Would we have known good.....?

[dizzyjam]

Would we have ever known good if we had never eaten of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? If we didn't know the difference between the two or even had any knowledge of either one, how would our history have turned out?

[CastleLyons]

I think that's what Perelandra is all about. It's been a long time since I've read it, but I remember that the blue lady from Venus had no concept of evil, and it seems to me that she really didn't grasp "good" either. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

[rwley]

My understanding of the situation is that if there had been eating of the fruit, Adam and Eve would not know "good" or "evil", they would only know God. Prior to the fruit intake, they only had knowledge of the presence of God and the complete world in which they lived. It wasn't until choice was introduced that they even knew there was a choice. If they had not fallen, and subsequent generations had not fallen, if humans had managed to avoid knowing there was a choice and stayed true to God's original intent, we would still be living in Eden, in complete agreeement with God and with each other.

Again, this is my understanding.

Robi

[mongoose]

True or False: The whole point in the creation of humans was to have a creature that would choose to obey God, when constantly faced with the option of disobedience vs. obedience.

I'm just wondering if the problem was the introduction of choice, or if it was the introduction of temptation, or if it was submission to temptation, or rebellion, or what.

[rwley]

Maybe a combination of all the above?

[dizzyjam]

Of course, since we were created in God's image and since we are a part of the family of God taking on the nature of Christ Jesus through the redemption of His blood and Christ is God to make us one with Him even as He and the Father are one, some have even put forth that God was creating an equal with His DNA. Yet if He knew the difference between Good and Evil a greater question would be why keep it from us and therefore put forth a Tree we couldn't eat from? Would He have eventually allowed us to eat from it? He was concerned with us eating from both the Tree of Knowledge and of the Tree of Life, so in our new bodies will we still have the knowledge of Good and Evil or will our minds be wiped clean as we live eternally? Just what was God up to? And why did God say, "On that day you will surely die" when warning against eating of the Tree of Knowledge? It's clear that they lived for several centuries more before death overtook them. What did God mean by saying that if they weren't to die?

[CastleLyons]

And why did God say, "On that day you will surely die" when warning against eating of the Tree of Knowledge? It's clear that they lived for several centuries more before death overtook them. What did God mean by saying that if they weren't to die?

This raises a good question and has been a point of controversy for a lot of Christians, but it's merely a case of something being lost in translation. In points like these, we really need to refer to the original language. My own father had written a book centered on this incorrect translation, trying to rationalize Adam's death "on that day," then he sent the book to pastors all across the nation. I was a bit embarrassed when my own pastor came to me with the book, knowing that I was a bit of a creation buff, but not knowing the author was my father.

Anyway, in the original Hebrew the verse literally reads: "when you eat of it, dying you will die." The phrase "on that day" is not an accurate translation. The NIV renders the phrase correctly by saying "when." The meaning in the Hebrew had nothing to do with dying that very day. Also the phrase "dying you will die" more accurately refers to the process of dying, not of an instant death.

My father listens to me on a lot of subjects, but I never could convince him on this one. For such a great defender of the Bible as my dad, I was really surprised when he preferred the KJV over the original Hebrew. Unfortunately, a lot of Christians make that same mistake.

[mongoose]

*grins* Here's something to consider. Why put forth a tree we couldn't eat from? What's the point in giving us choice, if we don't have options, good and bad, from which to choose?

Or how about: Maybe the point of the tree was not the difference between the knowledge of good and evil, and the lack thereof, but the difference between obedience and disobedience? It could have been anything God commanded them not to do.

Or, brainstorming here, maybe the knowledge piece was important, but not so much about good vs. evil. Rather, it was the first example of God bringing down those that would exalt themselves, and exalting the humble. It is my impression that God doesn't look too kindly on people who think too much of how much they know, or how much knowledge they can gain. That was one of the things that was tempting about the tree, right? She saw that it was good for food and for knowledge and the power that the knowledge would bring.

Or something.

