The Tree and Garden

[Amy.G]

Was Adam created diabetic?

Yes.
Don't be ridiculous.

It sounds like you are implying God put that tree into the garden in order to make them eat from it. They had no "sin nature", so they were not bent on eating from it like we most likely would. God desired (and still does) true love from us, not forced love.

No, I'm saying that God put that tree in the garden ON PURPOSE. He knew they would eat of it. He knew they would die because of it. He knew the whole human race would suffer and die because of it.
It all could have been avoided by simply NOT putting the tree in the garden and NOT allowing Satan to tempt Eve. Therefore, unless you think God didn't know how it would turn out, it had to have been planned for a PURPOSE. Otherwise, God is not all knowing, all powerful and had no determined purpose in creating man and the universe.
You would have to believe in the big bang theory of God setting things in motion and just sitting back a watching how it all turns out.

 

[webdog]

Yes.
Don't be ridiculous.


No, I'm saying that God put that tree in the garden ON PURPOSE. He knew they would eat of it. He knew they would die because of it. He knew the whole human race would suffer and die because of it.
It all could have been avoided by simply NOT putting the tree in the garden and NOT allowing Satan to tempt Eve. Therefore, unless you think God didn't know how it would turn out, it had to have been planned for a PURPOSE. Otherwise, God is not all knowing, all powerful and had no determined purpose in creating man and the universe.
You would have to believe in the big bang theory of God setting things in motion and just sitting back a watching how it all turns out.

I agree there was a purpose. God desired man's obedience. He knew exactly how things would turn out (that's omniscience). That in no way means God desired for man to eat from the tree as has been argued here lately. It sounds like you are holding to determinism.

 

[npetreley]

It all could have been avoided by simply NOT putting the tree in the garden and NOT allowing Satan to tempt Eve. Therefore, unless you think God didn't know how it would turn out, it had to have been planned for a PURPOSE. Otherwise, God is not all knowing, all powerful and had no determined purpose in creating man and the universe.

Exactly! It's pretty simple, isn't it?

 

[russell55]

Therefore, God had a plan of which I am unable to understand

I think we can understand something about the plan. Scripture as God's revelation to us is the story of redemption. The centerpiece of God's plan for creation was to give his Son to redeem it. And without sinful human beings, there would be no redemption.

 

[Amy.G]

I agree there was a purpose. God desired man's obedience. He knew exactly how things would turn out (that's omniscience). That in no way means God desired for man to eat from the tree as has been argued here lately. It sounds like you are holding to determinism.

I don't know about determinism. I really get tired of being accused of holding to any ism, especially when I don't even know what it means. I am "holding" to scripture.

Here are the FACTS:

God created man and had perfect fellowship with him.

God put a tree in the garden and told man not to eat of it or he would die.

God allowed Satan to tempt the man.

God knew the man would fall to the temptation of Satan.

God knew the man would eat of the tree.

God knew the man would die.

God knew man would need a Redeemer.

God made a plan for a Redeemer of man before he created him.

God could have NOT put the tree in the garden.

God could have NOT allowed Satan to tempt the man.

God could have maintained a perfect fellowship with the man.

BUT.....

God put the tree in the garden.......

I think you know the rest of the story.

That's the facts. The "why" I cannot tell you. I can tell you that God did the right thing. He is good.

 

[npetreley]

That's the facts. The "why" I cannot tell you. I can tell you that God did the right thing. He is good.

Amen. That is what's called "faith".

We do know some of the "why", though. God did it for His glory. If anyone here can explain how the Father/Son/Holy Spirit could be glorified in the same ways without sin, then maybe you should apply for a job as God's counsellor.

 

[menageriekeeper]

Ge 3:22And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Ge 3:24So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life;

1. Consequence yes, direct cause no. If you believe the Tree of Life gave physical immortality he could have continued eating of that Tree after he sinned had he been allowed to stay in the Garden. Which brings up the question was Gen. 3:22-23 an act of punishment or an act of Grace by God?

