Predestination. You Asked For It Here It Is.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Did God intend for Adam and Eve to remain in the Garden forever? I would say yes, however the garden was the Earth, they were to fill it, yes. 

Did Satan foil God's plan? No. Because God knew what was going to happen, God's plan incorporated those choices he knew Man would make. 

 

Was it good that they transgressed/sinned/disobeyed God? Not in the least. From the text alone, it brought a curse on them, not a blessing. 

Well you can't ahve your cake and eat it too. If God intened them to stay in the garden and the were kick out and it is a bad thing Satan did indeed foil God's original plan. Why did God not stop them from messing things up?

 

Note earlier I said that God gave 2 conflicting commands to bring about the fall. That is solely my own interpretation and is not doctrine.

[Vance]

Did God intend for Adam and Eve to remain in the Garden forever? I would say yes, however the garden was the Earth, they were to fill it, yes. 

Did Satan foil God's plan? No. Because God knew what was going to happen, God's plan incorporated those choices he knew Man would make. 

 

Was it good that they transgressed/sinned/disobeyed God? Not in the least. From the text alone, it brought a curse on them, not a blessing. 

Your position is so inconsistent that it makes me dizzy.

Edited August 21, 2013 by Vance

[Vance]

Note earlier I said that God gave 2 conflicting commands to bring about the fall. That is solely my own interpretation and is not doctrine.

I would say that one was a command and the other a warning.  But I could be wrong.

[bluebell]

Note earlier I said that God gave 2 conflicting commands to bring about the fall. That is solely my own interpretation and is not doctrine.

This is how Joseph Fielding Smith explained the seemingly contradicting commandments:

 

"Now this is the way I interpret that: The Lord said to Adam, here is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you want to stay here, then you cannot eat of that fruit. If you want to stay here, then I forbid you to eat it. But you may act for yourself, and you may eat of it if you want to. And if you eat it, you will die."

Edited August 21, 2013 by bluebell

[danielwoods]

Well, the text does say, at least to Adam, that the curse was 'for his sake' so that could reasonably be thought of as a blessing I suppose (since curses usually don't benefit people but blessings do).

I'm wondering, from the Arminian perspective, why did God allow Satan into the garden in the first place?

 "for his sake" means, "Cursed is the ground because of you"

 

Why did God allow Satan into the garden? Same as with Job. As a test/trial etc. 

[danielwoods]

Well you can't ahve your cake and eat it too. If God intened them to stay in the garden and the were kick out and it is a bad thing Satan did indeed foil God's original plan. Why did God not stop them from messing things up?

 

Note earlier I said that God gave 2 conflicting commands to bring about the fall. That is solely my own interpretation and is not doctrine.

 

Ok. Let me put it this way. Satan didn't foils God's ultimate plan, and doesn't have a chance of doing such. God's ultimate plan includes his foreknowledge about what we will do. 

 

Why did God not stop them from messing things up? Because he gave the free will. 

 

What are the two conflicting commands that you get from the text? 

[bluebell]

Did God intend for Adam and Eve to remain in the Garden forever? I would say yes, however the garden was the Earth, they were to fill it, yes.

 

 

How do you square the text which says that the garden was 'eastward' with the idea that the Garden of Eden actually the earth?  Something can't be in the east and occupy the whole at the same time.

 

 

Was it good that they transgressed/sinned/disobeyed God? Not in the least. From the text alone, it brought a curse on them, not a blessing.

So in your belief, God never intended Adam and Eve, nor any of their posterity, to know the difference between good and evil? Edited August 21, 2013 by bluebell

[bluebell]

"for his sake" means, "Cursed is the ground because of you"

Can you provide a reference for that?  In my understanding, there is no logical way that 'for your sake' means 'because of you' but there could be a definition or usage of that phrase that I am not aware of.

 

 

Why did God allow Satan into the garden? Same as with Job. As a test/trial etc.

In your belief, what is the purpose of such tests/trials? Edited August 21, 2013 by bluebell

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'm wondering, from the Arminian perspective, why did God allow Satan into the garden in the first place?

Me too. I realize that this is some what of a tangent from the original thread. But I find it facinating none the less. I have just never heard a consistant reason for the fall. Satan didn't foil God's plans but God forsaw it and didn't stop it. But the original intent was for them to stay in the garden forever.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Ok. Let me put it this way. Satan didn't foils God's ultimate plan, and doesn't have a chance of doing such. God's ultimate plan includes his foreknowledge about what we will do. 

 

Why did God not stop them from messing things up? Because he gave the free will. 

 

What are the two conflicting commands that you get from the text? 

One was to not partake of the fruit and the other was to multiply and replenish the earth. It LDS doctrine that they could not procreate in the garden. So it appears that there was 2 conflicting commands. IOW the only way to procreate was to take the fruit and become mortal and gain the knowledge of god and evil, which they lacked if they had not partaken.

