Adam's Spiritual Nature

[Herald]

We know Adam was created Imago Dei, in the image of God. God commanded Adam not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for on that day that he did, he would die. By necessity, Adam would need to have some knowledge of the difference between good and evil, right and wrong, in order to understand the prohibition not to eat of the tree. So, is it correct to say that Adam was a moral creature at creation, possessing the ability to understand right from wrong? If the answer to the first question is "yes", what additional knowledge of good and evil did Adam acquire after eating of the fruit of the tree? Did he actually acquire additional knowledge or was his existing knowledge now corrupted? Isn't that what happened when Adam and Eve realized they were naked? Where they once saw no shamed in their nakedness, sin had corrupted their innocence.

Thoughts?

 

[jwright82]

We know Adam was created Imago Dei, in the image of God. God commanded Adam not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for on that day that he did, he would die. By necessity, Adam would need to have some knowledge of the difference between good and evil, right and wrong, in order to understand the prohibition not to eat of the tree. So, is it correct to say that Adam was a moral creature at creation, possessing the ability to understand right from wrong? If the answer to the first question is "yes", what additional knowledge of good and evil did Adam acquire after eating of the fruit of the tree? Did he actually acquire additional knowledge or was his existing knowledge now corrupted? Isn't that what happened when Adam and Eve realized they were naked? Where they once saw no shamed in their nakedness, sin had corrupted their innocence.

Thoughts?

I would say they had intuitional principles to apply in given situations. So they used those "intuitions" to build an experiential body of moral knowledge. I think the word "knowledge" is the loose term here. When we try to pin it down it gets elusive.

 

[Herald]

I would say they had intuitional principles to apply in given situations. So they used those "intuitions" to build an experiential body of moral knowledge. I think the word "knowledge" is the loose term here. When we try to pin it down it gets elusive.

Would you say that they were still moral creatures pre-Fall?

 

[jwright82]

Would you say that they were still moral creatures pre-Fall?

Yes they had an intuitional knowledge, just not a comprehensive knowledge. They had the principles not the applications per se. That is where experience comes inn. Also an inductive method of investigation would reveal more.

 

[alexandermsmith]

Yes "knowledge" equals "experience". Adam knew what was good because it was commanded by God and what was evil because it was forbidden. So he certainly was a moral creature, possessing righteousness. But the knowledge he "gained" from eating of the tree was the experience of evil, having now committed it. So actually this knowledge was not a gain but a loss to Adam because evil was now present within him whereas before it had been that which was in opposition to good, something "out there".

 

[Herald]

Yes "knowledge" equals "experience". Adam knew what was good because it was commanded by God and what was evil because it was forbidden. So he certainly was a moral creature, possessing righteousness. But the knowledge he "gained" from eating of the tree was the experience of evil, having now committed it. So actually this knowledge was not a gain but a loss to Adam because evil was now present within him whereas before it had been that which was in opposition to good, something "out there".

This is along the lines of what I am thinking. While I do not have a verse to point to, it seems as though eating of the tree vexed his conscience (because of sin). Where else did their shame come from about their nakedness?

 

[alexandermsmith]

People talk of Adam's innocency. That's fair enough but it cannot mean a lack of moral righteousness or a lack of understanding between right and wrong. There is no such thing as moral neutrality. The lack of righteousness is sin, not sin or some halfway between. Therefore Adam must have been righteous before the Fall because the only other option would be for him to have been unrighteous (or sinful) and that is not in accord with the Creation account.

 

[jwright82]

People talk of Adam's innocency. That's fair enough but it cannot mean a lack of moral righteousness or a lack of understanding between right and wrong. There is no such thing as moral neutrality. The lack of righteousness is sin, not sin or some halfway between. Therefore Adam must have been righteous before the Fall because the only other option would be for him to have been unrighteous (or sinful) and that is not in accord with the Creation account.

Exactly, the reason we have "grey" areas in ethics now, like killing in self-defense (it's still killing even if justified), is because of the awkward mixture we have as a result of the fall. Before it was black and white now we have grey, not that there's an absolute morality we all know.