2. Does "live forever" mean physical immortality? Or does it mean the ability to exist forever?

3. Why do we assume Adam ever ate of the Tree of Life before the Fall?

4. Would man be better off to live forever in a fallen state in the Garden, or as things are now where fallen man burns forever in hell? (See Gen. 2:22-23 question).

I added the numbers to make it easier to attach my answers to your questions.

1. The scripture says exactly what you are saying, that Adam could have continued eating the fruit of the Tree of Life had God not tossed him out. Why do think God put an angel with a flaming sword at the gate? Leaving the Garden was part of Adam's punishment. I can hardly see how it would be an act of Grace but I'd be interested in your opinion.

2. I believe in this case "live forever" means never having our physical bodies die, thus circumventing God's plan for redemption. Remember Satan's lie? "you won't surely die" Satan like all good liars kept his as close to the truth as possible. He knew that the death that God spoke of was a spiritual one although there was a physical aspect. Why Adam or Eve didn't realize the difference, we're not told. But Satan knew that physical death wouldn't be immediate. The only reason for that is the existance of the tree of life. Satan was doing his best to circumvent the plan he knew God already had lined up.

3. I don't think we can presume either. I offered the idea that they had eaten of the tree of life soley as a possible explanation for the extended life spans of the time. There could be other explanations for this phenomonem.

4. I don't know, Grasshopper. I can't imagine what life would be like if man kept reproducing but no one ever died. Certainly by this point in time there wouldn't be enough resources to support constant life by as many as have been born. No death would possibly mean continual suffering on earth with no way out. Or, there might have been war upon war over control of the tree. It really doesn't matter. God decree death as punishment for Adam's sin, guarding the tree could only have been extra insurance that he didn't go back in and seek to find a way around God's plan. And you know he would have. Man is constantly trying to find a way to get to heaven without following God's plan.

 

[Amy.G]

Amen. That is what's called "faith".

We do know some of the "why", though. God did it for His glory. If anyone here can explain how the Father/Son/Holy Spirit could be glorified in the same ways without sin, then maybe you should apply for a job as God's counsellor.

God's glory is the only explanation my pea brain can understand. :laugh: Other than that, I don't know why or how God thinks.


Isa 55:8 "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," declares the LORD. (thank you Jesus!)

 

[Amy.G]

Uh oh, another thought! Double

I can't wait to see the responses to this! :laugh:

God is the beginning of the "circle". The Father desired to give the Son a gift.
But the gift had to be as pure as the Son. Since the Son wasn't created but always existed, God had to create man and then purify (perfect) him through Christ, Who is perfect.
The fall occurred (was planned), man needed a redeemer to raise him to life as Christ is life. Through Christ he is made pure, righeous and holy, as Christ is pure, righteous and holy.

At the end of the age when God rids the universe of evil, what is left is the perfect gift of holy, righteous and pure human beings (being made so through Christ) who God gives it to the Son. A perfect bride for His perfect Son.

We are the gift God gives to Christ and Christ is God's gift to us and thus the circle is complete.

A perfect circle of purpose and life.

It all had to happen just the way God planned.

Ok, now you can :tonofbricks:

 

[Grasshopper]

I added the numbers to make it easier to attach my answers to your questions.

1. The scripture says exactly what you are saying, that Adam could have continued eating the fruit of the Tree of Life had God not tossed him out. Why do think God put an angel with a flaming sword at the gate? Leaving the Garden was part of Adam's punishment. I can hardly see how it would be an act of Grace but I'd be interested in your opinion.

Strange that when God lists the punishments for Adam and Eve's sin, banishment from the Garden is not found there. Those seem to end at verse 19. So why would God not allow them to eat from the Tree? Perhaps, in an act of Grace, God didn't want to have man live (exist) forever in a fallen state. This brings up the question of annihilationism, which is taboo among most Baptists.

2. I believe in this case "live forever" means never having our physical bodies die, Why could it not mean exist forever?

thus circumventing God's plan for redemption. Remember Satan's lie? "you won't surely die" Satan like all good liars kept his as close to the truth as possible. He knew that the death that God spoke of was a spiritual one although there was a physical aspect. On what do you base this? How did Satan know and where is a physical aspect found?

Why Adam or Eve didn't realize the difference, we're not told. But Satan knew that physical death wouldn't be immediate. How did Satan know this?
God said "in the day you eat". Did they physically die the day they ate?

How would Adam and Eve or Satan know what "die" means if death did not exist before the Fall?

The only reason for that is the existance of the tree of life. Satan was doing his best to circumvent the plan he knew God already had lined up.How did Satan know what God's plan was?



3. I don't think we can presume either. I offered the idea that they had eaten of the tree of life soley as a possible explanation for the extended life spans of the time. There could be other explanations for this phenomonem. I agree, we don't know. But if you believe they did eat of it, then you must believe it had to be continually eaten of. Unlike the other Tree where one bite was all that was needed. Why wouldn't one bite of the Tree of Live be enough to "live forever"?


4. I don't know, Grasshopper. I can't imagine what life would be like if man kept reproducing but no one ever died. Perhaps they would have?? What about the animals as well?

Certainly by this point in time there wouldn't be enough resources to support constant life by as many as have been born. No death would possibly mean continual suffering on earth with no way out. Which would be better than Hell, would it not?Or, there might have been war upon war over control of the tree. What if Adam never sinned? It really doesn't matter. God decree death as punishment for Adam's sin,"In the day you eat", not 900 years later. guarding the tree could only have been extra insurance that he didn't go back in and seek to find a way around God's plan. And you know he would have. Man is constantly trying to find a way to get to heaven without following God's plan.

I don't necessarily disagree with some of your answers, but these are some of the questions I have regarding this topic. I think there is much we don't know about this yet have built entire doctrines based upon certain assumptions.

 

[reformedbeliever]

May I ask a serious question?--and I assure that is asked humbly and NOT in an attempt to argue....
I appreciate your commentary here--but the last couple of sentences beg this question--Is it not possible to see that there are those (like me) who believe that God IS sovereign, but yet He DOES allow "choice"...AND that since He's omniscient He already knows what that choice would be, and thus nothing is truly left to chance or "luck" (which I don't believe in either), because He already knows how it will play out? And that when asked "how does He do that?", it's okay for US to also say, "I don't know; I'm comfortable with it though."???

I watch these C/A debates and am constantly struck with how both "sides" argue their point of view, often using the same verses to "prove" it. Yet neither side seems to "yield". I can certainly understand that those who firmly believe in election are QUITE disgusted by anyone holding the belief that man can do anything he wants to and that God is powerless to stop it. But THAT is NOT what I see proferred here by most posters who do NOT hold to the doctrine of election.

God is completely sovereign. He can grind my bones into dust and scatter it in the wind any time He so chooses. He can make me tap dance across the Atlantic Ocean and cause ships to sink at the sight, if that is His will. He can force me to run my car into a building, killing dozens of innocent people, if that is His pleasure today. He can also instead choose to force me to love Him, believe in Him and His precious son, and worship Him. But I believe, instead, that He CHOOSES to allow ME a choice in the matter....and that He also knows exactly what my decisions will be....and then He CHOOSES to work those choices into His sovereign plan to serve HIS purposes. And I do not think that LIMITS God in any way....to the contrary, I believe that completely UNbinds Him....because I can in no way fully comprehend with this finite mind what His INfinite Mind is capable of, or HOW it is possible.

I also recognize that I can be wrong in this.....because I do NOT know "how he does this"....but I am ALSO comfortable with it.

You seem to be saying that God has to learn what man will do before He can set things into motion or make a choice of His sovereign will. That makes God not all knowing, and makes men's choice sovereign over God.