 

Ok agree with free will. But still God could do something in his power to make sure they could not partake of the fruit. I recall God put a flaming sword and cheribum to protect the tree after Adam had taken the fruit to prohibt them from taking it again and living for ever in their sins.

 

24 So 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.

 

Why did God not do this originially? I mean they don't have the choice to take it again. So I don't see how agency really answers the question.

Edited August 21, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[danielwoods]

 

 

How do you square the text which says that the garden was 'eastward' with the idea that the Garden of Eden actually the earth?  Something can't be in the east and occupy the whole at the same time.

 

 

Right, the Garden was a specific location on the Earth. In answering the question Were they supposed to only live in the Garden? I don't think so, I Think they were to fill the whole Earth, as commanded. 

 

 

 

So in your belief, God never intended Adam and Eve, nor any of their posterity, to know the difference between good and evil?

 

 

Too simplistic to answer. For example. God commands them to not eat of the Tree. Ok. So based on that alone, we can tell they know the difference between right and wrong. 

 

The question then is how much did they know, and what did God intend? 

 

I would speculate that they knew exactly what they were doing. They knew what it meant to "die" and the consequences that would result. It seems to me that they were the pinnacle of God's creation, smarter than our smartest scientists. Perfect memory recall, and perfect in every way. 

 

God clearly wished they'd have obeyed him rather than disobeyed him, agreed? So, I would say that what ever effects the tree had on them, God wished they'd have avoided it. Just as sin today has negative consequences, so it did then as well. And God hopes the best for us, that being that we don't participate in sin just to "find out" what it's like, because of the negative consequences that result. 

Edited August 21, 2013 by danielwoods

[danielwoods]

Can you provide a reference for that?  In my understanding, there is no logical way that 'for your sake' means 'because of you' but there could be a definition or usage of that phrase that I am not aware of.

 

 

In your belief, what is the purpose of such tests/trials?

 

"because of you" is a quote of the NASB, thought to be a more literal translation of the same hebrew words. The idea carried through the whole passage is one of a curse. A curse is negative thing, not a positive thing. You disagree, I'm all ears, what is your source? 

 

Purpose of such trials? In this case it worked the same as the Law does. It acts as a light to expose our true nature. 

[danielwoods]

One was to not partake of the fruit and the other was to multiply and replenish the earth. It LDS doctrine that they could not procreate in the garden. So it appears that there was 2 conflicting commands. IOW the only way to procreate was to take the fruit and become mortal and gain the knowledge of god and evil, which they lacked if they had not partaken.

 

Ok agree with free will. But still God could do something in his power to make sure they could not partake of the fruit. I recall God put a flaming sword and cheribum to protect the tree after Adam had taken the fruit to prohibt them from taking it again and living for ever in their sins.

 

24 So 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.

 

Why did God not do this originially? I mean they don't have the choice to take it again. So I don't see how agency really answers the question.

 

 

First, the two conflicting commands assumes that they couldn't have children before the fall. This isn't in the text explicitly, and I mentioned the four points supporting the idea that they could have children. 

 

Second, there were two different trees. One was there for the purpose of testing them. The other was the Tree of Life. Why didn't God protect them from the first tree? If that's your question, it appears that it was there on purpose as a test. 

Edited August 21, 2013 by danielwoods

[bluebell]

Right, the Garden was a specific location on the Earth. In answering the question Were they supposed to only live in the Garden? I don't think so, I Think they were to fill the whole Earth, as commanded.

Interesting. 

 

Too simplistic to answer. For example. God commands them to not eat of the Tree. Ok. So based on that alone, we can tell they know the difference between right and wrong.

 

I think that might be overstating things.  All we can really know from God's commandment not to eat of that Tree was that they were capable of being obedient or disobedient.  But that's not the same thing as knowing the difference between right and wrong.  A toddler can be obedient, but they don't know right from wrong, for example.

 

The question then is how much did they know, and what did God intend? 

 

I would speculate that they knew exactly what they were doing. They knew what it meant to "die" and the consequences that would result. It seems to me that they were the pinnacle of God's creation, smarter than our smartest scientists. Perfect memory recall, and perfect in every way

. 

And this is your opinion, right?  Since this isn't contained in the bible anywhere and all.  I'm fine with that, I just want to make sure I understand the difference between when you are speaking for your religion and when you are speaking for yourself.

 

Regardless of how perfect or not they were though, the one thing the bible is clear on-they had no knowledge of good and evil.  That came after they ate of the fruit of the tree and fell.

 

God clearly wished they'd have obeyed him rather than disobeyed him, agreed?

 

We don't agree on that, actually.   