Incidentally, reading through the Bible with my wife I'm noticing some common threads that are relatively new to her, she being a new Christian who has not read through the Bible before, and this exalting of the humble and bringing down of the mighty; using the things thought foolish by the world to humble those that think themselves wise, and other 180 degree differences between what the world thinks works and what actuall works in the Kingdom of God. I am intrigued.

[scintor]

Oct 14, 2008 8:46:18 GMT -5 rwley said:

If they had not fallen, and subsequent generations had not fallen, if humans had managed to avoid knowing there was a choice and stayed true to God's original intent, we would still be living in Eden, in complete agreeement with God and with each other.
Robi

I think that this common view is a bit off. Their sin was not ewating the fruit, but rebellion. There are many other ways to rebel or disobey that do not require much knowledge (as anyone who has raised young children can tell you.) I think it unlikely that even if they had never eaten, that no one else would have ever rebelled. remember that humanity became so rebelious that God destroyed 99% of creation in the flood. We humans have a big rebellious streak. I think that we would have blown it evewn without the eating of the fruit.

Scincerely,

[e-mail]

PS. Has anyone thought about what purpose a good and rightious God had for that tree?

[CastleLyons]

Has anyone thought about what purpose a good and rightious God had for that tree?

I think it was more a matter of providing something that would prove mankind had free choice. If Adam and Eve did not have the opportunity to choose against God's command, then they really wouldn't have free choice, would they?

Something happened in a church I used to attend that illustrates this point. A pastor broke off from a church where he was on staff and started a daughter church. When it came time to adopt the new bylaws, he made it clear that anyone who voted "no" on any point would not be in a spirit of unity and therefore had no place in the church. My husband and I thought that was outrageous. If you don't have the opportunity to vote "no," what's the point in having a vote? We didn't disagree with any particular point in the bylaws, so we went ahead and voted "yes" with the intent of seeing where things were headed. Later we heard that one couple who voted "no" were immediately dismissed from their position. (They were in charge of the preschool area.)

We didn't stay long in the church after that. But the point is, without the opportunity to vote "no," or to disobey God in the Garden, what's the point of free choice?

[dizzyjam]

Oct 14, 2008 19:39:01 GMT -5 CastleLyons said:

Has anyone thought about what purpose a good and rightious God had for that tree?

I think it was more a matter of providing something that would prove mankind had free choice. If Adam and Eve did not have the opportunity to choose against God's command, then they really wouldn't have free choice, would they?

Something happened in a church I used to attend that illustrates this point. A pastor broke off from a church where he was on staff and started a daughter church. When it came time to adopt the new bylaws, he made it clear that anyone who voted "no" on any point would not be in a spirit of unity and therefore had no place in the church. My husband and I thought that was outrageous. If you don't have the opportunity to vote "no," what's the point in having a vote? We didn't disagree with any particular point in the bylaws, so we went ahead and voted "yes" with the intent of seeing where things were headed. Later we heard that one couple who voted "no" were immediately dismissed from their position. (They were in charge of the preschool area.)

We didn't stay long in the church after that. But the point is, without the opportunity to vote "no," or to disobey God in the Garden, what's the point of free choice?

Yet isn't that exactly what God did to us? We voted "No" and he kicked us out of Paradise. I wasn't really planning on heading that way with my next post (that is to say this one you're reading), but let's explore that for a moment: He let's us have the option of choosing between right and wrong, or Good and Evil, yet we are not allowed to have the knowledge of what we are doing? Does God really like us to be so ignorant of things? Or was the Tree put there for the very reason that He knew we would eat of it and that it was the only way He could tell the story of Redemption He needed to tell?

Here's my take on the thing of "on that very day you will die":

No human has been recorded as having lived more than nine-hundred-sixty-nine years and that person's name is Methuselah. This was before the flood in the Old Testament. A verse in the New Testament mentions the timelessness of God in that a thousand years is like a day and a day is like a thousand years. I think a clue has just been uncovered.

No human, not even Adam or Methuselah, ever lived to be a thousand years. Since the comparison has been made of that many years to a day, then I think it's quite true that "On that very day you will die."

