Evidence for God from Science

FFC wrote: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.

Sorry, I am not sure I follow the logic here. How was Adam and Eve in a "no-win" situation if they were to be the starting point of God being glorified?

Are you saying that God should just have:
1. Never created mankind, so we could have avoided all this unpleasantness?
2. Created mankind already fallen, so that He could show His grace, and avoid the "test"?
3. Created mankind but as emotionless automatons or robots, that had no ability to choose anything?

The answer to 1. is that God created because He wanted to. It was His wish to do so. And He did.

As for 2., that is simply impossible. God could not have created anything not good, that is contrary to an all-righteous God.

3. means that God could never be loved, and that means that He could not love. We know God is love, so through His love, He wants to be loved. We see in numerous places that God commands us to love Him. He cannot be truly loved if it is a forced love.

The question then becomes, why did God choose to create mankind in the form He did? I already touched on that, man was created in God's image. Man is a likeness of God. God chose to do that, knowing that man's nature will lead to a fall.

Ultimately, one has to ask this then: Which of the 3 above, or the 4th (the way it actually happened), gives God the greatest glory? How else could God display His greatness through the redemptive work of Christ?

Is there any better way than to line up the first and second Adams next to each other, and pointing out the differences? It is done in exactly that fashion in Rom 5:12-21.

EDIT: Let me add some more here.

I want to quote from Theodore Beza here, he states it a lot more eloquently than I could. He was a prominent Christian scholar and theologian from the time of the reformation.

Truly, it must be confessed, that whatever God decreed, it is ordained altogether willingly, but here also shines forth His infinite wisdom, that with Him even the darkness has a bit of light, yet in such a way that it is and remains darkness, that is, it is good also that there should be evil; for God found the method whereby it might happen, that what is and remains evil by its own nature, might still have a bit of good before Him, and (as Augustine rightly and elegantly said) it may not happen except by His will, that is, apart from His decree, and yet be against his will, that is, what is by its own nature unrighteous, and therefore does not please God.

For example, that God saved His own by the gracious redemption of His own Son Christ, is to His own exceedingly great glory, which otherwise [if men had not sinned] would not have shone forth. But man would not have required redemption from sin and death, unless sin and death existed. Therefore, in respect to the ordinance of God, it was good that sin and death enter into the world; and yet this sin is and remains sin so much by its own nature, that it could not be expiated for except by a very terrible penalty. Again, we receive far more in Christ than we lost in Adam.

Therefore, it was best and most useful for us that Adam fell, in respect to God, who prepares a kingdom of eternal glory for us by this wonderful means. And nevertheless, this Fall is so evil by its own nature, that even those who are justified and believe, experience many miseries and calamities from it, even to death.

Also, this is the great glory of God, that He shows Himself to be a most severe punisher of sin. But if sin had not existed, no opening would be made for this judgement. Therefore, it was good, in respect to the ordinance of God, that sin exist, and afterwards be spread abroad, which is damned in the demons and all those who are outside of Christ, with eternal punishment.

Doesn't 'to know' (yada) imply familiarity, rather than 'critical or intellectual apprehension'?

It's possible that Adam and Eve didn't know evil, but knew about evil.

Turgonian wrote:Doesn't 'to know' (yada) imply familiarity, rather than 'critical or intellectual apprehension'?

It's possible that Adam and Eve didn't know evil, but knew about evil.

yada is never used in connection with Adam & Eve. It is first used with Noah in Gen 8:11, where he knew that the waters had abated.

One can infer a couple of things though, and this fits gramatically with my description in the previous posts. The noun for knowledge is da'at. This is the noun that describes the tree of the knowledge (da'at) of good and evil. It then logically follows that the first couple could not have knowledge of good and evil before eating the fruit.

This is confirmed by Vine, Unger and White in their exposition of the original languages. Eating the fruit gave Adam & Eve the experience of good and evil. yada, to know, comes from learning by experience, and is the root of da'at. One cannot know without the knowledge, and one acquires the knowledge by experience in this grammatical context.

In sumary, they got to know about good and evil by eating the fruit, which was an experience of good vs evil.