 

[reformedbeliever]

I agree there was a purpose. God desired man's obedience. He knew exactly how things would turn out (that's omniscience). That in no way means God desired for man to eat from the tree as has been argued here lately. It sounds like you are holding to determinism.

I don't have a problem with an almighty sovereign God determining all that happens. Do you? Would you rather man determine it?

 

[npetreley]

I don't have a problem with an almighty sovereign God determining all that happens. Do you? Would you rather man determine it?

That's the free-willer motto. "You ain't the boss of me, God!"

:laugh:

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

Lets take this line of reasoning to its final conclusion. Suppose Joseph's brothers would have freely chosen to NOT do the things to Joseph that the Bible speaks of. How about all the other factors that *caused* Joseph to come to the position he came to? Were there free choices in those instances?
In other words.... God has to sit back and hope that men's free choices will result in His plan of action? Lucky God huh?

Apparently to you God's Sovereignty is so weak that it is threatened by human volition (never mind God created human volition) and His Sovereignty so limited that it cannot incorporate the exercise of human volition in His decree(s).

And you blame Non-Calvinists for a weak position on Divine Sovereignty?

 

[Jarthur001]

Maybe if you didn't have everyone who disagrees with you on ignore, you would have read Allan's answers on the other thread :BangHead:

I think....however I could be wrong, that this was but a carry over from the last thread, which helps if you show the last few thoughts.

what do you think?

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

Just thinking here.....

If your child is a diabetic and loves chocolate cake, would you deliberately set a piece of cake on the counter knowing full well your child will eat it and become sick, maybe even die? Or, if it is your desire that your child NOT eat the cake, would keep it out of their reach or better, not even have it in your house?

It seems to me that if God did not want Adam to sin, He could simply have NOT put the tree in the garden and could NOT have allowed Satan to enter the garden. Adam would have remained sinless and that would be the end of the story, but that's not what happened.

Now don't get me wrong. I don't believe God wants us to be sinful, but at the same time, He put the tree in the garden and gave the command not to eat of it knowing full well that the man and woman would eat of it and that they would die and plunge the entire human race into darkness.

To me, it's a mystery that I cannot understand this side of heaven. The sinful state of man could have been prevented by simply not allowing man to be tempted by evil. God could have created man to be like Christ (sinless), but He did not. Therefore, God had a plan of which I am unable to understand, but I know that He is good, righteous, true and loving and I will trust in that.
"Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life."

The use of analogies are quite legitimate to illustrate points. Here, however, the analogy begins with its own demise when human decision making is compared to Divine determinations and considerations. It is one thing for God to anthropomorphise himself in Scripture through comparison to human properties but it is quite another for a human to qualify God's determinations subordinate to theirs.

But the worse part of this is that it clearly implies the charge of God wanting Adam or at least failing to make sure Adam, did not sin. God here is being assigned some form of negligence or deliberation regarding the sin of Adam. Preposterous on a good day.

 

[Jarthur001]

God

Yes.

Man choose to reject the truths God had already given him for lies, thus sinned.




The problem between our two views is not that God didn't know about sin but was it the intention of God to make His creation sin
OR
Give them the choice to sin.

One makes God the first cause of sin in making His creation sin by giving him no real choice but TO sin. - As in - His plan was to make man sin and then determine the means.

The other view acknowledges that God knew sin would come about if His creation (man or angel) had a choice and that knowledge was part of His Full plan. Not that God 'wanted' sin in His creation and that it fall, but that God knew sin would neccesarily come if his creation had a choice.

Therefore it was not God's desire FOR sin specifically to be, but that He KNEW sin would be if a choice was permitted.


It boils down to - Did Adam have a ligitimate choice TO sin or not?
- thus permit or determine.

I see you made it though that post. Alive at that.

Maybe we can get to a higher plan on this thread, we shall see.


