David Miller wrote: >> How does God know about right and wrong? DAVEH wrote: > If I were to ask that question of you, would you > not say that is the definition/nature of God?
Not exactly. Calvinists would tend to answer this way, but I do not believe that right and wrong is defined by God per se, meaning, I do not believe something is right just because God says it is right. I believe that God is always right because his knowledge is complete enough to know the difference in every situation. I believe that the definition of right and wrong exists outside of any reference to God. DaveH wrote: > If God does not know the difference between right > and wrong, he wouldn't be in a position to create > our existence. Ok. I think I agree with this. DaveH wrote: > I believe A&E would have seen transgression in > the pre-mortal existence when Lucifer fought against > the Lord. Their knowledge of such was clouded when > they were placed in the garden of eden. This sounds like a problem with the doctrine of pre-mortal existence. It seems to me that Adam and Eve truly were innocent and lacked this knowledge, having been created in that state. Once they transgressed, sin entered the world and their progeny would not be born in this state of innocence. DAVEH wrote: > I don't believe they knew/understood the difference > until AFTER they partook of the fruit. I would be > surprised if Reformed theology teaches they knew the > difference BEFORE. The general wisdom is that they did not know the difference until afterward. This is an assumption I have held that I have never questioned before. Right now I'm just trying to explore all possibilities and see how your views of how a being comes to know good and evil fits in with everything else. You believe that Adam & Eve could not know right and wrong without transgressing, and therefore you reason that they did not sin when they partook of the fruit because they did not know right from wrong. I immediately wonder about God and how he knows the difference between right and wrong. It seems like according to your viewpoint, he too would have to "transgress" in order to know good and evil. However, now I see that you put God in a different category altogether. God has always known right and wrong by definition, but Adam & Eve had to "transgress" before they could know such. Have I got that right? I'm not sure I agree with your perspective here, but I want to make sure I am hearing you correctly. David Miller wrote: > I'm still having trouble following your idea > that transgression and sin is not the same. DAVEH wrote: > Let's start with Adam's transgression. Is it ever > referred to as Adam's sin in the Bible? If not, > why not? Doesn't that seem a little peculiar? I believe that the Bible DOES refer to Adam's transgression as sin. Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not SINNED in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. Rom 5:15 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. Rom 5:16 The gift is not like that which came through THE ONE WHO SINNED; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. (NASB) DaveH wrote: > Let me ask you, DavidM.......do you believe Eve could > have had children IF Adam had not partaken of the FF > (Forbidden Fruit) after Eve had done so? Yes. DaveH wrote: > I do not believe it would have been possible. > (Furthermore......LDS theology teaches they could > not have had children prior to the fall anyway.) Why not? Care to share some references for my personal study? DaveH wrote: > Second, have you ever wondered why it is Adam's > transgression, and not Eve's transgression? Sure. That is easily understood when we understand authority. DaveH wrote: > Was not Eve the first to partake of the forbidden fruit? > If so, why would the transgression not be attributed to Eve > instead of Adam? Because Adam was in authority over Eve. President Bush is said to have invaded Iraq and captured Saddam Hussein, but I don't think Bush himself ever did that. Others did it under his authority. DaveH wrote: > As I suggested above, Adam may not have had much choice... I believe he did have a choice, but I do agree that his reasons for doing so were different than Eve's. Eve was deceived but Adam was not. Adam partook because of the woman, but Eve partook because of the Serpent. DaveH wrote: > ... from a logical standpoint I don't think one can > conclusively say that all such transgressions are sinful. > As I intimated previously, a young child may transgress > a law, but IMO that hardly means he sinned. I assume you > would disagree with that, DavidM? I think I do disagree. You need to define sin for me and then define transgression. From my perspective, sin is missing the mark, and that can be committed by a young child just like it can be committed by an adult. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
