and evil behind the commands.

:jesus:

 

[steaver]

I'm sorry, but most "suffering" we experience is not for Christ (someone persecuting us for holding onto His name, instead of whatever god or leader they are trying to get people to worship), it is just a part of normal life;

Agreed :thumbsup:

So then these scriptures, written to people actually suffering FOR Christ, are being misused when you try to take them and use them on any suffering.

Problem is, I didn't try to use them for all suffering.

This teaching leads to all sorts of problems.

It sure would.

So you see someone suffering more than you, and then instead of comforting him, many would be telling him God has decided he can take it, and it comes off as what Jesus said about people laying burdens on others that they themselves would not lift with one of their fingers; like "I'm too good for that". then, from this point, we add that suffering is to make us more Christ-like, so then it makes those who suffer less look good, like they must already be more Christlike, hence, not need the suffering.
It's precisely the attitude of Job's friends, and precisely the lesson being taught there!

Amen!

And if you're saying that even the suffering of the non-Christians is being measured out, then God is then the cause of all suffering in the world; tormenting every person with the same kinds of things for one reason or another (For non-Christians, to bring them to Christ; then, as Christians, to make them more like Christ).

There are different lessons taught about suffering in the scriptures. Some suffering is from sins, some suffering is from God. Most do not like saying God causes all suffering. So we must say God causes some suffering and God allows some suffering. It makes us feel better.

It would be much easier to say that suffering is a result of the Fall, and affects every man, and that only some of it will be for Christ.

Ok, sounds good. I think I have pretty much said the same things.

What you're saying would assume the world would be Heaven if it weren't for God sending every misfortune, and it seems that's what He's been primarily doing in the world.

Sorry if I said anything that would suggest such a thing. When I do, please point it out and allow me to clarify.

So I still wonder, why in this belief system, is God so wrapped up in suffering. In this view, rather than simply ahving a place in His plan, it seems that it is what He is all about.

So this teaching presumes way too much, and leads to more possible presumption.

Yes, I agree. It isn't good to presume, we need to just accept what the scriptures teach us.

THanks for the input brother!

What do you think about these questions I raised....

"Why do you think Jesus was required to suffer? Yes, we needed an atonement, a sacrificial Lamb. But why the beating beyond recognition, why the horrific death of a Roman cross? The Father could have slain Jesus without all of the torture. Why the tremendous suffering?"

:wavey:

 

[steaver]

Sorry for being away from this thread for so long. I have been so busy this past month. I still want to rap up some loose ends on this thread before it dies. I see there are still some unanswered questions as well.

Everyone has been very helpful with their comments. :thumbs:

God bless! Talk with you all soon, I hope raying:

:jesus: