Evidence for God from Science

John,

I had said...

If I had been (in the Garden of Eden) I don't see what would have been so difficult about leaving that one single tree alone.

You then said...

Don, If you are so sure you can do that (i.e. obey God by leaving that "tree of life" alone), how about we make a wager right now. You make a solemn promise to God that you will obey his commandments to the letter so you can gain your salvation on your own, using only your free will.

I think you switched subjects on me John. All I said was that if I had been (past tense) Adam (and therefore a perfect, sinless man) in the Garden of Eden, I don't see what would have been so difficult about obeying God by simply leaving that one tree alone. It isn't as if God gave Adam some complicated mathematical problem in calculus to figure out.

But somehow you have me claiming that I can (present tense) obey God so perfectly today so that I don't need Jesus Christ because I can gain my salvation on my own just using my free will.

I assure you that I don't feel that way.

Let me ask you this: If you had been Adam (a perfect, sinless man with a strong inclination to obey God, as Turgonian pointed out), do you think that you too would have disobeyed God? If so, why? What would be so difficult about that 'test' that you don't think you could have passed it?

Don

DonCameron wrote:John,

I had said...

If I had been (in the Garden of Eden) I don't see what would have been so difficult about leaving that one single tree alone.

You then said...

Don, If you are so sure you can do that (i.e. obey God by leaving that "tree of life" alone), how about we make a wager right now. You make a solemn promise to God that you will obey his commandments to the letter so you can gain your salvation on your own, using only your free will.

I think you switched subjects on me John.

My apologies if I did but try to understand it from my point of view (which I tried to explain in the other thread but evidently was not successful). Please read on.

DonCameron wrote:All I said was that if I had been (past tense) Adam (and therefore a perfect, sinless man) in the Garden of Eden, I don't see what would have been so difficult about obeying God by simply leaving that one tree alone. It isn't as if God gave Adam some complicated mathematical problem in calculus to figure out.

But somehow you have me claiming that I can (present tense) obey God so perfectly today so that I don't need Jesus Christ because I can gain my salvation on my own just using my free will.

I assure you that I don't feel that way.

But from my perspective Don, I see no difference between a born perfect man who goes against his sinless nature to sin (by using his free will) and an imperfect man who uses his free will to go against his imperfect nature and not sin. If one is possible, the logical extension is that the other is also possible, is that not a fair statement?

DonCameron wrote:Let me ask you this: If you had been Adam (a perfect, sinless man with a strong inclination to obey God, as Turgonian pointed out), do you think that you too would have disobeyed God? If so, why? What would be so difficult about that 'test' that you don't think you could have passed it?

I will give you the classic answer you yourself have used at times (which is perfectly acceptable, by the way). The answer is I don't know. But if I am to believe in an omniscient God and that God's plan of salvation was formed before everything was and did not depend on the whims of man, however perfect, then I must say I can't see how Adam had any choice.

John.

Hi John,

You said...

If I am to believe in an omniscient God and that God's plan of salvation was formed before everything was and did not depend on the whims of man, however perfect, then I must say I can't see how Adam had any choice (or free will).

Is there a way of looking at what on back there so that Adam did have a choice? Here is a way that has come to my mind...

Just because God had the ability to know ahead of time what Adam was going to do, is it possible that he chose not to use that ability in this case? But rather wait to observe how Adam would exercise his free will and then decide what He would do?

One of the reasons I have wondered about this is because it just doesn't seem like a very fair test if God knew ahead of time that there was no possible way Adam could pass it.

I think of an earthly father who tells his son that if he does a certain job for the father he will give his son an ice cream cone. But the father knows that it will be impossible for his son to do what he asked. How fair a test would that be? Not fair at all it would seem.

Likewise, if God placed before Adam a test that He knew Adam could not pass, that too does not seem very fair.

Don

DonCameron wrote:Hi John,

You said...

If I am to believe in an omniscient God and that God's plan of salvation was formed before everything was and did not depend on the whims of man, however perfect, then I must say I can't see how Adam had any choice (or free will).

Is there a way of looking at what on back there so that Adam did have a choice? Here is a way that has come to my mind...

Just because God had the ability to know ahead of time what Adam was going to do, is it possible that he chose not to use that ability in this case? But rather wait to observe how Adam would exercise his free will and then decide what He would do?

One of the reasons I have wondered about this is because it just doesn't seem like a very fair test if God knew ahead of time that there was no possible way Adam could pass it.

I think of an earthly father who tells his son that if he does a certain job for the father he will give his son an ice cream cone. But the father knows that it will be impossible for his son to do what he asked. How fair a test would that be? Not fair at all it would seem.

Likewise, if God placed before Adam a test that He knew Adam could not pass, that too does not seem very fair.

