Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655

Posted 7/28/2003 10:42 AM (GMT -6)

I'm confused again (what else is new). Do Boyd and the other OV theologians generally believe in the literal Garden of Eve story - or not?

If it's to be taken literally - before Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, they did not know good from evil. What was the relationship between God and Adam and Eve at this time? If they did not know good from evil, they could not make moral choices, and their sole "obligation" was to obey GOd, no questions asked. I"m questioning their ability to really love - to choose to love God - without having knowledge of right and wrong.

Second, God created the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and placed it in the Garden. Why did he do that? (I know, age old question !) This poses problems for OVers and Calvinists and Arminians. B/c it seems really hard to get around the fact that God put the tree there for some reason. He didn't have to put it there, right? Not only that, but he explicitly pointed out to Adam not to eat from that tree. (seems like telling someone not to think of the pink elephant in the room...) But, Adam and Eve did not have knowledge of good and evil yet. So how would they know that to disobey God was wrong? Don't you have to have knowledge in order to be morally culpable?

And, whether or not God knew that they would eat from the tree, he sure knew that by putting it there AND pointing it out to them, there would be a great risk that they would eat from it. Isn't he tempting them by putting it there in the first place? If it was so wrong for them to eat from that tree, isn't the implication then that the knowledge of Good and evil was not intended for humans - but is only the result of the fall?

This is confusing to me- and if the story is only supposed to be allegory, much easier to digest.

Interested in anyone's thoughts.

DLW
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457

Posted 7/28/2003 10:49 AM (GMT -6)

You see...
You're doing it again!

I'll let others explain this one.
dlw

I-uh-scream-uh,
You-uh-scream-uh,
We-all-uh-sceam-uh for
Ice-uh-cream-uh!!!

Roberto Bernigni in
Down by Law.

I wish we didn't live in a world where buying and selling things (especially selling) seems to have become almost more important than either producing or using them.

C.S. Lewis

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 7/28/2003 11:32 AM (GMT -6)

Hey RD,

One needs to remember that the Open View really doesn't affect a whole bunch of other doctrines other than one's concept of the future. I mean, in regard to the Open View, the book of Genesis is the book of Genesis; either one takes things literally or one doesn't. Same for the rest of the Pentet...Penti...the other four books! Same for the poetic books, the writings, etc. Even the book of Revelation is ultimately understood Preteristically, historically, futuristically or symbolically. The Open View just doesn't mess with a whole bunch. Some say it heavily messes with one's understanding of theodicy, but hek, I was an Arminian for twenty-something years, and I've been an Open Theist for almost two years; I don't find any difference in my perspective of the warfare going on over planet earth and the evil that manifests because of it. It's just neither here nor there. But, maybe I'm missing something here.

With regard to Adam and Eve, I do not believe that they had knowledge OF good and evil--they couldn't have sat down and theoligically explained all the ramifications, the work of Satan, the egregious and often unexplainable evil that would come upon the world had they disobeyed. They simply didn't need this concept of evil in order to love God and choose Him. What they did know was that they day they ate of the fruit, that day was a day of death ... of seperation from a relationship with God, between themselves and with their own selves.

And yes, I believe there was a tree, there was fruit, there was a serpent who appeared (as Balaam's ass appeared) to talk. I believe the fruit itself was neither here nor there; obedience to God was the issue. There didn't need to be some sort of evil, contaminated fruit on a tree that would mess one up but good if eaten. Disobedience was enough to bring a curse from God.

Consider the fact the account of the Fall is what, three chapters? I mean, that's it, and scant at that. Nothing else is given about life, the days in and out, what Adam and Eve did, how they thought, how they related to the animals--none of this is of importance.
The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is placed in the Garden to place Adam and Eve into a live-or-die position. Yeah, the risk was great. You bet it was. BUT ... nothing is ever said about two things. First, how long that Adam and Eve, their kids and their kids' kids would be faced with this Tree. I mean, what if the family grows, nobody sins, and it starts getting pretty darned crowded. People start leaving, and whereever they go there's no Tree. So the context would change. Second, what if Adam had not eaten of the fruit but had told Eve, "Well, dear, it was nice knowing ya."? What then?

God had anticipated all these things, and we'll simply never know (while we're down here) just what all God would have done with all these variables. All we are given is a context for choosing life or death, eat of the Tree or don't eat of it. That's all the account is really after. And the account's context is placed within mankind's very limited free moral agency. The account isn't given to us for any other reason. It states what happened, not what would have under different circumstances.

Finally, RD, I'd have to disagree that if the story were allegory it wouldn't be any easier to understand. The reality is stark: two people who chose to disobey, one who could have backed out after the other had already doomed herself. Allegory? What would allegory say any different than to play with the direct meaning the text conveys? But ... if we forget that the context of the WHOLE Bible is to convey something about the heart and passion God has for His creation, even though they have fallen, we will better understand Hs Word; for we will not forget that what is recorded is there for our benefit, not for historical reasons (which doesn't deny it's historicity).

Hope this helps.

For life before the Fall and in the Christ,

Starkman

Starkman

chiam
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 41

Posted 7/28/2003 11:33 AM (GMT -6)

I am sure you are familiar with the passages that speak of God’s exhaustive foreknowledge (Isaiah 42:21-29; 44:6-8, 24-28; 46:8-11; 48:3-8). Yes, God therefore knew full well what Adam and Eve would do and to go even further the cross was planned before the foundation of the world (1 Pet. 1:20). All the names that are in the book of life were there before the foundation of the world as well (Rev. 13:8). Just food for thought....

DLW
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457

Posted 7/28/2003 11:37 AM (GMT -6)

Chiam,
I'm sure others will respond to your verses soon, but I wanted to encourage you to check out the link about "Help for oh Fleety-One", since it gives a connection to a very biblically-intense ongoing debate between an open theist and a classical theist.
dlw

I-uh-scream-uh,
You-uh-scream-uh,
We-all-uh-sceam-uh for
Ice-uh-cream-uh!!!

Roberto Bernigni in
Down by Law.

I wish we didn't live in a world where buying and selling things (especially selling) seems to have become almost more important than either producing or using them.

C.S. Lewis

ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655

Posted 7/28/2003 12:00 PM (GMT -6)

This isn't really a OV theology question- it is for all Christians - that being said, I was curious to know what some OV'ers thought about the account of the fall.

Regardless of all you wrote, Starkman, the bottom line is - GOd put the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden - and presumably, he did not have to. If he had not commanded that they not eat of it, the fact of them disobeying would not have been an issue. He set things up in this manner for some reason - I know it's impossible to know, but am still trying to figure it out. You said maybe if he hadn't put the tree in there, there would have been too many people in the garden - well, doesn't that mean then that God decided that he should put the tree there, order them not to eat it, and then watch as they disobey - in order to prevent the garden from becoming overcrowded?

This story has bugged me since I've been a little kid- it seems so apparent that God "stacked the deck"- by putting the tree there in the first place. There's either some good reason for it, or else God is a tempter, who for the heck of it, put the tree there to see if his creations would eat it or not. Even though they had no capacty to reason between right and wrong yet.

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 7/28/2003 4:29 PM (GMT -6)

I think the point of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not to place something that would inevitably trip them up but to the contrary, in order for real moral virtue (good) to exist in mankind, the possibility for real moral evil had to exist as well. Then as now, God desired a people who would freely choose Him over evil. It seems to me that what I have described above works for either a literal or an allegorical interpretation of the Genesis account. As to the pre-Fall moral obligation of Adam & Eve, this is plainly laid out in the commands given to them prior to the fall, not the least of which was the command about not eating that one particular fruit.

"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.

revivaltheology.net

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 7/28/2003 6:45 PM (GMT -6)

The story of Adam and Eve is just that – a story. In my opinion it is a true story (not a literal historical account) meant to convey to us God’s one command and the fundamental nature of how we trespass against it.

In my view there is and always has been one and only one command of God. That command is to love – to love God and to love one another. This formulation of the one command (active command – TO love) is a formulation from the perspective of post-fallen man. It is a command that can only be understood from the perspective of us who now do NOT love one another – we who are in disunity with one another.

Before the fall the formulation of this one command of God was TO NOT eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Notice that God said we could eat of ANY of the fruit of the garden. Why? Because we were in loving unity with God, ourselves and each other. The one and only command was a negative command. It was a command telling us to NOT do the ONE thing that would break our loving unity with God, ourselves and each other. What breaks unity, what kills love, is judgement. It is living out of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. To judge others is to separate from them and thus be in disunity with them.

The story of Adam and Eve is a story that is just as real right here and right now for each one of us as it was for the first Imago-Dei humans. Whenever we judge one another we transgress the one and only command of God – we eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Every one of us ultimately lives out this very same story each and every day. We either choose to love that other person or we choose to judge – we choose to separate from them either out of judgment of them or judgment (shame) or ourselves.

Why did God place the tree in the middle of the Garden and then tell us not to eat of it?

