Did God have to set up Adam and Eve?

How did you draw the conclusion that God "intentionally bullied them into sinning?"

Is that what you're saying?

If so, I can't answer your question, because I find that allegation to be absurd.

 

Not neutral; God stated that all was "GOOD"!

Now how on earth did you get this idea??

That little problem of obedience; "Are you going to obey me, or do your own thing?"

A & E knew right from wrong, so your little comparison doesn't hold water. But even assuming that they didn't, God had given specific instructions and they sure knew what He required!

 

The above from billwald's profile---I believe it!!!

 

Hello billward.

That can't be the way it was because: JAS 1:13 When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14 but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. 15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death. Unless you say that a Father putting out sweets and telling his children not to eat them is tempting them or is it from their own desires they are tempted? But you compare God and man and find them equal in some way?

And Adam was not the one deceived... 1 Tim 2:13 so he knew what he was doing. Yet then again it does not matter what the couple knew they were told not to do a thing by their God end of story.

So an 'evil desire' in the case of Adam would not have been sufficient reason for condemnation, it was to be the act of disobedience not the thought and the thought took him captive and lured him. In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps. PR 16:9. Without sin there could be no cross. A trip man more than a fall...according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will. Eph 1:11. Because God is Sovereign not man. Because it is God's death that matters not man's death. Because the cross is the glory of God and the glory of God is not the result of any man's action but God is Sovereign.

john.

 

Billwald,

Are you a Calvinist? Or just throwing questions out for the Calvinists?

 

Ummm....not, apparently not. It was the tree of the "knowledge of good and evil". So apparently, they did not know good from evil since that is what the tree would grant them knowledge of?

Now, God was pretty clear with the "you shall die" part, so even if they did not know good from evil, they should have figure out the action/consequence thingie since God spelled it out.

As far as "setting up" well, sure. God knows everything, including past/present/future decisions. Just because he gives his creations free will, doesn't mean he can't know exactly the decisions they will make in the future.

So, as I've heard many folks argue here in the past, if God knows that someone was going to make a certain decision, then brings them into being in creation anyway, then that's pretty much him approving that choice.

If He didn't want them to sin, then He could have not created them, created some robots, put circumstances in their path to allow them different experiences that might have led to other choices, etc, etc.

I mean, He could have thumped Satan around and kept him (Satan) from ever talking to them and convincing them that He (God) was lying when He said that eating of the tree would lead to death.

So God created Satan, and later Adam and Eve, knowing that Satan would rebel and be cast out, and that he would convice Eve to disobey and that she would convince Adam to disobey.

You can say God "allowed" it, but hey, as a non-truly-Calvinistic type who is still all about agreeing with God's ultimate sovreignty, I agree that He "orchestrated" it all since He could have looked down the corridors of time at His "not-yet-created" beings, and did something different to make things turn out otherwise if He didn't want sin around.

God wasn't "stuck" with the outcome that His creation would rebel, so He must have wanted it that way from before time. Hence the "God must have not wanted robots" kind of arguments.

But wait..ah shucks, this is why I never took philosophy.....this makes my head hurt, I think I need more sleep

 

In the Calvinist system a free will agent who CAN do wrong WILL do wrong.

In the Arminian model - free will agents are not doomed to do wrong even though the choice to do so is very real.

You are right that God "could" have hidden the tree of knowledge of good and evil on some high cliff and made the fruit "ugly" by comparison to other fruit - or made it have a strong sulfer based aroma for example.

Many many options in marketeering the tree such that God could always say "technically" that "the tree was there" but make it so unnattractive so to never be a "real" option.

But one of the "Dimensions" to the problem is the real sincerity of God and "validity" of the scenarios. A billion years from now - someone might question a 'token' probation period where no real tempation was ever faced and resisted.

IN a free will universe - decisions as made and solidified based on compelling argument, imperical data etc.

Take the case of Job 1 and 2 for example.

What if the disasters had been "imaginary" instead of real? What if the entire thing had just been a "bad dream" and when Job awoke he saw that all was still well in the real world and so he said "so I will remain faithful".