Don

Yes, I have thought of that. To go even further, the way I thought God might do this is by setting the goal which is unchangeable then letting whomever however long to execute it. The problem with this is that I see no evidence of it in scripture (written or otherwise).

Adam had a choice; of course he did. He chose wrong. God knew that in advance, from the viewpoint of eternity (Isa. 46:9-10). He had incorporated it in His plan.

Apparently, the good consequences outweighed the bad ones.

But I still think it was logically impossible for God to have created a (mere) man that would not have sinned in those circumstances. Any creature that would not have sinned could not (merely) be called 'man'. It's the only solution I see right now.

Don wrote:Is there a way of looking at what on back there so that Adam did have a choice? Here is a way that has come to my mind...

Just because God had the ability to know ahead of time what Adam was going to do, is it possible that he chose not to use that ability in this case? But rather wait to observe how Adam would exercise his free will and then decide what He would do?

One of the reasons I have wondered about this is because it just doesn't seem like a very fair test if God knew ahead of time that there was no possible way Adam could pass it.

I think of an earthly father who tells his son that if he does a certain job for the father he will give his son an ice cream cone. But the father knows that it will be impossible for his son to do what he asked. How fair a test would that be? Not fair at all it would seem.

Likewise, if God placed before Adam a test that He knew Adam could not pass, that too does not seem very fair.

Don, I'm scared now....because I actually agree with you here .

FFC!

You said...

"Don, I'm scared now....because I actually agree with you here."

Wow! I actually felt a little tingle when I read that.

Don

DonCameron wrote:FFC!

You said...

"Don, I'm scared now....because I actually agree with you here."

Wow! I actually felt a little tingle when I read that.

Don

Hi Don, this is off topic, but the easier way to quote someone in a post is to highlight the portion of the person's post and click on the quote button up top. Just in case you didn't know.

Hi, I want to weigh in here.

When Adam was created, he only knew good. He only knew God, and knew nothing of good and evil, and therefore could not distinguish between good and evil.

When Eve was confronted by God, and asked about her sinning, she said that she was deceived. (Gen 3:13). Adam, later on, in Gen 3:17, is similarly said to have listened to his wife, i.e. he was indirectly deceived. If one knows only good, as they did, then this type of deception would be very easy. In Gen 3:22 God says that mankind, after being deceived, only then not only knew the difference between good and evil, but knew good and evil.

That is key in this whole discussion, and one I think we often forget. Adam and Eve were led astray by the devil. They were deceived, and had no resistance, just like any human. Not knowing good from evil, they did not perceive that disobedience was evil.

God created man and woman fully human, with emotions and desires. Desire is essential in the character of man, or we cannot desire to be with God. It is also part of our inheritance from being created in God's image. He also has desires. Initially man knew only good, and therefore only had "good" desires. The devil, upon his entry, made use of the human characteristics, specifically desire. Gen 3:6 says that Eve desired to be wise, and saw that the tree could give her that. The devil was the one that alerted her to that fact, and is therefore responsible for the fall of mankind. Adam followed suit. (1 Ti 2:13,14)

God's desire is that man should love Him, and Adam transgressed that by disobeying God (Hos 6:7). When God made Adam, He knew that Adam had human characteristics that would be open to both the light and the darkness. Eve's human weakness lead her to sin and also convinced Adam to sin. They both bore the consequences of sinning.

I think it is therefore a bit simplistic and human-centric to want to blame God for Adam's fall. The only thing you can blame God for is for making man human in the first place. Unless you think it is unfair that God created humans in the first place, the blame lies squarely with the first couple and the devil.

Just like we struggle with good and evil every day, so did Eve and Adam struggle, and like us they lost that struggle. We, as humans, are simply to weak to resist.

God knew this, and still knows it. That is why He sent Jesus to accept the punishment on our behalf, to overcome our weakness. All we have to do is admit that we are human and sinful, and accept the gift that grace brings us.

Hi August,

You said...

When Adam was created, he only knew good. He only knew God, and knew nothing of good and evil, and therefore could not distinguish between good and evil.

But what about Genesis 2:16, 17? It looks like God was explaining to Adam not only what was good, but was was bad (or evil) when he said...

And God said, "From every tree of the garden you may eat to satisfaction." (That was good) But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for in the day you do eat from it you will positively die." (That was bad) Could God have explained what was bad any clearer to him?

Looks to me that before Adam disobeyed God he knew the difference between good and bad as far as eating from that tree was concerned. The bad was so bad that he knew it would mean his death if he ate from it.

Don

Note to FFC: How do we get the person who makes a statement show up where it says "Quote:"?

Don wrote:Note to FFC: How do we get the person who makes a statement show up where it says "Quote:"?

Right after quote put an = then the name in quotation marks. It looks like this, but do it without any spaces:

[quote = " Don "]

Good luck.

DonCameron wrote:Hi August,

You said...