August,

August: You said…

Satan put a choice before them. That choice was obviously absent before.

I can't seem to find a choice that Satan gave Eve. I can see the choice that God put before Adam: 1) Obey God and live, or (2) Disobey God and die. — Genesis 2:16,17.

But all I can see Satan saying is that God lied. He said that they could disobey God and not die.

What was the choice Satan set before them, and where is that choice mentioned?

Don

DonCameron wrote:August,

August: You said…

Satan put a choice before them. That choice was obviously absent before.

I can't seem to find a choice that Satan gave Eve. I can see the choice that God put before Adam: 1) Obey God and live, or (2) Disobey God and die. — Genesis 2:16,17.

But all I can see Satan saying is that God lied. He said that they could disobey God and not die.

What was the choice Satan set before them, and where is that choice mentioned?

Don

Don, read the whole account as it happened. Before Satan entered the picture, there was no temptation.There was no inclination or desire from Adam or Eve to be disobedient, before the temptation happened. It was the moment that a choice was put before Eve. She could, in Satan's words, become like God. That was not an option that she had considered before, and would not have, had it not been for the interference of Satan.

Eve confirms this when she says:
Gen 3:13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this that you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."

and God agrees, because He punishes Satan:
Gen 3:14 The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life.

Satan put the option before Eve, don't eat and don't become like God, or eat, and become like God.

I fail to see what your point is. Are you saying that God is to blame for the fall, and not Satan?

Thanks August. Everything you've said makes a lot of sense and brings the subject ever closer to clarity for me. Where I am stuck, however, stems I guess from my inability to comprehend how God functions outside of time.

August wrote: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.

I understand your description in that God foreknew what would happen. In my limited, time-constrained mind, I have a hard time seeing, even with foreknowledge, how God did not have to sort of wait, even for a fleeting nanosecond (see what I mean?), to see what Adam and Eve would do before deciding on sending his Living Word to redeem humanity. If he did have to sort of wait and see, what does that say about his omnipotence? And if he didn't have to wait, does that mean his redemption plan was formed before foreknowing Adam and Eve's fall (thereby, like FFC said, putting them in a no-win situation). Does that make any sense or am I off on a tangent? I know I'm going wrong somewhere with this line of thinking, I just don't know where.

Everyone,

Here is something I found quite interesting to me. It has to do with the difference between what God said to Adam in verse 2:16, and the way Satan asked about what God had said to Adam in verse 3:1. What God said was positive. But the question Satan asked was negative.

God told Adam that he can eat from every tree - except one. Eve also acknowledged that God said that they can eat from every tree - except one.

But when Satan questioned Eve about what God had said, he phrased his question like this: "Is it really true that God said you cannot eat from every tree?"

Whereas God emphasised what they could do, Satan's question emphasised what they couldn't do.

Hmmm...

Don

Byblos wrote:I understand your description in that God foreknew what would happen. In my limited, time-constrained mind, I have a hard time seeing, even with foreknowledge, how God did not have to sort of wait, even for a fleeting nanosecond (see what I mean?), to see what Adam and Eve would do before deciding on sending his Living Word to redeem humanity. If he did have to sort of wait and see, what does that say about his omnipotence? And if he didn't have to wait, does that mean his redemption plan was formed before foreknowing Adam and Eve's fall (thereby, like FFC said, putting them in a no-win situation). Does that make any sense or am I off on a tangent? I know I'm going wrong somewhere with this line of thinking, I just don't know where.

Byblos, see my response to FFC above. God had a plan that maximized His glory, right from the beginning. The purpose of all humanity, including Adam and Eve, is to bring glory to God. I fail to see how they were in a no-win position if they were one of the pivotal pieces in making God's plan happen. What did they lose, and what did humanity gain as a result of the fall? Saying that they were in a no-win position is to say that each of us is also in a no-win position. But because of God's grace, we are not, we are in a win-win position.

Because they were human, it was inevitable that they would sin if temptation arose. That is human nature. I laid out the other options God had for creating humans, and why none of them were feasible given His objective for glorification.

