The knowledge of good and evil.

[JonC]

So am I to understand that you think in Genesis 3;22, ". . . And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: . . ." means no actual change in mankind? Adam and Eve remain just the same as God made them?

Yes. Except there eyes were opened and they knew good and evil.

 

[37818]

Yes. Except there eyes were opened and they knew good and evil.

Caused by what? God seems to think it is what they ate, Genesis 3:10-11.

 

[percho]

I view it as God being the standard (the Good) by which all things are measured. Adam did not, in his transgression, glorify God (but God works all things for His good).

I do disagree that Adam's eyes being opened, knowing good and evil, denotes a change in human nature. Instead I view Adam as a representative of man (in the flesh) and his eyes being opened to the realization that he (his desires, man seeking the desires of the flesh) cannot please God.

I agree. Your concept nature and of man being of flesh is right on.
Now Let's consider, the creation, including man the crown, of the creation that was complete on day six and God rested from it on the seventh day.

for to vanity (of flesh) was the creation made subject (on day six) -- not of its will, but because of Him who did subject it -- in hope, (Is entering in to, his rest, his Sabbath, inclusive in that, in hope?
Is, in hope, inclusive of a change of nature as in
R 8:23 And not only so, but also we ourselves, having the first-fruit of the Spirit, we also ourselves in ourselves do groan, adoption expecting -- the redemption of our body; 8:28,29 And we have known that to those loving God all things do work together for good, to those who are called according to purpose; because whom He did foreknow, He also did fore-appoint, conformed to the image of His Son, that he might be first-born among many brethren; 1 Cor 15:44-47 it is sown a natural (ψυχικόν - From ψυχή (G5590)) body, it is raised a spiritual body; there is a natural (ψυχικόν - From ψυχή (G5590)) body, and there is a spiritual body; so also it hath been written, 'The first man Adam became a living creature,' the last Adam is for a life-giving spirit, but that which is spiritual is not first, but that which was natural (ψυχικόν - From ψυχή (G5590)), afterwards that which is spiritual. The first man is out of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord out of heaven;

Now IMHO one must ask oneself; Why is that the way God created, the creation? Why?

What is God doing in, the creation, subjected to vanity, in hope? Does it have to do with Satan the Adversary of God?

because we have not the wrestling with blood and flesh, but with the principalities, with the authorities, with the world-rulers of the darkness of this age, with the spiritual things of the evil in the heavenly places;

Was that present, on the earth, the first day God rested ?

for we have known that the law is spiritual, and I am fleshly, sold by the sin; Rom 7:14 Sold for what purpose, In Hope?

 

[JonC]

Caused by what? God seems to think it is what they ate, Genesis 3:10-11.

Yes. I personally think it was caused by Adam's transgression rather than any physical property of the fruit itself.

Adam disobeyed and his eyes were opened.

 

[37818]

Yes. I personally think it was caused by Adam's transgression rather than any physically property of the fruit itself.

Makes no sense. Ezekiel 18:20 says, ". . . The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. . . ." And there being nothing from the fruit of the tree itself make it to be nothing more than a deliberate myth.

Adam disobeyed and his eyes were opened.

Genesis 3:11, ". . . And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?" The eating becomes a deliberate myth.

Effectively becomes nothing more than Pelagianism.

 

[JonC]

Makes no sense. Ezekiel 18:20 says, ". . . The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. . . ." And there being nothing from the fruit of the tree itself make it to be nothing more than a deliberate myth.

Genesis 3:11, ". . . And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?" The eating becomes a deliberate myth.

Effectively becomes nothing more than Pelagianism.

I disagree that viewing Adam's transgression as the issue rather than the physical composition of the fruit eventually becomes Pelagianism. I'm not really sure how you come up with that conclusion but am open to you walking me through your thought process.

 

[37818]

I disagree that viewing Adam's transgression as the issue rather than the physical composition of the fruit eventually becomes Pelagianism. I'm not really sure how you come up with that conclusion but am open to you walking me through your thought process.

As I assume you know Pelagianism is the heretical view that claims Adam's sin did not affect the rest of humanity. Disobedience of one person does not cause disobedience in others. Pelagianism has to be true if disobedience is the sole agent in the fall.

 

[JonC]

As I assume you know Pelagianism is the heretical view that claims Adam's sin did not affect the rest of humanity. Disobedience of one person does not cause disobedience in others. Pelagianism has to be true if disobedience is the sole agent in the fall.

Yes. I studied both theology and Church history. It is also important to remember that Pelagius taught (and Pelagianism holds) that man has an innate goodness upon which he can draw of his own free-will to choose the good.

But it does not matter. I believe that Adam's sin did affect the rest of humanity.

You are incorrect that Pelagianism has to be true if disobedience is the sole agent in the Fall. You just have not worked out the implications of other positions.

 

[37818]

But it does not matter. I believe that Adam's sin did affect the rest of humanity.

I understand that. God created man good. Adam knowingly disobeyed. Mere disobedience is is not imputed. Ezekiel 18:20 and Deuteronomy 24:16.

You just have not worked out the implications of other

The only one that I understand is God being infinitely good and not affected by any evil. Where as man is a created finite good being is corrupted by the knowledge of evil which cannot affect God. Genesis 2:17, Genesis 3:22.

 

[JonC]

I understand that. God created man good. Adam knowingly disobeyed. Mere disobedience is is not imputed. Ezekiel 18:20 and Deuteronomy 24:16.

The only one that I understand is msn

I agree that mere disobedience is not imputed.

Msn?

 

[37818]

Msn?

The post #29 posted before I was finished.

 

[JonC]

The post #29 posted before I was finished.

OK. Guess I jumped the gun.

I agree that God being infinitely good cannot affected by any evil. I also agree that man was created finite and is corrupted by the knowledge of good and evil. This is the basis of my view - that Adam's nature did mot change.

Adam was created "upright", and until he sinned he was without sin (sin had not yet entered the world).

But if Adam was created finite and less than God then Adam would by that very fact fall short of God's glory.

This cannot devolve into Pelagianism because it is completely unrelated. What I am saying is that Adam's nature in relation to God was revealed, not changed. And he represents natural man.

Have you considered the implications of God taking Adam from the place he was created and then placing him in the Garden (in God's very presence)?

 

[37818]

. . . man was created finite and is corrupted by the knowledge of good and evil. This is the basis of my view - that Adam's nature did mot change.

That is the opposite of my understanding. Adam and Eve were made good. If Adam's nature did not change then there would not have been any sin nature. The sin nature is the change in man's nature.

Before, Genesis 3:5, ". . . your eyes shall be opened . . . ." After, Genesis 3:7, ". . . And the eyes of them both were opened . . . ."
Their nature was changed.

 

[JonC]

That is the opposite of my understanding. Adam and Eve were made good. If Adam's nature did not change then there would not have been any sin nature. The sin nature is the change in man's nature.

Before, Genesis 3:5, ". . . your eyes shall be opened . . . ." After, Genesis 3:7, ". . . And the eyes of them both were opened . . . ."
Their nature was changed.

So you believe Adam and Eve was made morally good (not just innocent)....prior to having a knowledge of good and evil?

 

[37818]

So you believe Adam and Eve was made morally good (not just innocent)....prior to having a knowledge of good and evil?

Absolutely. Genesis 1:26-31. ". . . very good . . . ." They did not yet have the knowledge of good. Because with that rhe knowledge of evil that would corrupt them.