Now, there is a popular saying going on in the church now saying, "God is good all the time, and all the time God is good." Yet this is not found in the Bible. In fact, God even said "Jacob I loved and Esau I hated". Isn't hating someone an evil thing? Plenty more examples to choose from, but where did evil come from if it didn't come from God to begin with? To suggest anything else would suggest that there is an equal opposite power to God and the Bible clearly disputes that option.

Thoughts anyone?

[mongoose]

I realize I'm taking a risk here, but the greater risk is that the views expressed in answer to dizzyjam's post will be harmful to readers.

Dizzyjam makes a number of logical points that call into question some of the most fundamental tenants of Evangelical Christianity. That's probably a good thing. We ought to be forced to think, to question, to examine the logic and truth of our own beliefs. We ought not, however, to go so far as to assume that there is no authority or truth in anything we've been taught. Paul makes it very clear that his readers are to stick to the message they heard in the beginning, rather than being swayed by every wind of doctrine.

How does that happen, and what if the message WE heard in the beginning was a heresy? That's where our faith in the grace of God to lead us into all truth by His Holy Spirit comes into play. If I didn't trust God to lead me to the Truth, and if I thought that anything logical must be true, I'd become schizophrenic (sp?) as one side and then the other came up with the more logical arguments. So I thank God for giving us the Holy Spirit to show us what's bogus vs. what's truth.

But how do we distinguish between the Holy Spirit's prompting, and what feels or sounds right to us? Remember, the heart is deceitful above all things. I know people have compiled lists of Biblical ways to test the spirits, but for now I'll simply refer to the ultimate authority. We (Evangelicals) believe that the modern translations of the Bible communicate to us, with authority, the Word of God. That everything we need to know about doctrine and practice is presented in that book. That if we take in and accept the Whole Message of the Whole Counsel of God, we'll be in good shape.

And so we run the questions presented, through that test. How do they compare to the whole message of the whole counsel of God, as illuminated by the Holy Spirit?

I'll begin with my assessment of what may be the most important question posed, the final one: "Where did evil come from if it did not come from God to begin with?" And the derived question, "Why did evil come from God?" and the further derived question, "Why do these questions even matter?"

There may or may not be a passage in the Bible that states that God is always good. I haven't researched that. Anyone else know? But the point is not whether or not the Bible says it. The point is whether or not the whole message of the whole counsel of God says it. I say it does. Hate seems evil and wrong to us, yet all we have about that is that God hated, but Jesus told us that if we hate, we are guilty of murder. So what's the take home message from the whole Bible? I say it is that God's ways are not our ways, and His thoughts are not our thoughts, but what He says goes, and what He does, none can oppose.

The Bible makes a few things clear about the nature of God, and thought His goodness is asserted, it's not primary. Those characteristics that come to my mind are His Holiness, Love, Grace, Mercy, Compassion, and Justice. How those fit together is a paradox that I have yet to wrap my mind around, but again, His ways and thoughts are not like mine. I am simply to trust in the Lord with all my heart and lean not on my own understanding. In all my ways acknowledge Him and He will direct my paths.

So maybe evil came from God, since we accept that He created all things, and nothing ever was that was not created by Him. That's not a problem for me. I worship Him because He alone is God, and there is none other, not because I think He's good. I would worship Him for that same reason even if someone convinced me that He was evil. His goodness or lack thereof is a non-issue when I acknowledge that He created me, and He holds my destiny with zero relative effort.

But that does beg the academic and intellectual question of WHY God would do such a thing as create evil? Why did he give angels the choice to rebel? Why did He give people the choice to rebel? Why did he tell them what not to do, making it obvious to them in the knowledge that they did have, that to do such a thing would be disobedience and thus evil, and that there would be consequences therefore? Again, the Bible makes it clear that we don't know the mind or heart of God, but that he makes some knowledge thereof available to us. What I've come to conclude is that God loves us, and wants to engage with us in an intimate, personal, loving relationship of choice, not of law, or obligation. Yes, there are consequences. There are always consequences. It's part of the order God created. Yet the choice to violate the law and face those consequences remains. You can question the justice of the law, or of the consequences till you're blue in the face, but the law and the consequences remain unless you start with that intimate relationship with God. Then you have a chance of convincing Him to change His mind on occasion, as with Abraham, or the wife of Moses.

