What does scripture state about whether the fall has anything to do with mankind knowing what good is?
Genesis 3:22-24
22 And 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:
23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
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. |
I had a feeling you were going to say this. It's just so very disapointing.
The Tree was the alternative to God, ge. It was not the only avenue available toward such knowledge. Teaching good and evil was not the purpose of the Tree, it was the alternative, it was the choice, the "otherwise" in "to do or to do otherwise".
The offense at the tree grew into the Law. The Law is the knowledge of good and evil. The Law was given so that the offense might abound and both the Tree of the Knoweldge of Good and Evil and the Law had/have a ministry of death (Gen. 2:17 & Romans 7:9 (and elsewhere))
The verse is talking about the physical "heavens" (also known as the sky and outer space), not the dwelling place of God.
That's your doctrine, not the text.
Wow, so many poorly thought theological positions in such a short space.
Right back at ya!
First, God does not "need" anything, but God often does things because He "wants" it.
Does God need to prove Himself righteous to His own creation? No.
Does God want to prove Himself righteous to His own creation? Yes, of course God does.
So then explain how it accomplishes that goal?
You can't because it doesn't. All you're able to do is to make the claim but when pressed to make the actual argument, it's crickets at first and then you simply repeat the claim.
Second, there is no blasphemy, even in the strawman argument that you created (which was a deliberate distortion of anything I may have stated).
You need to learn what blasphemy is before accusing others of committing blasphemy through your distorted misunderstandings.
It is you who proposed that God orchestrated sin in order to prove Himself righteous, not me! It's blasphemy of the highest order whether you want to acknowledge it as such or not.
Third, proof is often needed by God's creation, despite knowledge.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
Again, make the argument then! How does a doctrine that teaches that God orchestrated sin, which is not anywhere stated in the bible prove the God is righteous, when the very same bible that fallen human being learn of the fall of Adam from also states emphatically that God is righteous?
If they don't believe it when the bible simply tells them that God is righteous (or that we have the ability to choose, which ever (its the same thing, by the way), how would an extra-biblical doctrine prove it to them? HOW???
And even if it were explicitly biblical that God orchestrated sin (I cringe to even write those words!) why would such a biblical account be believed and accepted as proof that God is righteous if they don't believe that God is righteous based on the testimony of the very same bible?
No matter which direction you come at this from, there is no profit whatsoever in accepting the notion that God orchestrated sin! It's just so much blasphemous nonsense!
Peter knew that he loved Jesus more than anything, until he proved that he loved his own life more by denying Jesus three times.
How is that relevant to the issue of God trying to prove Himself righteous to His own creation?
God is all the time in the business of proving to us thick headed humans that we are evil and in need of a savior. That's entirely different than God deciding in advance of creation to orchestrate evil in order to prove something. He's the only thing that existed when He supposedly cooked up this scheme so who was He trying to prove it to, Himself?
Fourth, my argument is about whether the fall is necessary for proof that mankind has free-will, not about whether sin proves God is good.
There are at least two thing wrong here...
First, as I have already said, all that is necessary is for there to be a real alternative from which to choose. If you can do or do otherwise then your will is free, by definition. It is not necessary for you to have ever done otherwise but only that doing so was a real possibility.
Second, humans are not the only beings in existence with a free will. God also has a free will. Does God also need to do evil in order to prove that He has a free will? If not, then on what basis do you make the claim that is necessary for men to do evil to prove the same thing?
Please keep to the topic instead of trying to derail it with nonsensical statements.
I will say precisely and exactly what I want to say when I want to say it. I do not say things that are intentionally off topic but I am certainly not responsible for your ignorance and/or your inability to follow my reasoning. If you have a question then ask, otherwise, I couldn't care less what you don't want me to say.
I never said He did.
What made you think in that manner?
You're premise is about God providing proof of His own righteousness, is it not? Who else other than His creation (i.e. human beings) would He be standing in the docket for?
The only thing that is a product of the fall is mankind knowing good and evil.
People are not products of the fall.
What?
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
Doctrines are not proof, they are merely an attempt by mankind to take what is written in the Bible and put it in a form they can accept, often despite the fact that the doctrine is contradictory to the Bible.
Also, my argument is not about anything proving to people that God is good, merely that the fall proves that Adam had the free-will to choose to obey God or to disobey God.
Okay fine then make the argument. I mean, actually write out the argument that concludes with the statement, "Therefore, if Adam (or anyone else) had not fallen and evil did not exist, we could not know that we have a free will."
Clete
