Knowing God’s Holiness

For the believer, God uses everything; good, bad, easy, difficult—for our good. This means He never allows anything to work against us but for us (Ro 8:28). How can evil be used to benefit any saint? Evil manifests God’s holiness! It wasn’t until Adam and Eve partook of the Tree that “the eyes of them both were opened,” (Gen 3:7).

John Gill: “Their eyes were opened to see that they had been deceived by the serpent, that they had broken the commandment of God, and incurred the displeasure of their Creator.”

Albert Barnes: “They knew that they were naked—this effect results immediately from the consciousness of guilt. They now take notice that their guilty persons are exposed to view, and they shrink from the glance of every condemning eye. They imagine there is a witness of their guilt in every creature, and they conceive the abhorrence which it must produce in the spectator. In their infantile experience they endeavor to hide their persons, which they feel to be suffused all over with the blush of shame.”

It is my opinion that Adam and Eve would not have known “evil” had they not partook of the Fruit! They already knew what right and wrong was (Gen 2:16, 17) but was yet to learn what good and evil meant; and without knowing good and evil they were ignorant of the holiness of God.

I believe that God desired Adam and Eve to understand what holiness meant, which answers for the “Tree of Knowledge of good and evil” being planted along with the “Tree of Life” which was “in the midst of the garden” (Gen 2:9). It’s not like God didn’t have foreknowledge of them eating the forbidden fruit, He had His reason for it!

1 Like

I believe God knew man would learn only through good and evil. Concerning sin, I believe it was part of man’s nature so we could learn from it. Before they committed the first sin it was evident in them why they sinned. Eve “saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise” (Gen 3:6); all of which manifested they had the sin nature. I think when God said it was all good, He meant how He was going the make it all “work together for good” to the believer.

1 Like

This would suggest the Fall was pre-determined.

I prefer a more Patristic perspective, at least based on many ideas I’ve been exposed to–to find more robust patristic sources I’d have to do a deep dive. Adam and Eve were not created “perfect” per se, but were created in a state of potential to grow. To clarify that previous statement, I’m not suggesting they were created sinful, that isn’t how I’m using “perfect” here; I’m using it in a more basic sense of not-yet complete. There was room for Adam and Eve to grow, in much the same way a child has yet the potential to grow, to mature. That God intended humanity to grow, through knowledge and relationship with Him.

The Fall is a fracture–Adam and Eve, like disobedient children or rebellious teenagers, chose to do things their way, tempted by the serpent’s deceit they “rushed” to adulthood, to “know good and evil” and “be as gods”. God always intended that Adam and Eve grow into maturity by knowing Him, and to grow to be more like Him.

They did know right and wrong; they knew what God commanded, “You may partake of the fruit of every tree in the garden, but the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you may not partake of”–the command was given to Adam, and Eve knew the command. Yet Eve took of the fruit, and Adam did too–and like children caught with their hands in the cookie jar, they tried to blame everyone but themselves.

A maturing knowledge of God would also mean to know God in His holiness–in His rightteousness, His goodness, His fullness of Himself; but they went another route, one that was disobedient.

Christ, as the New Man, the Second Adam, undoing Adam’s wrong by His righteous obedience, establishes Himself as a restoration of the fullness of being human.

There is one opinion, that the Incarnation is only necessitated by the Fall, in order that God in becoming flesh should, by His death and resurrection, make right what was wrong. While there is another opinion which is possible: The Incarnation was always intended, the Fall did not create the necessity for the Incarnation–but the necessity of Atonement; it was always, in this view, God’s intention for the Incarnation, and that Adam and Eve–all humanity–ought to grow and come to a greater knowledge and love of God through God’s own willful participation in human nature and His own creation. The Fall was not, then, an interuption; but a condition which needed addressing; and God addresses it in the Incarnation–but the Incarnation establishes the eternal reality that was always supposed to be.

So when we behold the full restoration and renewal of all things in the future Ages of Ages, Christ is still in the center of everything. The Incarnation always, and was always, supposed to be the pillar of everything God intended for creation, “All things were made by Him and for Him”, and it is here, in Christ, that we are fully human as God intended, and in the end–in Christ–we are fully clothed with God’s glory, even as God, in Christ, is fully clothed with our humanity. So in Christ there is the unity of God and man: literally in that He is the one and only God-Man; and also in that in Him we are fully reconciled to the Father; but also in that we only truly know and love and experience God in and through Him. He is the Radiance of God’s Glory, the Image of the Invisible God, to know Him is to know the Father: The Father has always willed to be known only by His Son, and the Son always makes His Father known. In Christ is the reconciliation, the renewal, the healing, the salvation, and the fullness of creation and the fullness of Deity. He is the God-Man.

