Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Chapter Two

Well do you think God’s ends justify God’s means?

Just what would that encompass?  God created His creation apart from, separate from Himself thus remaining Holy.  Of course, that assumption “thus remaining Holy” presupposes that His creation plan included “the Fall” and all that derived from it.  Which is not totally doctrinally orthodox.  Orthodoxy views the Fall as basically accounted for but not ordained.  Because if it were ordained in the sense that God made it happen, He would be the Author of Sin and we know that is not the case.

So how can His plan ordain the Fall and He still remain Holy?

We have to examine the Ends God had in view and the Means through which they would be obtained.

The Ends:  That mankind would join with the Son in Eternity in Holiness and Fellowship.

The Means:  That mankind must eschew evil and willingly become Holy as He is Holy.  Which requires that mankind must come to understand evil and its result then choose life and light.  To choose otherwise is darkness and death(read separation from all that is good).

So far that is not too complicated.  What’s the big deal?  Why is Christianity so confused and confusing?

Who wants to believe that God created Adam with a carnal nature?  That would fly in the face of the orthodox tradition that Adam was pure, innocent, loved God and would never have sinned if he hadn’t been tempted.

Question:  What could have tempted him if he didn’t have a carnal nature?  Galatians 5 lists the fruit of the spirit and the works of the flesh(carnal nature).  This pretty much lets us in on which part of Adam’s nature was in control when the ‘Fall’ took place.  Some believe he was deceived.  Scripture says Eve was deceived Adam was not.

So now the question becomes this:  Given that Adam was the arch-typical man the Acme of God’s creation; most intelligent, most beautiful, etc.; that God gave him paradise to live in, perfect job tending His garden, perfect mate, etc.; dominion over all the earth and its creatures to use as he saw fit; and only one law: do not eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the tree in the midst of the garden; How could this Acme of God’s creation even conceive of rebelling against the One who had blessed him so greatly?  He was not deceived.  He was not insane.

If, as some have conjectured, he loved Eve so much that when she ate he decided to share her fate?  This is a specious conjecture at best!  If he had the close personal relationship with the Creator most believe, why would he not just refuse to eat what she offered and beg forgiveness for her disregard for the law trusting in the One Who had been so gracious already?  Could he possibly have had any reason to believe he would be refused?  But he didn’t!  He joined her in rebellion as the leader of it!  He being the federal head of the human race and named as the doorway through which  death entered the world!  She was deceived but he was not!  Scripture plainly points that out.

What reason is left?  The carnal mind is not subject to the law of God indeed it cannot be!  Therefore when given the law of God not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil–he ate!

Oh, But what about the Serpent in the Garden?

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Chapter Two

  1. scalise7000 says:

    Wpuser, I think you have the right idea going with the whole “carnal nature” development, but why don’t you call it “man’s limitation” or just “flesh” in the sense of “weakness?” We don’t need man to be inherently “carnal,” but only deficient in the sense of limited because with any thing “incomplete” there is always the potential for dysfunction.

  2. wpuser135 says:

    BTW My name is John Baker. I truly appreciate your responses. When you say “We don’t need man to be inherently…”, who is we? When asking theodicy questions, should we even consider our needs? should we not instead consider God, His plan, and how we fit into it, instead of how His plan fits into our thinking?
    In God’s creation, is the “potential for dysfunction” left up to the creature to either fulfil or not?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s