Also, if you believe that God's plan for glory was contingent, then it logically follows that it could possibly have failed. If that is the case, then God is no longer God. God's plan was and is perfect, designed to bring all the glory to Him. If Eve resisted evil of her own volition, then it means that there was something in her that did not need God. If it was possible for her to frustrate God's plan, then God is not almighty. In retrospect we now know that no human can resist temptation.

I realize that from a human perspective this looks odd, but that is only if you are self-centered. We are an active part of God's plan, and we should look at this whole issue from that perspective too. If there was no fall, how would we have been able to tell people that God is good, and that He awaits us with open arms if we turn to Him and accept His free gift?

August wrote: 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.

August,

Can you explain this a bit more? Does this mean that Adam was not saved because he did not accept God's grace. And where in Genesis did Adam have that choice and reject it?

Thanks

Jeff.

DonCameron wrote:Everyone,

Here is something I found quite interesting to me. It has to do with the difference between what God said to Adam in verse 2:16, and the way Satan asked about what God had said to Adam in verse 3:1. What God said was positive. But the question Satan asked was negative.

God told Adam that he can eat from every tree - except one. Eve also acknowledged that God said that they can eat from every tree - except one.

But when Satan questioned Eve about what God had said, he phrased his question like this: "Is it really true that God said you cannot eat from every tree?"

Whereas God emphasised what they could do, Satan's question emphasised what they couldn't do.

Hmmm...

Don

Don, the verses in Gen 2 is the first mention in the Bible of God's justness. Up to then, we only read that God is good, that His character is goodness itself. Because goodness includes being perfectly just, God here explains how His justness works. Stay in His likeness (good), and there will be no punishment. Stray from His goodness, and He is obliged to bring you back to His goodness by being fair and just, both part of His character of goodness. And you are right, it is a positive. It is statement about God's character, underwritten by the law of causality.

Obviously the deception brought by Satan was that man can be just as good as God if only they eat the fruit. It set the standard for goodness in man himself, and took it away from God., through the action of disobedience. This tells us something about how Satan and God happened to be in conflict in the first place. The Bible tells us that evil was found in Satan, and that was the same thing, wanting to be equal to God. This is exactly the temptation he brings to the first couple.

August wrote:If you believe that God's plan for glory was contingent, then it logically follows that it could possibly have failed. If that is the case, then God is no longer God. God's plan was and is perfect, designed to bring all the glory to Him. If Eve resisted evil of her own volition, then it means that there was something in her that did not need God. If it was possible for her to frustrate God's plan, then God is not almighty. In retrospect we now know that no human can resist temptation.

I realize that from a human perspective this looks odd, but that is only if you are self-centered. We are an active part of God's plan, and we should look at this whole issue from that perspective too. If there was no fall, how would we have been able to tell people that God is good, and that He awaits us with open arms if we turn to Him and accept His free gift?

I think this pretty much sums it up rather nicely, particularly the emphasized portions. I don't presume to understand it all so clearly but I think I am as close as I will ever hope to get.

As always, thanks August.

Byblos.

DonCameron wrote:Everyone,

Here is something I found quite interesting to me. It has to do with the difference between what God said to Adam in verse 2:16, and the way Satan asked about what God had said to Adam in verse 3:1. What God said was positive. But the question Satan asked was negative.

God told Adam that he can eat from every tree - except one. Eve also acknowledged that God said that they can eat from every tree - except one.

But when Satan questioned Eve about what God had said, he phrased his question like this: "Is it really true that God said you cannot eat from every tree?"

Whereas God emphasised what they could do, Satan's question emphasised what they couldn't do.

Hmmm...

Don

That is a good point, Don.

August wrote:I fail to see how they were in a no-win position if they were one of the pivotal pieces in making God's plan happen.

I'm talking specifically about the test of obedience in the garden. God told them that they could eat from every tree of the garden except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and that in the day that they did they would surely die. Whether it was part of His plan or not (which, believe it or not, I agree with you that it was) God knew that they would fail and not obey Him and die. That may have been a win win situation for God and those who would believe in him through his Son, but it certainly wasn't for Adam and Eve, because there was never a chance that they could obey. The "win Win" situation was contingent that they "lose lose"...which they did.

