The Tree and Garden

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.

 

The tree was definitely made by God, when earth was first formed.

Gen 2:9 And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Hmmm...kind of makes you wonder why this tree was mentioned seperately from the pleasant and edible trees, doesn't it? It's mentioned again in the Revelation:

Rev 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life....


love,

Sopranette

 

And don't forget about the Tree of Life to which is mentioned first of the two, seperate from all the others.

Another interesting question to 'me' is :
If there was no prohibition against eating of the tree of life, why did they not eat of it along with all the other trees in the garden. The only one which had the prohibition upon it was the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil.

 

It's a "test," npetrely. Even the tree is not evil in itself. Eve testified that the fruit was attractive and good to eat -- it was just forbidden/sin to eat of.

It demonstrates the kind of choice we all have -- obey God or not.

It's symbolic of sin -- one sin is enough to cause a fall.

But it did not cause an inability to "hear" and return to God as the later events show (God avoidance, maybe, but not inability to hear and return).

skypair

 

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 second Allan's answer.

 

Personally Allan, I think they did eat from the tree of life, just not after they ate from the tree of knowledge. I believe the effect of their previous consumption of the tree of life is why mankind had such extended lifespans for so long after creation.

Npet, Allan's answer to your OP states what I believe also.

 

Interesting observation...I'll have to chew on that one, since that same tree is now in Heaven.

 

If so then aren't you saying they needed the tree to keep on living? If so then that means Adam was not created physically immortal, he needed the Tree. If that is true, then physical death was not caused by Adam's sin, but by his removal from access to the Tree.

 

Ah, but access to the tree was a consequence of Adam's sin. I can't see the problem here.

This is what the scripture says:

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.

 

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?
I don't believe in luck. I believe that God is intimately involved in all of His creation. Not a leaf flutters without His direct involvement. He is sovereign!
Yet, God can cause all things to happen for the good of those who love Him, those who are called according to His purpose. He does these things without being the direct cause of temptation or sin. How does He do that? I don't know. I'm comfortable with it though.

 

Why do you present these two options (permit or determine) as if they are opposed to each other?

 

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.

 

*sigh* same old same old......

love,

Sopranette

 

1. I've heard many theologians say that Adam was placed on a probation period--but I'm slow on this one.

2. But the sovereign God of the universe did everything to begin with that brought Him pleasure and according to the counsel of His own will (Ps 115:3; Eph 1:11).

3. And His pleasure cannot be properly evaluated by our distorted, human finite minds.

 

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?

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

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

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).

 

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."

 

Excellent post :thumbs:

 

Was Adam created diabetic?

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.