3 Likes

So ok. This is not the first time I’ve heard of this. The idea that Adam and Eve were created with a capacity to grow rather than as fully mature, finished beings is found in certain Christian traditions, particularly in the writings of some early church fathers. This perspective suggests that “very good” in Genesis doesn’t necessarily mean “perfect” in the sense of lacking nothing, but rather that they were made with the potential to mature through their relationship with God.

Christian theology, as well, is often associated with thinkers like Augustine. In that perspective, they were created in a state of moral perfection and without sin, and their disobedience resulted in the Fall, bringing sin and its consequences into the world. It’s really fascinating to see the different ways these passages have been understood throughout history. One of which, of course, I adhere to.

Well, here’s my question. If they were not created perfect and that they were created in order to grow, then would the original sin not be sin? It would just be a hiccup.

I really do not think the act is considered a minor hiccup, but rather a fundamental fracture in the relationship. I see it as a moment of active disobedience where humanity chose to assert their own will against God’s design, rushing ahead to gain knowledge and power before they were spiritually ready for it. So, it’s considered a serious breach rather than a simple misstep.

Peter

1 Like

I believe that if God planned it ahead of time that we would fall and he would have to send Jesus, it lessens Jesus’s importance and makes him just a player, like a cog in a wheel. I believe that seeing the Fall as something God orchestrated would diminish the gravity of sin and the significance of Jesus’s sacrifice, making his free-will choice to offer himself less meaningful. It really speaks to the mystery of how divine purpose and human freedom intersect.

Peter

2 Likes

My observations are based on God’s attribute of foreknowledge, His knowing how everything was going to occur; e.g. since He knew they would choose to sin He knew what He was going to do with everything.

1 Like

The problem is that this conflates foreknowledge with predestination; and renders the Fall a predestined event; and results in God as the architect of sin and death.

It is true that God knows all things. He, therefore, knows that when, how, why, and where I will sin–but my sin is not within the scope of God’s will–it is an act contrary to the will of God.

With all due respect, what you are suggesting sounds straight up blasphemous.

In my opinion foreknowledge and predestination are the same because both demonstrate the same ability of omniscience.

1 Like

Could you see room for a distinction between knowing and causing?

God may know that Phil is going to murder Stan, but God doesn’t cause Phil to murder Stan. Rather God’s input is a commandment, “Phil, don’t murder Stan”. If Phil murders Stan anyway, we would say that Phil is guilty of murder, and God is not guilty of anything.

1 Like

Im no biblical literalist, and view the garden story a gift which continues to reveal eternal truths today.

I suppose there was a time when primitive man was truly ignorant and unaffected by the Spirit. And at some point became aware of " goodness" or that which is " good ", in the sense we now understand. And alternatively, man became aware of what is not " good ". In otherwords, man became knowledgeable of good and evil. And that knowledge required rebellion, self will, pride.

When that rebellion happened, if it was baked into our character, or if we chose it, is presently irrelevant to me. Here we are, attempting to stomp out the rebellion, and return to Him.

And I don’t believe the path to Him requires more knowledge. It requires more humility.

Hi and thanks for your reply. In Gen 3:7 man became aware of “good and evil”!

I don’t dispute the text.

Divine omniscience does not make God the author of human sin.

And I’ll repeat my previous statement. To say that God is the author of sin is blasphemy.

Indeed, God knows all foreknowledge and predestination yet, they are not the same.

In 1 Samuel 23, the event is told of David saving the town of Keilah from the Philistines. Afterward, King Saul heard that David was there but word got back to David that King Saul was on his way there to kill him. David then enquired of the Lord if King Saul will come down to Keilah and the Lord answered, “Yes, he will come down.” David enquired again of the Lord and asked if the people of Keilah will hand him and his men over to King Saul. The Lord answered, “Yes, they will.”

So, what did David do? Did he wait there for King Saul to arrive to kill him? No, he didn’t. David high-tailed it out of there!

My point is Divine foreknowledge does not necessitate/dictate predestination.

Of course, if David decided to wait in Keilah for King Saul to arrive, if the Lord chose, He would have delivered David and his men out of the hands of King Saul anyway.

God bless.

@TheologyNerd

The distinction you’re highlighting, where the Incarnation was “Plan A” regardless of sin, is a fascinating way to frame God’s ultimate desire for union with creation. However, the reason many of us hold tightly to the traditional view (that the Incarnation and Atonement were God’s redemptive response to a real, tragic Fall) is to preserve two vital truths:

If Adam and Eve were created in a state where falling was an inevitable or planned developmental step, the Fall risks being viewed as a necessary growing pain rather than a catastrophic rebellion. For sin to be truly sin, a fundamental fracture of relationship, it must be a genuine, unforced choice of human autonomy over trust in God.