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is a metaphor representing our ability to choose against having God as our center. The tree of Life represents God as our true source of Life. Before the fall we had direct access to our source of Life – to God. We were in total and totally loving unity with God. To eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is to seek to place ourselves at the center – to in essence storm the center of our life and seek to own it as our own – to be our own god. This is choosing against God as the center of our life and thus to keep us alive God has hidden himself. He has barred the way to the true center of our life (the Tree of Life) to give us the “space” to experience partial disunity with God (He called that “death” – “in the day you eat of it you shall surely die”) such that we might seek and choose to die to ourselves as being our own source of life and seek our true source of life. This is done by actively choosing to love one another. To choose to love another is to die to that part of yourself that is seeking to have life on its own.

God put the tree of the knowledge of good and evil at our center by the very act of giving us free-will. It is THE choice that we are all faced with – life or death – loving unity with the center who is God or trying to gain life for ourselves by placing ourself as the judge of God, ourselves and each other.

Love must be chosen. The fall is nothing less than mankind, each of us as individuals, choosing against God, ourselves and each other. Choosing NOT to love but to seek to be our own source of life by placing ourselves as the judge of all.

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 7/29/2003 4:56 AM (GMT -6)

RD,

quote:
Regardless of all you wrote, Starkman, the bottom line is - GOd put the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden - and presumably, he did not have to.

Oh, I agree one hundred percent.

quote:
If he had not commanded that they not eat of it, the fact of them disobeying would not have been an issue.

Yes, and that's the point.

quote:
He set things up in this manner for some reason - I know it's impossible to know, but am still trying to figure it out.

What's (almost wrote quat! Quat? Sheesh!) the gist and point of this miniscule account? It's not to give us details about Adam and Eve, the serpent or anything else--there are no detailed accounts of any of these characters and events. However, put them all together and the message is quite clear: CHOOSE to obey God or not to obey God. CHOOSE Him as one's life and source or choose one's self as one's life and source. With Icon I agree here; with his view of the historicity of Genesis, I do not. But, see, that's what I was saying about the affects of the Open View on these kinds of issues: it doesn't have much to do with them. Some OVers believe in a literal Genesis account, some don't. (Some people like nuts ... some people don't ... ALLLLLLmond Joy has nuts ... Peter Paul don't!)

quote:
You said maybe if he hadn't put the tree in there, there would have been too many people in the garden - well, doesn't that mean then that God decided that he should put the tree there, order them not to eat it, and then watch as they disobey - in order to prevent the garden from becoming overcrowded?

Huh? I s'pose I didn't write what I originally wrote very clearly. Sorry about that. What I meant was that the Garden would have eventually become quite crowded (Tree or no Tree). And if no one had not eaten of the Tree, people still would have moved on to other parts of the earth, had God allowed the population to continue growing. There would have been no Tree for the people outside the Garden (unless, of course, God puts more Trees out there). These people wouldn't have been challenged with the command God gave Adam: choose to obey or not to obey God by either eating or not eating the of the Tree. (Mind you, this is only hypothetical. Who knows what God would have done.)

But let's say, however, that there are Trees all over the earth so that when people multiply and spread out, there would always be the FREE (not determined, set-up or tricked-into) choice facing mankind: obey God and live, or disobey God and die. This would make sense, because God didn't make man in a pre-fallen state to just live, as if living in and of itself is the fullness of what man is meant to experience. Man was gifted with far too much for life to be just existence. Things like freedom (though limited), fulfillment, purpose ... these are the things that would have plagued man without a context with which to both understand these things and without a means for man to find completion ... found only in the God who made man. Man was FIRST created to be in relationship with God (then man between man and then man with himself). This would mean that there MUST be the understanding that ONLY in God can man find the meaning, the purpose, the definition of love, relationship and life. But even understanding this much was not enough; this "man" is so highly made, so sophisticated--made in the image of God--that he (man) would have to be free to choose against God (in otherwords, choose himself) or there would be a void, an incompleteness in the expression of who and what man is. Only in God--as this is the way God created it to be--could man find relevancy. That "Tree" said it all, pushed it all into plain daylight, made it all clear and upfront. Don't think so? Consider, then, that the presentation of the "Tree" presupposes that man understood something both about choice and about consequences of choosing. He may not have understood the depths of the ramifications of choosing against God (anymore than he could have possibly fathomed all that encompassed choosing for God), but he understood enough about freedom and choice to find the opportunity to fully express himself in the context of the capacity of freedom he was given BY the act of choosing.

