Serpentslayer:
I don’t say this to be offensive, but your posts are a mess. Your line of reasoning is unclear and you don’t fully draw out any arguments. You give us hints of your line of reasoning in bits and pieces, but you clearly have a lot of hidden premises.
To make yourself both more persuasive and more lucid, please provide us with fully developed arguments without hidden premises.
Here is an example of your ambiguity, not just because you don’t give us any argument (or reasoning) but because it seems to be a classic example of double speak:
i do not believe GOD knew Adam would sin…But, since GOD knows the beginning to the end
If God didn’t know Adam would sin, then God didn’t know the beginning from the end. Unless you’d like to provide your own novel definition of what it means that God knows the beginning from the end.
God knows what is evil, but HE cannot think to sin, nor can HE sin
What does it mean to say God cannot “think to sin”? Does this mean God cannot form the intention to sin? If that’s all this means, then the argument that you gave in your first post about why God didn’t know Adam would sin fails, because it is possible that God know that Adam will sin without God himself forming the intention to sin (otherwise you run into the problem that I mentioned in my first response: God is virtually a complete ignoramus when it comes to knowing what us sinful humans are doing).
If it means something more than that God cannot form sinful intentions,
what does it mean and
how does it serve to demonstrate that Adam could not sin?
If GOD knew ADam would sin and death would enter into the world, then it seems HE knew beforehand that most people would end up in the Lake of Fire. So why was the LORD so grieved in HIS heart in the days of Noah such that HE was sorry (repented) HE made man, if HE knew beforehand that that day was coming (Gen 6:5)?
Here is what appears to be your argument:
1. If God knew that mankind would fall into sin he would not be grieved about this fact.
2. God was grieved by mankind’s fall into sin.
3. Thus, God did not know that mankind would fall into sin.
First, notice that the most crucial premise in the argument, the first premise, is unstated by you. This is what I mean when I say you have hidden premises and that you don’t draw out your arguments.
Secondly, the first premise is obviously false (maybe this is
why you don’t state all your premises clearly and upfront? To make it harder to critique them?).
I can know that something is going to occur, but still be grieved and sorry for its occurrence.
The argument would also have to depend in some odd way on the futurity of the knowledge. For example, it’s obviously absurd to say that I shouldn’t now be grieved that my dog died yesterday, simply because I’ve known since yesterday that my dog died. My knowledge of the past event doesn’t have any relationship to my affectional state (other than the fact that I can’t be grievous about what I don’t know). I highly doubt you want to make the claim that our past knowledge of events means that we shouldn’t be grieved by those past events. But why should we think that future knowledge is any different?
THe point is, GOD's promise to Adam was not an empty one at all, but (as i believe) the Commandment was necessary because GOD did not know which way Adam would go, but HE needed a way to get sin out of Paradise (Eden) if it reared its head.
This looks sloppy to me and I’m not sure you are intending to make an argument here, but if you are this is the best I can do at piecing it together:
You would have two arguments:
The first -
1. If someone makes a promise knowing what the outcome will be, the promise is empty.
2. God didn’t make an empty promise.
3. So God didn’t know what the outcome would be.
The second -
1b. If one knows how one will act, it is senseless to give a moral prescription in regards to that act.
2b. God gave a moral prescription in regards to Adam’s action of eating the fruit.
3b. God doesn’t do senseless things.
4b. Therefore, God did not know how Adam would act.
Regarding the first. Why should anyone believe that the first premise is true? If it is true that knowing the outcome of an event makes a promise empty, then God must not know whether or not he will actually be capable of saving all those who have faith in Christ. Since God has promised to save those who have faith, it may be that God ends up saving no one. This is clearly false, yet it is based upon the same “reasoning” as your first argument. Thus, your first argument is clearly false.
Regarding the second. Why should anyone believe the first premise (1b)? If God knows that I will murder my grandma tomorrow, does this mean that my murdering of her is not wrong? Isn’t it still wrong for me to murder my grandma, even if God knows that I will do it?
Morality is not dependent upon whether or not God or any other person knows what event will or will not happen (that would require an extremely odd metaphysic). So clearly God can know that I will do a wrong thing. Now if God knows that I will do a wrong thing and if it is wrong, why is unreasonable for God to declare that it is wrong and prescribe that I not do wrong? If I *you* knew that I would murder my grandma tomorrow, wouldn’t you tell me not to and even call the authorities to inform them? The fact that you know I will do it does not make your telling me not to do it or your informing the authorities about it senseless.
Those who beleive GOD knew Adam would sin, do not justify GOD at all, rather, they must believe GOD made Adam imperfect with the tendency to sin, or, at leat, HE set Adam up for a fall and HIS promise was meaniingless.
Please provide us with some valid argument as to why God’s promise is meaningless if he knows the outcome. What you have given us so far is clearly mistaken.
Whether you like it or not, Scripture does indicate that God knew Adam would fall and that the fall of Adam into sin is a part of God’s eternal purpose:
Ephesians 3:8–12 To me, the very least of all saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ, and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things; so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places. This was in accordance with
the eternal purpose which He carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we have boldness and confident access through faith in Him.
But can you tell me how GOD is just in sentencing a man (and the rest of mankind) to die a physical death because the man ate a piece of edible fruit?
Because God told him not to eat the fruit. Eating the fruit was rebellion against God’s Lordship. The penalty for that was death.
You’re going to run into a lot of problems (and it’s clear you already have) if you start trying to make God’s justice conform to *your* standards rather than vice versa.
You state,
Those who beleive GOD knew Adam would sin, do not justify GOD at all, rather, they must believe GOD made Adam imperfect with the tendency to sin
But then you state,
ADam was created perfect (HOLY)
So let me ask, upon what basis do you think that my position (the position that God knew Adam would sin) requires that God make Adam imperfect? If you say it is because God couldn’t have known that Adam would sin unless he was imperfect, then how do you explain the idea that Adam could sin, being perfect?
The next thing we know, even before THE FALL, there is one in the Garden who has earned the reputations of being as s serpent and being subtle (Gen 3:1). For me, this is a warning flag that something has already went terribly wrong in Paradise. And once Eve gives her testimony (Gen 3:2-3), which is part TRUTH (don't eat), part lie (don't touch), and ambiguous (no name for the forbidden tree), it is clear that the one who has earned those reputations did so by deceiving the EVE. The is no way Eve could have spoken an untruth, unless she was already deceived: then the one who deceived her had to be Adam because he was the only one GOD spoke the Commandment to (he was the only one created) and he was responsible to tell it to her. And Adam added the lie - don't touch- because that was how he convinced her to eat first: he touched it first in front of her with her believing it would cause death (she had just said so). Is in not subtle to deceive one about a truth by deceiving them from the very first (play on their ignorance)? Isn't a serpent one who speaks with a forked-tongue, who, while knowing the TRUTH, perverts it? (Look up 'serpent' in the concordance, and its root, and it will give you more insight).
I believe I already gave a thorough refutation of this here:
http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/15487-revelation-adam.html