If the Fall is orchestrated as part of the machinery, Christ’s sacrifice can start to look like a scripted inevitability rather than a profound, gracious act of rescue. Seeing creation as made “very good” (moral integrity with real potential) makes the Fall a genuine tragedy, and it highlights the extraordinary depth of God’s love: that when His creation broke itself through free rebellion, He met our catastrophic choice with an even greater act of self-giving grace.

Be blessed,

Peter

2 Likes

@Netchaplin

That’s a critical distinction to make. Confounding foreknowledge with causation is where so many theological discussions get derailed!

Knowing in advance what a free creature will do is fundamentally different from compelling or orchestrating them to do it. God’s exhaustive foreknowledge means that even before creation, He knew every free choice humanity would make, including our fall into autonomy, and in His infinite wisdom and grace, He already had a redemptive plan in place.

Where the mystery remains so fascinating is how God’s foreknowledge and human freedom dance together. God creates a genuine world with real choices, foresaw our tragic rebellion, and yet loved us enough to prepare the ultimate rescue through Christ before the foundation of the world.

It keeps the moral weight of sin squarely on human shoulders, while ensuring that God’s grace and sovereignty get the final word!

Be blessed, be a blessing.

Peter

1 Like

@Pater15

That illustration captures the distinction perfectly!

If knowledge automatically equaled causation, then simply knowing a future event would make the knower responsible for it, which logically falls apart. In your example with Phil and Stan, God’s moral command (“Do not murder”) reveals His true desire and character, while Phil’s choice to ignore that command reveals his own moral agency and guilt.

Applying that same logic to Genesis: God’s command in the Garden (“Do not eat”) was genuine, and His foreknowledge of their disobedience didn’t force their hand. Adam and Eve were not acting out a pre-scripted drama where they had no choice; they freely chose autonomy over trust.

This distinction is what keeps human sin truly sinful, while keeping God’s righteousness and justice completely unblemished!

Be blessed,

Peter

2 Likes

@Oakback @NetChaplian

That observation on knowledge vs. humility touches on a profound truth, Oakback.

Regardless of how one approaches the literary structure of Genesis, the theological core of the story remains crystal clear: the original temptation wasn’t just about fruit or a rule; it was about grasping for autonomous knowledge and self-determination apart from God. Humanity tried to step into the driver’s seat of their own moral universe.

If our original departure from God was driven by pride, the self turning inward (incurvatus in se) to rule itself, then intellectual knowledge alone can never bridge the chasm. More information doesn’t cure a posture of autonomy.

As you noted, the path home isn’t found in grasping for control or intellectual mastery, but in the exact opposite: surrendering self-reliance and walking in humble dependence on God’s grace.

Be blessed,

Peter

1 Like

@TheologyNerd @NetChaplian

Amen to that. That is the bedrock line of Christian orthodoxy. The moment a theological system makes God the author, cause, or designer of sin, it dismantles the very character of God revealed in Scripture.

This is why distinguishing between exhaustive foreknowledge (or middle knowledge) and active causation is so vital. God can know with total clarity every choice a free creature will make without orchestrating, desiring, or compelling the evil in those choices.

When we keep that boundary clear:

God remains completely holy, righteous, and unblemished by evil.

Human sin remains a genuine, tragic act of fallen autonomy (homo incurvatus in se).

Christ’s cross remains a true, costly act of divine grace and rescue rather than a pre-scripted farce.

It’s good to have that foundational truth stated so clearly.

Be blessed,

Peter

1 Like

1 Samuel 23 is such a brilliant passage to bring into this discussion!

That exact encounter in Keilah is one of the clearest biblical demonstrations that God’s foreknowledge includes what theologians call counterfactuals—knowing with absolute certainty what free creatures would do under specific conditions, without forcing those events into fixed necessity.

God knew the hearts of the men of Keilah and knew they would betray David if he stayed. But because David used that revelation to make a free choice to leave, the betrayal never actually took place.

It completely dismantles the idea that divine foreknowledge functions as a mechanical script that eliminates human agency or forces sin to happen. God knows every possibility, every contingent choice, and every outcome, yet human choices remain real, morally accountable, and free.

Thanks for bringing that passage into the mix, @SilentOnAll , it’s a wonderful illustration of how God’s infinite knowledge and human responsibility operate together!

Be blessed,

Peter

2 Likes