Being God desired to have the tree in the garden as Allan has said and all would agree, and having placed the tree and knowing Adam would sin, and given that there is no other known transgression to Gods will in the “arena” (said for Q laughing pleasure only), if the tree was not positioned in the garden, do we know of any other offense toward God that Adam could encounter based on the limited information given from the account?

 

[Amy.G]

Apparently to you God's Sovereignty is so weak that it is threatened by human volition (never mind God created human volition) and His Sovereignty so limited that it cannot incorporate the exercise of human volition in His decree(s).

And you blame Non-Calvinists for a weak position on Divine Sovereignty?

How can both man and God be sovereign at the same time?

How can God have a plan and carry it out if He depends on sovereign, sinful man to accomplish it? Man does not desire to please God in the slightest until he is born again. How does God get His way with these people? Does He just sit up in heaven and wait until someone just happens to do something that is part of His plan?

Have you ever been in charge of a group of people who you had selected to carry out your directives? Did you just wait until one of them "happened" to do something you needed done? If you are going to lead people, you have to lead them and make sure your plans are carried out. Yet, you say God uses the sovereign decisions of man to accomplish His will. That doesn't even make sense.

It is you who are limiting God by placing sovereignty in the hands of sinful, selfish human beings.

"Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done".

 

[Amy.G]

The use of analogies are quite legitimate to illustrate points. Here, however, the analogy begins with its own demise when human decision making is compared to Divine determinations and considerations. It is one thing for God to anthropomorphise himself in Scripture through comparison to human properties but it is quite another for a human to qualify God's determinations subordinate to theirs.

But the worse part of this is that it clearly implies the charge of God wanting Adam or at least failing to make sure Adam, did not sin. God here is being assigned some form of negligence or deliberation regarding the sin of Adam. Preposterous on a good day.

I guess I'm just too stupid to debate with you. Your pompous form of writing eludes me.

Thank the Lord my Bible is not written in this manner or I wouldn't have a clue what God was trying to teach me.

 

[JustChristian]

May I ask a serious question?--and I assure that is asked humbly and NOT in an attempt to argue....
I appreciate your commentary here--but the last couple of sentences beg this question--Is it not possible to see that there are those (like me) who believe that God IS sovereign, but yet He DOES allow "choice"...AND that since He's omniscient He already knows what that choice would be, and thus nothing is truly left to chance or "luck" (which I don't believe in either), because He already knows how it will play out? And that when asked "how does He do that?", it's okay for US to also say, "I don't know; I'm comfortable with it though."???

I watch these C/A debates and am constantly struck with how both "sides" argue their point of view, often using the same verses to "prove" it. Yet neither side seems to "yield". I can certainly understand that those who firmly believe in election are QUITE disgusted by anyone holding the belief that man can do anything he wants to and that God is powerless to stop it. But THAT is NOT what I see proferred here by most posters who do NOT hold to the doctrine of election.

God is completely sovereign. He can grind my bones into dust and scatter it in the wind any time He so chooses. He can make me tap dance across the Atlantic Ocean and cause ships to sink at the sight, if that is His will. He can force me to run my car into a building, killing dozens of innocent people, if that is His pleasure today. He can also instead choose to force me to love Him, believe in Him and His precious son, and worship Him. But I believe, instead, that He CHOOSES to allow ME a choice in the matter....and that He also knows exactly what my decisions will be....and then He CHOOSES to work those choices into His sovereign plan to serve HIS purposes. And I do not think that LIMITS God in any way....to the contrary, I believe that completely UNbinds Him....because I can in no way fully comprehend with this finite mind what His INfinite Mind is capable of, or HOW it is possible.

I also recognize that I can be wrong in this.....because I do NOT know "how he does this"....but I am ALSO comfortable with it.

I started a thread on this topic but no one pickedd up on it. I think most would rather argue than to agree that Calvinists and Arminians have most if not everything in common.