 

So, I would say that what ever effects the tree had on them, God wished they'd have avoided it. Just as sin today has negative consequences, so it did then as well. And God hopes the best for us, that being that we don't participate in sin just to "find out" what it's like, because of the negative consequences that result.

 

I understand why would believe that-because of how you look at the fall it's the only logical way for you to believe-but it seems to ignore the basic issue, which is, if that's true, then God never want Adam and Eve and their posterity to have knowledge of good and evil.  That effect of the fall would have to be a negative consequence.

 

That seems odd to me, since God is so concerned with us understanding that now, and since so much of Christianity centers around knowing the difference and choosing the good, but maybe it's not an issue in your theology so it doesn't seem odd to you.

[bluebell]

"because of you" is a quote of the NASB, thought to be a more literal translation of the same hebrew words. The idea carried through the whole passage is one of a curse. A curse is negative thing, not a positive thing. You disagree, I'm all ears, what is your source?

 

 

I would be concerned that the NASB was interpreting it that way simply because it fits in with the theology which it supports.  However, I do not speak Hebrew so have no way to suggest that the NASB translation definitely isn't correct.  I'm simply going off of the English translation.

 

Purpose of such trials? In this case it worked the same as the Law does. It acts as a light to expose our true nature.

Why would Adam and Eve and their perfect unfallen posterity need their nature exposed?

 

Thanks for answering my questions, this has been really interesting. 

[Calm]

 "for his sake" means, "Cursed is the ground because of you"

http://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Genesis%203:17

[Calm]

Can you provide a reference for that?  In my understanding, there is no logical way that 'for your sake' means 'because of you' but there could be a definition or usage of that phrase that I am not aware of.

 

See the other translations I gave a link to (if he hasn't already answered as I've not gone through the whole thread yet), NIV and the NRSV are, I believe, the most reliable.

Edited August 22, 2013 by calmoriah

[PresbyterianBaptist]

My understanding of Predestination is that it focuses on God's total and absolute Sovereignty over all aspects of life including Salvation. Due to his absolute power he can do anything He wants or deems right, because He is the strongest power in existence. Whether or not we stepped in to Sin by our own power He has just cause to damn us for eternity yet He has chosen mercy on some of us. Also, we are not damned for Adam and Eve's sin. None of us truly live up to the standards set forward for salvation without Christ.

[Stone holm]

With regards to the tree, I believe for Mormon theology it is more consistent to think of it as God's warning. It was the intent that Adam and Eve make the decision to launch mortality on behalf of all their posterity without pressure from God to do so. Eden was not the whole Earth, else Eve's comment about Adam being left alone in the Garden of Eden makes no sense.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

My understanding of Predestination is that it focuses on God's total and absolute Sovereignty over all aspects of life including Salvation. Due to his absolute power he can do anything He wants or deems right, because He is the strongest power in existence. Whether or not we stepped in to Sin by our own power He has just cause to damn us for eternity yet He has chosen mercy on some of us. Also, we are not damned for Adam and Eve's sin. None of us truly live up to the standards set forward for salvation without Christ.

Which is partly why this thread has gone on to what happened in the creation. How ever this brings up the constant question that always come up. Why does God not just save everyone? Since none deserve it anyway. I don't see how damning some one because they were made that way is just.

Edited August 22, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[danielwoods]

Interesting. 

 

 

I think that might be overstating things.  All we can really know from God's commandment not to eat of that Tree was that they were capable of being obedient or disobedient.  But that's not the same thing as knowing the difference between right and wrong.  A toddler can be obedient, but they don't know right from wrong, for example

How much they knew and understood is implied to me by the detailed judgements that occurred as a result of their failure.

. 

And this is your opinion, right?  Since this isn't contained in the bible anywhere and all.  I'm fine with that, I just want to make sure I understand the difference between when you are speaking for your religion and when you are speaking for yourself.

 

Regardless of how perfect or not they were though, the one thing the bible is clear on-they had no knowledge of good and evil.  That came after they ate of the fruit of the tree and fell.

I am giving my opinion. Yes.

What is knowledge of "good and evil" exactly? Later it states that Adam "knew" his wife and had Seth. So, what depth of knowledge is talked about before taking the fruit verses after taking the fruit? Could it be referring to knowledge based on experience, verses knowledge without direct experience? I am not claiming to know, I'm just asking the question.

 

 

We don't agree on that, actually.   

 

 

I understand why would believe that-because of how you look at the fall it's the only logical way for you to believe-but it seems to ignore the basic issue, which is, if that's true, then God never want Adam and Eve and their posterity to have knowledge of good and evil.  That effect of the fall would have to be a negative consequence.

 

That seems odd to me, since God is so concerned with us understanding that now, and since so much of Christianity centers around knowing the difference and choosing the good, but maybe it's not an issue in your theology so it doesn't seem odd to you.