Now, the original few generations of people and those under the old covenant, we know, were in a marriage of law to God, but not of love (for the most part.) They obeyed to whatever extent they did, for fear of the whupping He would give them if they disobeyed. Under the new covenant, God already whupped on Jesus, once for all. That means we don't have to worry about the consequences of our disobedience in the same way that the Israelites did. It's not a shotgun wedding, in which there's still a choice, but He simply offers himself and the promise of what is available to us, if we choose it. If we do not choose it, then we get the lack of it, which is to say, Hell; the utter absence of God. But we don't have to worry about getting whupped on while alive, just because of our sin, which means we have more of an option than did those under the old covenant. We are able and encouraged to choose Him out of love, having known and experienced the alternatives, and committing our whole hearts to this course. Such was not the case for the angels, and could not have been the case had the option of disobedience not been presented to the original people.

So much for one possible reason for God to have put that tree in the garden, and laid out his law to the first people there. Now for the question of why it matters? Why is it worth discussing, even at the risk of offending someone? I would suggest that what we believe about the existence of evil in the world, and God's role relative to good vs. evil, may have some bearing on our faith in Him. As I said, it's not the deciding factor for me. The simple Truth that Creation was created by a personality--of which I am convinced--and that this personality has made himself known to me as one that wanted to know and love me within the context of Christianity are the deciding factors for me. But there are those who would get confused by the assertions that God is good and loving and all powerful, while seeing the evil in the world and wondering why God doesn't stop it, or why He allowed it to begin with.

The previous arguments that
1. We can't really understand, and
2. He's God and He had His reasons, such as wanting a relationship based on the choice to love in-spite of a lack of understanding,
may be a help to some of those who are troubled by the paradox, the problem, or the mystery of evil. So it is worthwhile to propose those two answers. Otherwise there are those who reject God, even presented with the evidence of Creation and of His life changing power in other individuals, simply because they are angered or hurt by the injustice that they see in the world. "So God may be all powerful, Creator of everything and changer of hearts," they might say, "But he let my mother die," or "but he let the earthquakes and mud-slides kill thousands who never had the chance to choose Him," or whatever God did that seemed evil to them, "So why should I worship a God like Him? No thank you!"

What, then, are we to do as Christians who love the skeptics and doubters, and want them to come into the Kingdom for the sake of their own souls? A person driven to their rejection of God by emotion will probably not be swayed by logic. An impassioned plea for the love of God might have an impact, as might observation over the long term of a life changed for the better by Him. But I would suggest that all we really can do for such people is to present the whole message of the whole counsel of God, as we know it. We can't always tell them why the mud slides killed so many people, or why their parent died, or why God allowed evil into the world to begin with in a way that will make any difference to them. Fortunately, that's not our job. Our job is simply to get the message out there for people to consider, pray, and give the Holy Spirit the moral authority to interfere in their lives.

We may well continue to discuss doctrinal points among ourselves for our own increased understanding of the Truth, and we may come closer to God as a result. But this final question posed by dizzyjam really points to one of the greatest problem that many skeptics have with our God, and so to determine effective answers to that one question is to determine how we can more effectively carry out the great commission. How can we go into all the skeptical world and make disciples of all nations, teaching them all that He has commanded us, and baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit?

I would propose that knowing these answers, and others that people may come up with, can help, but won't usually be the final thing drawing people to Christ. That will only be the Holy Spirit, as He works and expresses Himself through us in our love of the people we're trying to reach. In my understanding and experience, it is that love put into practice, and the Holy Spirit pulling on their hearts that have a greater effect than knowing all the right and logical answers to all the difficult doctrinal questions.

[dizzyjam]

I have finally found a well with some deepness. This is the kind of post that I like, a well thought out post that springs from a deep place that shows some time has been spent in the past to bring the person to this point. Excellent.

As I respond to mongoose let me present a few things upfront so that no misunderstanding takes place. I very much believe in the God of the Bible and salvation through the sacrifice, burial and resurrection of Jesus the Christ and the indwelling and empowering of the Holy Spirit. (I did say empowering thank you) I present my thoughts not to dispute our faith in Christ but to either make us think more deeply on a matter or to put out a different viewpoint that might have more validity than any accepted viewpoint.

Also, I realize most people on here are what is known as "Evangelical" Christians and I agree with you on a lot of things and in those ways one might consider me that too. I hesitate with that term though since it's a term that takes on an attitude of exclusivity which has caused problems with other movements in our faith and since the Evangelist is simply one office in the Five Fold ministry. There is also the Prophet, Teacher, Preacher, and Apostle. Otherwise, one might consider me an Evangelical Christian as well in the general sense of how it's used.

Nevertheless, I have to say things from how God lets me see them. If it challenges you, that's fine. But it shouldn't challenge your faith because it doesn't mine. I've already been through too much for these questions to challenge mine, so please don't let it challenge yours, just your point of view on the faith we share.

I hope I haven't offended anyone here with what I have said, or what I will say, yet again I need to share what I see on my facet of the great diamond we all stand on.

Now I will respond to some of the things Mongoose says. As I do so, you will see that I was trying to get the quote boxes to work, but even though this forum is similar to another forum I frequent, apparently the code works differently. Perhaps someone can educate me in this, so in the future I can handle it differently. Either way, you'll know where I'm quoting him and where I am talking.

I realize I'm taking a risk here, but the greater risk is that the views expressed in answer to dizzyjam's post will be harmful to readers.

I appreciate your wisdom and riskiness.

Dizzyjam makes a number of logical points that call into question some of the most fundamental tenants of Evangelical Christianity. That's probably a good thing.

I believe it is, just as it was for all previous movements.

We ought to be forced to think, to question, to examine the logic and truth of our own beliefs. We ought not, however, to go so far as to assume that there is no authority or truth in anything we've been taught.

If it's from the Bible it's from authority, but do we understand what is said accurately?

Paul makes it very clear that his readers are to stick to the message they heard in the beginning, rather than being swayed by every wind of doctrine.

How does that happen, and what if the message WE heard in the beginning was a heresy?

Extremely good point, Mongoose. What Paul had shared to those believers "in the beginning" may not have been what we heard "in the beginning." So what do we do if the truth of the Bible shows us something other than what we've been taught about it? I'm currently looking into the history of the church and the way things changed over time. What we have now is not necessarily what Paul had taught back then.

That's where our faith in the grace of God to lead us into all truth by His Holy Spirit comes into play. If I didn't trust God to lead me to the Truth, and if I thought that anything logical must be true, I'd become schizophrenic (sp?) as one side and then the other came up with the more logical arguments.

I believe the Holy Spirit can lead us into all truth, but how much of that truth has been revealed to any one individual? That's a good reason why it's dangerous to only hang with those that look at things from your viewpoint. We need each other to get the complete picture. And logic was created by God to help us understand what He has to say. Not using logic is just as dangerous as using it without leaning on the everlasting arms. I also believe your spelling of that word was accurate.

So I thank God for giving us the Holy Spirit to show us what's bogus vs. what's truth.

I hope you weren't implying I was spreading bogus topics?

But how do we distinguish between the Holy Spirit's prompting, and what feels or sounds right to us?

I usually use this as a couple of earmarks: Does it encourage me in my faith? Does it strengthen my faith? Does it cause me to examine my faith to see if I am looking at it the way God would prefer me to despite the traditions of man? These are all earmarks of it coming from the Holy Spirit. If it just attacks my faith, I have to ask myself if it seeks damage to my faith or does it just cause me to examine my faith. If it seeks to damage, then it's not from the Holy Spirit. I've already covered the examination of my faith and where that comes from.

Remember, the heart is deceitful above all things.

Although this is truly from the Word of God and I will not dispute that, I challenge it's usage under our covenant through Jesus. Solomon I believe was who said that and under the old covenant no less. I'm a big proponent of keeping what hasn't changed from the old to the new, but here's a big change. As believers we have a new heart inside because we are new creations in Christ. Our spirit is made alive through Christ and He is our heart now to give us life. We do need to renew our minds, control our emotions, and give our will over to him, but He has filled that dark empty deceitful place in our lives. As such, I humbly dispute that usage.

I know people have compiled lists of Biblical ways to test the spirits, but for now I'll simply refer to the ultimate authority. We (Evangelicals) believe that the modern translations of the Bible communicate to us, with authority, the Word of God. That everything we need to know about doctrine and practice is presented in that book. That if we take in and accept the Whole Message of the Whole Counsel of God, we'll be in good shape.

I believe this too, yet I still believe we have to understand what we are reading and really put ourselves into the time period which these various writings were being written to understand why it was written the way it was. Also, do we really understand the "whole" thing? Are you sure? Anyone can get the basics, but I mean the "whole" kit and kaboodle. I've never met anyone that did.

And so we run the questions presented, through that test. How do they compare to the whole message of the whole counsel of God, as illuminated by the Holy Spirit?

I'll begin with my assessment of what may be the most important question posed, the final one: "Where did evil come from if it did not come from God to begin with?" And the derived question, "Why did evil come from God?" and the further derived question, "Why do these questions even matter?"

I didn't derive those questions, you did. I just asked one question.

There may or may not be a passage in the Bible that states that God is always good.

If there is, I haven't seen it yet. And I've been looking. There seems to be certain implicating passages to say this if you only take those into account. Otherwise, there are too many that say the opposite that I can't agree with this statement passing through the modern church.

I haven't researched that. Anyone else know? But the point is not whether or not the Bible says it. The point is whether or not the whole message of the whole counsel of God says it. I say it does. Hate seems evil and wrong to us, yet all we have about that is that God hated, but Jesus told us that if we hate, we are guilty of murder. So what's the take home message from the whole Bible? I say it is that God's ways are not our ways, and His thoughts are not our thoughts, but what He says goes, and what He does, none can oppose.

God killed a lot of people by Himself and using humans. I'm not disputing that God's ways aren't our ways or that if we hate, we are guilty of murder, but just how does these arguments show that these evil acts are good? It doesn't. I'm not arguing against God, just our perceptions of Him. I believe He had reasons for each act that was evil that goes beyond our reasoning, just don't forget that those acts were evil. And the Bible even says so. And the reason hate seems evil and wrong to us is because God told us that. If He hadn't, we would have still been with our own reasoning. Or our own ways instead of His ways.

The Bible makes a few things clear about the nature of God, and thought His goodness is asserted, it's not primary. Those characteristics that come to my mind are His Holiness, Love, Grace, Mercy, Compassion, and Justice. How those fit together is a paradox that I have yet to wrap my mind around, but again, His ways and thoughts are not like mine. I am simply to trust in the Lord with all my heart and lean not on my own understanding. In all my ways acknowledge Him and He will direct my paths.

Excellent quote of scripture. Please allow me to clarify that scripture: "Trust in the Lord with all my heart" the redeemed heart that draws on that ultimate heart of Christ that now dwells within us. "and lean not on my own understanding" the understanding that comes naturally instead of the understanding that comes from within the depths of the Holy Spirit indwelling within us that are redeemed which is what we should be leaning on. "In all my ways acknowledge Him" part of trusting Him with all the heart is acknowledging how He is in everything that surrounds us and makes up our life, both the good and the bad (or evil), and letting Him know that we recognize this. "and He will direct my paths" He will let you know where to go and you will understand why because you did not lean on your own understanding but from the understanding that comes from Him. An excellent scripture to use in this conversation.

So maybe evil came from God, since we accept that He created all things, and nothing ever was that was not created by Him. That's not a problem for me. I worship Him because He alone is God, and there is none other, not because I think He's good. I would worship Him for that same reason even if someone convinced me that He was evil. His goodness or lack thereof is a non-issue when I acknowledge that He created me, and He holds my destiny with zero relative effort.

Excellent. He alone is God and there is no other. This truly is the reason to worship Him.

But that does beg the academic and intellectual question of WHY God would do such a thing as create evil? Why did he give angels the choice to rebel? Why did He give people the choice to rebel? Why did he tell them what not to do, making it obvious to them in the knowledge that they did have, that to do such a thing would be disobedience and thus evil, and that there would be consequences therefore? Again, the Bible makes it clear that we don't know the mind or heart of God, but that he makes some knowledge thereof available to us. What I've come to conclude is that God loves us, and wants to engage with us in an intimate, personal, loving relationship of choice, not of law, or obligation. Yes, there are consequences. There are always consequences. It's part of the order God created. Yet the choice to violate the law and face those consequences remains. You can question the justice of the law, or of the consequences till you're blue in the face, but the law and the consequences remain unless you start with that intimate relationship with God. Then you have a chance of convincing Him to change His mind on occasion, as with Abraham, or the wife of Moses.

"WHY God would do such a thing as create evil?" God didn't create the paradox. HE IS the paradox. Remember Him saying "I AM"? Or how about, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End" He is the paradox. "I am the Alpha - the dominate being. I am the Omega - the submissive being." Okay, putting Omega and submissive together may be a stretch, but do you see the stretch between someone being exact opposites at the same time? How is it that we have such a hard time accepting that God can be Evil even while being Good?

Now, the original few generations of people and those under the old covenant, we know, were in a marriage of law to God, but not of love (for the most part.) They obeyed to whatever extent they did, for fear of the whupping He would give them if they disobeyed. Under the new covenant, God already whupped on Jesus, once for all.

"Whupped?" Interesting choice.

That means we don't have to worry about the consequences of our disobedience in the same way that the Israelites did. It's not a shotgun wedding, in which there's still a choice, but He simply offers himself and the promise of what is available to us, if we choose it. If we do not choose it, then we get the lack of it, which is to say, Hell; the utter absence of God. But we don't have to worry about getting whupped on while alive, just because of our sin, which means we have more of an option than did those under the old covenant. We are able and encouraged to choose Him out of love, having known and experienced the alternatives, and committing our whole hearts to this course. Such was not the case for the angels, and could not have been the case had the option of disobedience not been presented to the original people.

The differences between the Old and New covenant laws and the similarities are really too much for me to tackle at this point. Maybe I'll start another thread to discuss it. I've already touched some on it earlier.

So much for one possible reason for God to have put that tree in the garden, and laid out his law to the first people there.

And which reason were you saying "so much" to? By the time I got down here on my original reading of this I couldn't think of it.

Now for the question of why it matters? Why is it worth discussing, even at the risk of offending someone? I would suggest that what we believe about the existence of evil in the world, and God's role relative to good vs. evil, may have some bearing on our faith in Him.

We believe because we have the knowledge. If we hadn't eaten from the Tree would we have ever known? That goes back to my opening post.

As I said, it's not the deciding factor for me. The simple Truth that Creation was created by a personality--of which I am convinced--and that this personality has made himself known to me as one that wanted to know and love me within the context of Christianity are the deciding factors for me. But there are those who would get confused by the assertions that God is good and loving and all powerful, while seeing the evil in the world and wondering why God doesn't stop it, or why He allowed it to begin with.

Were you thinking that I was or am that way?

The previous arguments that
1. We can't really understand, and
2. He's God and He had His reasons, such as wanting a relationship based on the choice to love in-spite of a lack of understanding,
may be a help to some of those who are troubled by the paradox, the problem, or the mystery of evil. So it is worthwhile to propose those two answers. Otherwise there are those who reject God, even presented with the evidence of Creation and of His life changing power in other individuals, simply because they are angered or hurt by the injustice that they see in the world. "So God may be all powerful, Creator of everything and changer of hearts," they might say, "But he let my mother die," or "but he let the earthquakes and mud-slides kill thousands who never had the chance to choose Him," or whatever God did that seemed evil to them, "So why should I worship a God like Him? No thank you!"

I don't feel like touching this one.

What, then, are we to do as Christians who love the skeptics and doubters, and want them to come into the Kingdom for the sake of their own souls? A person driven to their rejection of God by emotion will probably not be swayed by logic.

Actually, that's how they look at us.

An impassioned plea for the love of God might have an impact, as might observation over the long term of a life changed for the better by Him. But I would suggest that all we really can do for such people is to present the whole message of the whole counsel of God, as we know it.

The whole message would overwhelm them. We have to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. It's better to let them talk for a while and really listen to them. Ever hear the old saying about someone giving enough rope to hang themself? It's true when you witness to such a person. Ever hear the old saying that God gave you two ears and one mouth for a reason? That also is true when you witness to such a person. The biggest thing is prayer and fasting. That breaks more bondage than anything.

We can't always tell them why the mud slides killed so many people, or why their parent died, or why God allowed evil into the world to begin with in a way that will make any difference to them. Fortunately, that's not our job. Our job is simply to get the message out there for people to consider, pray, and give the Holy Spirit the moral authority to interfere in their lives.

We may well continue to discuss doctrinal points among ourselves for our own increased understanding of the Truth, and we may come closer to God as a result.

That should always be the goal at least, and hopefully the result as well.

But this final question posed by dizzyjam really points to one of the greatest problem that many skeptics have with our God, and so to determine effective answers to that one question is to determine how we can more effectively carry out the great commission.

Again, I hope you didn't misunderstand me, but if you did, I hope I've cleared some things up by now.

How can we go into all the skeptical world and make disciples of all nations, teaching them all that He has commanded us, and baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit?

First of all, don't think that everyone will get saved just because you're out there witnessing. Even in the Bible it tells us that there are some doomed to destruction. And it tells us and illustrates with examples that not everyone that hears the message will accept it, even with great reasoning. Again, we have to trust the Lord with ALL our hearts and lean not to our OWN understanding, but in all OUR ways acknowledge HIM, and HE will direct OUR paths. If those paths take us to people that don't accept, we keep trusting God. If those paths take us to great Evil that rejects Christ and us, then we keep acknowledging Him. Period. He is all and He can do things through us in all situations with all manner of people.

I would propose that knowing these answers, and others that people may come up with, can help, but won't usually be the final thing drawing people to Christ.

You never can tell. But if you aren't prepared as we are instructed to be, how will you ever know?

That will only be the Holy Spirit, as He works and expresses Himself through us in our love of the people we're trying to reach.

The Holy Spirit can only use us to the extent we have submitted to Him with a renewed mind to be able to accept the things He tells us in the heat of the moment.

In my understanding and experience, it is that love put into practice, and the Holy Spirit pulling on their hearts that have a greater effect than knowing all the right and logical answers to all the difficult doctrinal questions.

More like a combination of the two and wisdom on how far you really need to go with each person. Before witnessing to anyone though, you should do prayer and, when possible, fasting.

[scintor]

Let me throw you a curve ball.

I would propose that the tree was not there as a test of faithfullness, but as something made for men to eat AT THE RIGHT TIME. I do not believe that the tree was evil, nor do I believe that it was useless, God looked at everything that was made and said that it was very good. This included the tree.

Just as I believe that there is a a certain amount of maturity needed before one learns to drive, or gets married or even dedicates himself fully to the Lord, I believe that Adam and Eve needed a certain amount of maturity before they were ready for the knowledge of good and evil.

The whole living forever in the garden thing never made sense to me in we would never have a chance to live with God if that was to have happened. I thinkl that it was always intended that we would reach the point where we were ready to know good and evil, make our choice and eventually die so that we can go to join him eternally.

Just my thoughts.

Scincerely,

[e-mail]

[dizzyjam]

Excellent point. Since I spent so much space on the last one, I'll let others respond to this.