An honest look at "free-will" #1: Gen.3:4-6

It makes no sense to me you say, "The fact that the tree had the name "the knowledge of good and evil" doesn't indicate to you they didn't know good and evil before they ate of it? Why name it "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" if they already knew good and evil? That makes no sense."

God informed them beforehand, so they knew. And that the tree was so called, presupposes they knew what its name was all about. They were aquainted with the concept -- they understood what evil and what good would be and was; evil was not to trust God and good was to trust Him. So they acted against their better knowledge, and that was their sin. Sticking out their hands, plucking and eating the fruit, was the result of, and not the origin, of their sin already.

 

GE:

Surely you describe your concept of the issue very well, "first truth of reason". Paul uses the almost identical words to describe the "wisdom of the world", but he calls it a "beggarly first principle" -- a "principle of the world" -- or of the intelligence of man, that is.

So yes, yours makes perfect 'sense', is 'logical' and intelligent : exactly why it cannot be the truth which is of God, for that which with God is wisdom, with man is foolishness, and vice versa.

Let's face the fact of Grace, that it requires this foreign, strange, and indeed hostile, inimical, opposing, offensive, 'first principle' wherby the natural, original, basic, essentially human 'first principle' shall be overcome, be crucified, and subjected, daily and constantly and for as long as a man shall live, in order for God to create in him the New Man, to the image of Jesus Christ.

 

HP: It would appear that your position is that if they had not experienced the consequences of disobedience they did not yet understand good from evil. That is simply not the case. I do not comprehend heaven or hell as they are for I have not experienced either. Just the same, I am told by God that they exist, and am warned to shun the one and fight the good fight of faith for the other.

There are a lot of voices, even some on this list, that corrupt the truth of those eternal resting places, and there are certainly some that will be deceived thereby. Still the same, that in no way suggests that they do not have the insight granted to them by God to make the right choice, shunning the evil and doing the good.


To suggest that Adam and Eve did not understand good from evil, disobedience from obedience, sin from righteousness, is simply unfounded. The forbidden tree being named the knowledge of good and evil by no means establishes the fact that they knew what the good was, for they experienced it walking with God in the garden.

They also knew everything they needed to know about evil, for it was none other than disobedience. It was not the name of the tree that was important, but rather the fact that God placed it there as a necessary test of their obedience as moral agents. This tree served as the possibility of contrary choice, without which morality, with all of it’s faucets including love and selfishness, could not have existed.

HP: There was a sense in which they understood, and a sense in which they did not understand for they had never experienced disobedience or the consequences thereof. They understood enough about both obedience and disobedience to know what God had commanded and clearly understood that God required obedience.

HP: God could have named it whatever He so desired. Again, the name is not as important as the opportunity and possibility of contrary choice, the very foundation of moral agency and accountability.

HP: Certainly experience brings added knowledge, but that does not indicate the total lack of knowledge before the fall of good and evil. There is much about the rewards and punishment in the future that we do not know or understand, yet that is no indication we do no understand the consequences of our choices in the here and now at least to the degree necessary for God to hold us accountable for our personal understanding of selfishness and or benevolence, rewards and or punishments, as we now possess it.

 

HP: First truths of reason are not wisdom derived as a result of man’s reasoning in and of himself, but are truths of reason that are founded upon a-priori ideas granted to man by God Himself, without which you and I could not reason in accordance to truth and justice in the least.

 

You claim they did not know good from evil - right from wrong and that God took two people that had no clue about what is wrong or even right - and condemned the entire human race to hell because "they chose wrong".

The Bible never says "they did not know what is good" - NOR does the Bible ever say "They did not know right from wrong" - NOR does the Bible say "They did not know good FROM evil" --

What is says is that they had not "experienced" both good and evil. The wooden interpretation you are making here makes it appear that Adam did not know who his wife was until they had children.

How sad that you spin that into "they did not know good from evil".

But the obvious point is that when Satan said the wrong thing Eve CORRECTED him instead of saying "sounds good to me - what do I know".

Let's read Gen 3 instead of pretending that it does not exist.

 

Notice this quote - what is "Satan's claim"??

Is the "no free will" side arguing here that "Adam did not know how to follow instructions, did not know what was right AND could not tell right from wrong"???

As we study the Words of God spoken to Adam and Eve here - does HE argue "they did not know the difference"??

6 When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.
7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings.
8 They heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.
9 Then the LORD God called to the man, and said to him, "" Where are you?''
10 He said, "" I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid myself.''
11 And He said, ""Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?''
12 The man said, ""The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate.''
13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, ""What is this you have done?'' And the woman said, "" The serpent deceived me, and I ate.''

14 The LORD God said to the serpent, "" Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you will go, And dust you will eat All the days of your life;

15 And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel.''


16 To the woman He said, ""I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.''


17 Then to Adam He said, ""Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, "You shall not eat from it'; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life.
[/quote]

 

"Eve was deceived. Adam listened to his wife."

Well at least we agree on "one thing"

Quote:
... did not know what was right AND could not tell right from wrong"???

That would have been a good time to QUOTE a text that said
"Adam did not KNOW what was right"
or
"Adam could not tell right from wrong"

instead of making up the idea that experiencing right but not EXPERIENCING both right AND wrong is the same thing as not KNOWING the difference.

In other words you keep dodging the salient point's proof for your own argument. And the reason is because no such text exists.

But in places like Isaiah 9 we DO have OT references to "not yet KNOWING right from wrong" for children. But that language is NOT used in Gen 2 or 3.

In Christ,

Bob

 

HP: Again, only if you desire to believe the lies of the deceiving devil.

Let me ask you, how does the realization of committed sin with all its evil influence and penalties, make you like God? What is it about sin that you think man has to commit it to be like God?

 

HP:

"If one reaches the point of total enslavement of the will, and no possibility exists other than to yield to the selfish desires that result from the allurement of sin, one would cease to be held accountable .... "

GE:

Repetition of the Reormation-issue!

What makes you think 'one would cease to be held accountable' if one reaches the point of total enslavement of the will'? For it is THEN, THAT, 'no possibility exists other than to yield to the selfish desires that result from the allurement of sin'. That's logic and sense and truth, not beating about the bush. When Adam fell, he fell into total depravity -- out of which to get, he neede the Saviour no less!

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
That would have been a good time to QUOTE a text that said
"Adam did not KNOW what was right"
or
"Adam could not tell right from wrong"

No - that means you have INFERRED INTO the text that which it never said.

In Isaiah 9 we DO see a Bible reference to an infant that is too young to know "Good FROM Evil" -- but that is NOT the language we see in Gen 3 -- so you have inserted it "by inference" for us as IF what you infer should be READ from the text as though actually printed there.

Clearly they DID "Know Good" for they "Knew God".

In Christ,

Bob

 

The fact that clothing was needed after the fall does not mean "they did not know good". God never says "They were naked for they did not yet know what was good".

There again you have your inference where no mention of GOOD is listed NOR is a mention of "not knowing good from evil" listed. Rather we just have the fact that they became aware that they were "unclothed" and immediatly tried to correct that situation.

God declared to Moses that it was not right - it was sin - to appear before the Lord unclothed - is it your inference that God made Adam sin so that He could condemn mankind to hell and then at last have a story for his own tortured death on the cross?

Are you really thinking this through?

Yes that was the lie he was telling.

In Christ,

Bob