What kind of "proof" would that be to intelligent beings about his character?

In Christ,

Bob

 

decisions as made and solidified based on compelling argument, imperical data etc

Not when it comes to spiritual matters.
You can give all the imperical proof in the world to an unbeliever and unless the HEART is changed, that person will always CHOOSE against it.

Because the HEART is the BIRTH of the will. You do not Will to WILL do you? Your desire from your heart chooses your WILL. It is the fountain from which flows your desires from which you choose from. That is the problem.
You can have all the imperical proof that says CHRIST... life! And the heart unless changed will desire futility and death.

 

Whew! Thank you! I needed that "conclusion"! I can put the Bible away now.

 

What wrong with it? It's the nicer of the guesses.

john.

 

Hello LaymansTermsPlease.

Then how could there be a free will choice?

Why? If they had no knowledge of good how could they be sure to do it? Disobeying God might be a good thing or it might be bad thing. You must have a moral framework and that takes a knowledge of right and wrong doesn't it?

God's Sovereignity is compromised by your 'looking down time to see'. He dictates all things that happens otherwise He is not Sovereign is He?

Hello Bob

That's right Bob boy He could have hidden it couldn't He but instead He hid the tree of life.
22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life. Gen 3:22,24.

Free will in free fall. HaHa! What'd yer say chaps?

john.

 

By contrast -- Christ said

Christ argues that the saved are NOT the majority of mankind. (Not a big surprise to anyone watching the news or going outside their homes each week).

Christ reliably points out that the gate is SMALL and the way NARROW as indicative of the fact that FEW are making that choice while the MANY are making the choice of the WIDE way that leads to “destruction”.

This is telling, for the "chosen people of God" whom God Himself had sovereignly "chosen" - for in that context - to HIS OWN (John 1) Christ speaks and declares that among EVEN that group - WIDE is the way that leads to destruction. So it is true in the earth for as Peter says “if it is with difficulty that the elect are saved..”

Notice that the command is NOT to God telling God "please STRIVE to get your chosen people to enter by the narrow gate -" nor is the command to a select group who “can only BE the elect”. (No such filter exists). RATHER the command is to US (the group having within it – the MANY and the FEW). - To God's own church telling us to choose to STRIVE, to make effort, to focus energy on entering the narrow gate and using as the “motivation” the DANGER of not doing so (explicitly identified in the text), The danger is not “supposed” but is perfectly and explicitly stated. INSTEAD of placing the DIFFERENCE between success and failure on God who DID make some enter vs God who DID NOT make others enter nor is it on God who made some strive and did not make others strive. The command is to the group having the MANY and the FEW. The text shows plainly that God has provided for success and now it is the choice of man to choose to strive or not - choice that God gives him. Choice that is being “compelled” by the argument regarding success and failure.

Any time argument, motive, compelling facts are used to influence a choice – you have explicit Arminianism.

As Peter says "For if it is with difficulty that the righteous is saved - what of those who do not obey" .

The instruction above is to the audience - to the listener - the reader.

And then what follows is instruction to the reader/listener about OTHERS - how to judge OTHERS. Seems kind of amazing given the way this chapter starts out.

</font>[/QUOTE]

 

That's right Bob boy He could have hidden it couldn't He but instead He hid the tree of life.
22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life. Gen 3:22,24.

Free will in free fall. HaHa! What'd yer say chaps?

john. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Hi John -

err - ummm point of order John.

First you have to "make a point" -- if you are looking for a response.

Otherwise it is just the "greeting".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Hello Bob.

You are wrong one way or another because you say I must make a point for you to respond yet here you are responding? And you say I never made a point. Care to explain the contradiction?

As to the point I never made I am sure it would not be as much fun as this.

john.

 

Hello Bob.

You should get out more often Bob. And stop thinking it's normal to out each week.

john.

 

Right you are again.

This is another "response" for you.

 

Hello Bob.

At least you're down to short and sweet.

john.