The sophistication of and freedom to choose is about the greatest respect God could have given man, because in the act of choosing (thus expressing his freedom to the maximum), man can enter into the fullness of his purpose for having been created. But it would come at a cost if man were to choose himself. "NOT FAIR" comes the cry from the one who says, "Why must I pay with my life--'The day you eat of the fruit, you will die'--if I choose to live without God as my source?" Here then is yet another commentary on just how limited man's freedom is. His choice is to choose or not to choose God, NOT choose or not choose God and "live." Nope! One choice brings life, the other death. "But ... I want to choose no God and live." Sorry, that's not in the mix. "Well, then, I am forced to choose Him, then, aren't I, and, therefore, my choice is really not a choice, is it. I either choose God and live, or I choose no God and die. How is that a choice? It was a choice with Adam and Eve, and proof that it is a choice today is seen in how many CHOOSE to reject God, some even knowing the consequences of doing so. The facts (Biblically) are that God didn't have to give someone the choice to NOT choose Him but still find all the meaning, purpose and definition of life. Even more stark is that (I can't see how) it isn't even possible for someone to find resolution in all these issues apart from God being the source, no matter how man is created. If it were, why would God have told mankind that if he chooses against God, he will die? Why not have created it so that man could go on about his merry way, after having chosen against God, and just be dandy forever? Because eternal (everlasting) life is ONLY found in God, along with all that comes with the meaning of life. So, it is a real and valid choice the Tree presents. Like it or not, these were the choices in the Garden, and these are still the choices today. And, as I say, we really are not as free as we think we are and wish we were. But we are free enough.

quote:
This story has bugged me since I've been a little kid- it seems so apparent that God "stacked the deck"- by putting the tree there in the first place.

You mean Adam and Eve HAD to eat of the Tree? Well, if they didn't, then the deck is not stacked, only split in half: CHOOSE which half. There is no stacked deck. The rules were plain, simple and clear from the start. God's hand was fully shown. It will always come back on man; he must CHOOSE, not be forced. And THAT is the issue of Genesis. Whether we like the choices or not is irrelevant; they were clear from the start.

On a final note, in my opinion it makes no sense to talk about a "fall" or "sin" if the content of Genesis is not historical. For it can't always have been that man has existed, and there's no implication that man evolved to a place in which God could talk to him and say, "Okay, now that you've evolved enough, here's the deal ..." That simply isn't what the text implies nor allows us to read into it. Two real people faced with a very real choice presented by a real tree--the fruit, as I mentioned, being neither here nor there; it wasn't that the fruit was corruptable, but choosing the fruit was. But that's all I'll say about the historicity of Genesis on this thread. The theology's much better!!!

For free but limited choice,

Starkman

might-be-don
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830

Posted 7/29/2003 8:26 AM (GMT -6)

Starkman says:

quote:
Two real people faced with a very real choice presented by a real tree--the fruit, as I mentioned, being neither here nor there;

How do we decide how far "up the tree" to draw the "real" line? Maybe the fruit was of some special value.

peace, don

---
"You cannot step twice into the same river; for fresh waters are ever flowing in upon you." Heraclitus

Laplace
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 138

Posted 7/29/2003 8:34 AM (GMT -6)

ReasonableDoubt,

I think there are other threads which discuss the topic of "Tree of Life/Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil", literalness of Genesis accounts, etc.

I agree it's not really an OV issue directly (what little I understand of the topic).

I do remember Dr. Boyd stating in a post somewhere positions he is sure of (doctrines of Trinity, Christ's ressurection, etc.), those which he leans towards (the whole OV thing), and those which strangely enough doesn't outright say it didn't happen that way, but suggests it may not have (Like The Flood was a localized rather than the entire planet even though the Bible says that every creature that breathed air died [may not have included insects since they don't "breathe" using lungs]).

I agree with Starkman though that to not take the Bible (including the Genesis count) as largely historical will largely cast doubt on the Bible's message as a whole. Again, I do not want to get into an entire Genesis debate (we have enough threads for those), but I will say that if it was indeed an allegory and not literal, it would open a whole lot more problems otherwise.

Say Adam and Eve did represent people "as a whole". Then who committed the sin? If only a subset of those people, God could've easily wiped them out and saved the righteous (like Noah). Maybe He didn't want to, but you see the problem: They were the only 2 people around. Secondly, if you assume that part of the the Genesis account is not true, you have to attribute it to the entire book since it was not written firsthand like the other 4 books of the Law (Moses wrote it way after the fact). Therefore, was Abraham a literal person? What about the Tower of Babel? Finally, perhaps the strongest argument is that there are no indications that the writers of the OT, the Apostles, and Jesus Himself regarded the Genesis account as anything but historical. There are other reasons, but I hope you see my point.