 

Curious. You think that the fall was good because it gave them knowledge of good and evil. Do you think the same today? Should we partake of sin, so that we can *know* more about good and evil?

I don't see where that point of view can be supported by scripture anywhere.

[bluebell]

See the other translations I gave a link to (if he hasn't already answered as I've not gone through the whole thread yet), NIV and the NRSV are, I believe, the most reliable.

Thanks Cal, it's pretty cool to be able to see all the translations next to each other. And it does appear that 'because of you' makes the cut in many of the different texts.

[danielwoods]

I would be concerned that the NASB was interpreting it that way simply because it fits in with the theology which it supports.  However, I do not speak Hebrew so have no way to suggest that the NASB translation definitely isn't correct.  I'm simply going off of the English translation.

 

See the other translations I gave a link to (if he hasn't already answered as I've not gone through the whole thread yet), NIV and the NRSV are, I believe, the most reliable.

I don't know Hebrew either, but all the other english versions I looked at were the same as the NASB. The KJV seems to be using a poetic phrase.

 

Why would Adam and Eve and their perfect unfallen posterity need their nature exposed?

 

Thanks for answering my questions, this has been really interesting. 

Same reason that our nature needs to be exposed. To turn us to God, so we trust in him instead of ourselves.

Edited August 22, 2013 by danielwoods

[danielwoods]

Which is partly why this thread has gone on to what happened in the creation. How ever this brings up the constant question that always come up. Why does God not just save everyone? Since none deserve it anyway. I don't see how damning some one because they were made that way is just.

I haven't heard any of our Calvinists defend this aspect yet.

According to the 5 points (?) of Calvinism, one of them states that he doesn't save people based on his foreknowledge of what they will do, rather based on his own sovereignty. And I agree with you that this presents a problem. If God is just, on what bases does he condemn some, if it's solely based on his will and not the will of the person he created?

[bluebell]

What is knowledge of "good and evil" exactly? Later it states that Adam "knew" his wife and had Seth. So, what depth of knowledge is talked about before taking the fruit verses after taking the fruit? Could it be referring to knowledge based on experience, verses knowledge without direct experience? I am not claiming to know, I'm just asking the question.

Good questions. I don't think there is any answer that isn't speculation but it's interesting to ponder.

 

Curious. You think that the fall was good because it gave them knowledge of good and evil.

 

 

Yes, I think the fall was beneficial to mankind (in many ways), and I'll explain why.

 

LDS believe that God told Adam and Eve what would happen if they ate the fruit, forbade them to eat it, but let them choose for themselves what they would do.  There would be consequences to that choice, but the negative consequences would be overcome through a Messiah, and I think it is the plan for a Messiah that reveals whether or not the Fall was original to God's plan for this world. 

 

LDS don't believe that the need for a Savior to redeem mankind was a 'back up plan' (as Jeff Lindsay calls it).  We don't believe that needing a Messiah was God's second "in case of Fall pull this cord" choice for His children.  We believe that it had always been THE plan--the ONLY plan--that God created for Adam and Eve and their posterity. After all, Christ was foreordained to be the Savior before the Fall even occurred. 

 

God didn't plan for Adam and Eve and their children to live in a paradisiacal existence for forever, only to watch satan thwart His intentions.   And if that's true, if satan did not thwart God's original plan, then that means that the fall had to have been a part of God's plan from the beginning.

 

And since I don't believe that God would make a plan from the beginning which did not bring about good, even if there were negative consequences which would need to be overcome, then my only logical conclusion is that the Fall, though a transgression of His law, was beneficial to mankind.  

 

As for how it was beneficial...well, that's a different question, and one I'll be glad to give my thoughts on if you want them.

 

Do you think the same today? Should we partake of sin, so that we can *know* more about good and evil?

 

 

It's an interesting question. 

 

The choice made in the garden was a unique experience in the history of mankind, and as such, I don't believe that it easily translates to the rest of us.

 

I think that the best way to be is to be like Christ, never sinning and knowing good and evil because we are smart enough and strong enough and good enough on our own to know those things based on our knowledge alone (the knowledge of good and evil which we get through the Fall).  But none of us are like that, are we?  We all fall short of the glory of God.  And that's not a good thing.  It's not something to strive for.

 

But that doesn't mean that good cannot come out of our struggles.  Think of the difference in the attitudes of the prodigal son and the older 'righteous' brother.  Are we capable of recognizing the full mercy and glory of God without having experienced the bitterness of sin?  Theoretically, I believe that yes, that must be possible (just like theoretically, being perfect like Christ must be possible) but is it probable?  I don't believe so. 

 

So while I don't believe we should sin to gain knowledge or understanding, I think that this world was set up specifically by God to enable us to gain knowledge and understanding through both our good and bad choices.