I understand that God is sovereign and He can do whatever He wants to do, and that whatever He does is good, but like Byblos, my finite mind has trouble comprehending it all.

YLTYLT wrote:

August wrote: 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.

August,

Can you explain this a bit more? Does this mean that Adam was not saved because he did not accept God's grace. And where in Genesis did Adam have that choice and reject it?

Thanks

Jeff.

Hi Jeff,

The Bible is explicitly silent on the salvation status of Adam & Eve. There are some things implied, which we will get to later, but first let me address your last question first.

Gen 3:9 But the LORD God called to the man and said to him, "Where are you?"
Gen 3:10 And he said, "I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself."
Gen 3:11 He said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?"
Gen 3:12 The man said, "The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate."
Gen 3:13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this that you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."

Here see the narrative that describes how God reaches out to Adam. As we read through this, picture if you will the process of salvation too. First God seeks Adam, asking where he is. Adam responds that he is afraid. The original word means to be morally revered, ie be scared because of holding a religious respect. God then asks very pointedly whether Adam had been disobedient or not.

This is where God gives Adam the opportunity to repent and confess that he had in fact sinned. Adam, in true human fashion, turns around and blames God! He says that God gave him that woman, and she was the one that caused him to sin. Adam tries to exonorate himself here by blaming God and the woman that God gave him for his decision to sin. That is clearly not heartfelt repentance, but a dodge.

Eve follows suit by duly blaming the serpent,and also forgoes the chance to come clean with God. God then proceeds to spell out the consequences to all three of them. They had the opportunity to say:"Yes, we sinned, and we are sorry." But they didn't, and thus had to bear the punishment.

As for the salvation status of Adam and Eve, like I said, there is nothing explicit that says that they were saved or not. However, there are some clues that tell us that they may well have been.

God made garments of skin for Adam and Eve, and clothed them. This, at face value, does not seem like much, but throughout the Old Testament, animal sacrifice is seen as the substitionary sacrifice for sin. In this case, the theory goes, God Himself killed the animals and clothed Adam and Eve in their skins. This then was the blood sacrifice needed to provide for a substitionary atonement for Adam and Eve, done by God.

Further on we see that Eve bore two sons. After Cain killed Able, and Cain was banished into the wilderness, the third son, Seth, was born to Eve.

In all three cases, Eve acknowledged that the sons were received from God, and can be seen as a blessing that she received from God. It stands to reason that she would not have counted her children as a blessing if she was eternally seperated from God.

We some confirmation of this from the NT, in:

1Ti 2:14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
1Ti 2:15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

After the birth of Seth's son Enosh, at which time both Adam and Eve were still alive, we see that the people began calling on the name of the Lord. That would include Adam and Eve, and she would therefore have been saved according to the passage above.

So, there is no clear answer on the salvation of the first couple, but some good clues.

FFC wrote:

August wrote:I fail to see how they were in a no-win position if they were one of the pivotal pieces in making God's plan happen.

I'm talking specifically about the test of obedience in the garden. God told them that they could eat from every tree of the garden except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and that in the day that they did they would surely die. Whether it was part of His plan or not (which, believe it or not, I agree with you that it was) God knew that they would fail and not obey Him and die. That may have been a win win situation for God and those who would believe in him through his Son, but it certainly wasn't for Adam and Eve, because there was never a chance that they could obey. The "win Win" situation was contingent that they "lose lose"...which they did.

I understand that God is sovereign and He can do whatever He wants to do, and that whatever He does is good, but like Byblos, my finite mind has trouble comprehending it all.

I guess what it boils down to is the following:

1) Was there a possibility that Adam and Eve would not have fallen?
2) If yes, would that have constituted a change to God's plan to be glorified?

From what I gathered so far is that even though Adam and Eve were created sinless, they were also created with the propensity for temptation. It was that propensity for temptation that proved to be uncontrollable. With this line of thinking God's plan to be glorified is never in jeopardy and at the same time, evil, not God, is made to be the architect of sin. Brilliant!