When Adam was created, he only knew good. He only knew God, and knew nothing of good and evil, and therefore could not distinguish between good and evil.

But what about Genesis 2:16, 17? It looks like God was explaining to Adam not only what was good, but was was bad (or evil) when he said...

And God said, "From every tree of the garden you may eat to satisfaction." (That was good) But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for in the day you do eat from it you will positively die." (That was bad) Could God have explained what was bad any clearer to him?

Looks to me that before Adam disobeyed God he knew the difference between good and bad as far as eating from that tree was concerned. The bad was so bad that he knew it would mean his death if he ate from it.

Don

Note to FFC: How do we get the person who makes a statement show up where it says "Quote:"?

Hi Don,

That was God explaining to Adam the consequences of disobedience, setting the ground rules, so to speak. It was an explanation of God's expectations, an explanation of right and wrong, not an imputation of knowledge about good and evil. You seem to be confusing knowledge of good and evil with "good" knowledge. The good knowledge here is that one should do as God says, or there will be consequences. I hope you are not suggesting that God telling Adam about His justness is evil.

The devil confirmed this when, in tempting Eve, he said:
Gen 3:5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

The knowledge of good and evil was dependent on the eating of the fruit, as we see in Gen 3:22:
Gen 3:22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil.

This happened after they succumbed to temptation, not before.

August,

In your view, how do we reconcile Adam and Eve having the free will to decide whether or not to succumb to temptation and doom humanity in the process (or not), with the fact that God's plan of salvation was not dependent on that choice? Or are you saying that it was? This is a very confusing area for me.

Byblos wrote:August,

In your view, how do we reconcile Adam and Eve having the free will to decide whether or not to succumb to temptation and doom humanity in the process (or not), with the fact that God's plan of salvation was not dependent on that choice? Or are you saying that it was? This is a very confusing area for me.

Everyone, please remember that my response here is a cursory treatment of the topic. One can only say so much in a post. Please let me have the opportunity to clarify my statements with more detail afore you flame me. (Not that anyone has, but this is a tricky subject, which takes a bit of understanding)

Byblos,

It is an astute question, and one that gets to the implications of what I said. We have to be careful when we talk about free will here. Once again, free will does not mean a neutral free will, but a will that obeys its nature. One of the points that I tried to get across was that the nature of the first couple's wills was that it was unaware of evil. They had a will that was subject only to a "good" nature, up to the point of the temptation.

When tempted by the devil, the human part of the will, that which governs emotions and desires, for the first time experienced a conflict. The conflict was not brought about by the humans themselves, but by the entry of the devil. The human nature was polluted by obeying the devil. By playing to the human weakness of desire, the devil managed to convince them to sin. He created that conflict, he put a choice before them. That choice was obviously absent before.

He took away their innocence. By succumbing to that weakness, fueled by a promise from the devil, the eating of the fruit changed human nature forever. Yes, Eve had a freedom to choose, and her desires overrode her best judgment, as did Adams. They knew of the consequences, yet they irrationally succumbed.

I'm not sure what you mean by whether Gods plan for salvation was dependent on that or not? God, being omnipotent, had to know that it was going to happen. Why did God not stop it from happening? That would have meant that God had to change the way in which He had created humans, with emotions, desires and a will, after His own likeness. It would have been an intervention in His plan for His creation that changed the whole dynamic of His commandment to love Him.

It is important to remember the contrasts here. How can God call for obedience when there is not the possibility for disobedience? How can He command humans to love Him, when there is not the possibility of hate? That is the way God made us, that we can choose to accept His grace or not. That was the same choice Adam had, later on in Genesis. God gave him the opportunity to repent, and he did not, so he was punished.

Let's try to look at this from the reverse: Jesus was born out of Adam, in a very specific genalogy that promised it throughout Biblical history. Jesus is called the second Adam. (1Co 15:45). Does that not tell us that Jesus was planned all the time? God knows that we are weak, and that is why He gives us a new birth through His grace. He sends His Spirit to help us, after we repent and believe, so that we have a personal teacher and guide that helps us get stronger, so that we may resist the temptations.

But we know that we still sin, despite Gods efforts for us not to. He also knows that He created us that way so that we can truly love and obey Him. That is why, in His glorious grace, He sent His son, not to stop us from sinning, but to stop us from having to be punished for it. I bleive He planned that, and the proof is all through Scripture. Even in the OT, people were not saved by anything else but Gods grace giving them faith.

If this does not answer the question, let me know.

How I took the question was, if God is sovereign and already had His predetermined plan in motion, why was there ever a need for the testing of Adam and Eve's obedience? God already knew what He was going to do...did He just need a reason? Was putting Adam and Eve in a no win situation where they would surely disobey Him, sin, and bring spiritual death upon themselves and all mankind just a predetermined means to that end?

Your right, Byblos, it is very confusing indeed when looked at in this light.