I honestly feel that most people in our society today, even those who are certainly Christians, feel they have to "fit" their beliefs into what science says. Not saying that science is a tool of the devil, but it is not what we should ultimately rely upon. Read the fine print on any journal publication and you'll see the conclusions reached are based on assumptions (things which are not proven), and as I've said many times before, many contemporary "scientists" throughout history have been flat out wrong. Why should we feel that in this generation we are somehow an exception?

"Balance in all things" - Dak'kon, Planescape Torment

Laika
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433

Posted 7/29/2003 10:42 AM (GMT -6)

In the genealogy listed from Adam to Christ, at what point did the people in the list turn from poetic to real?

Genesis 5 has Adam to Noah. Was Noah poetry as well?

Genesis 11:10-32 Noah to Abram. Was Abram poetry?

What point in these genealogies do the people become real?

ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655

Posted 7/29/2003 12:41 PM (GMT -6)

I'm not talking about science - or evolution. I'm talking about the story itself, does it make sense ? Let's break it down:

1. God created Adam and Eve innocent (sinless).
2. God created Adam and Eve to be ignorant of the difference between good and evil.
3. Among other trees, God places 2 trees in the garden- the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and the tree of life.
4. God told Adam not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, or he would die.
5. The serpent tempted them, telling them to eat it, b/c then they would become like God and know the difference between good and evil.
6. They ate of it. God found out and, among other things, tossed them out of the garden.
7. He said, "And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken."
8. Apparently, now Adam and Eve are no longer innocent - and they now know the difference between good and evil.
9. The serpent actually told the truth, as evidenced by God agreeing (number 7) and saying, hey, man now is like one of us and knows good from evil.

My questions are:
1. The pre-fall , sinless existence, has mankind innocent and ignorant of the difference between good and evil.
2. God placed the tree in the garden to give them the chance to disobey him.
3. There must have existed evil prior to the fall, or how else could there be a tree that would give them the knowledge of good and evil?
4. They disobeyed God - and were punished for it. But how could they be morally culpable prior to them knowing the difference between good and evil? Moral actions require knowledge. If you don't know the difference between good and evil, how is it that you are supposed to make a moral choice between the two?
5. God tossed them out of the garden, b/c now they knew the difference between good and evil, like him, and that was not supposed to happen. He also does not want them to be able to eat from the tree of life, or else they will live forever. Doesn't this part, at least, have to be symbolic? B/c if there existed a magical tree that would allow them to have immortality - that means that death (mortality) was part of the picture pre-fall, right? Man was never immortal. In fact God was worried they might eat of that tree and become immortal!

This account just seems so mythological- a talking snake, magical trees, but that's not the worst of it. The "worst" is that God punishes humans who are not morally culpable - and the only way for them to become morally culpable is to actually eat of the tree - then their eyes were opened to good and bad.
And how was it possible for there to exist a tree of knowledge of good and evil prior to there being any evil (or sin) ?
This is very confusing.
Anyway, thanks for the replies so far.

scott_jorgenson
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271

Posted 7/29/2003 1:19 PM (GMT -6)

Laplace wrote:

quote:

...I do not want to get into an entire Genesis debate (we have enough threads for those), but I will say that if it was indeed an allegory and not literal, it would open a whole lot more problems otherwise.

...followed by 2 paragraphs presenting several lines of argument whose very nature invites a Genesis debate :-) No problem - I, too, often find myself honestly disavowing my interest in such matters, only to be unable to give it up :-)

In any event, I will have to desist from this one as I will (hopefully) shortly be leaving on vacation. Others who've read my postings here should, by now, know why I find the most reasonable overall basis for understanding Genesis 1-11 to be one that acknowledges it as conceptually inspired legend. Beyond Genesis 11, where this gradates into factual history I can't say, but I do suspect a gradation rather than a sharp demarcation line between legend and historical account; incidentally, nowhere do I think the Bible presents a totally factual and historical account down to the most exacting detail. I believe I've answered all substantial objections to this view before, so will say no more (not that everyone here may be satisfied with those answers!).

Best regards,

Scott

DLW
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457

Posted 7/29/2003 2:56 PM (GMT -6)

Um, so did Adam and Eve have sex before the fall? Tongue

dlw

I-uh-scream-uh,
You-uh-scream-uh,
We-all-uh-sceam-uh for
Ice-uh-cream-uh!!!

Roberto Bernigni in
Down by Law.

I wish we didn't live in a world where buying and selling things (especially selling) seems to have become almost more important than either producing or using them.

C.S. Lewis

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:23 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual