Genesis 2:16-17
The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."
The tree was indeed a tree of knowledge according to the Bible. However, it was not just any kind of knowledge -- it was, specifically, "knowledge of good and evil".
Adam and Eve were created in an initial state of almost-complete ignorance of good and evil. The Bible teaches that where the law has not been given, sin will not be imputed (Romans 5:13). Adam and Eve were originally sinless because they had virtually no command of law. In eating from the tree, they essentially received the command of law, at once becoming knowledgeable of good and evil. Now that there was a law, sin would be imputed.
Adam and Eve immediately began to conform their behavior to the law they had just demanded, covering their public nakedness (Genesis 3:7). However, the full force of the law was far more than they could bear -- more than anyone other than Christ has ever been able to bear (Acts 15:10).
According to scripture, the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). As a result of the coming of the law to Adam and Eve, their sin was now imputed to them, and ultimately, death was the result.
Part of the moral law that now governed Adam and Eve was the responsibility to train up their children in the way they should go (Genesis 18:19; Proverbs 23:13; Deuteronomy 6:7, 11:19; Psalm 78:5). They were morally obligated to teach their children the knowledge they had received through their disobedience. This means that their children were also under the law, and thus their children's sins would also be imputed -- their children would thus also die.
There is much, much more to the origin and transmission of sin throughout history than simply this, but I believe this presents a basic, Biblical introduction to the Bible's teachings on Adam, Eve, sin, and how it all relates to you and I.
God bless.
Comments
You have only made the matter worse for yourself, for if this is not just any knowledge, and the knowledge of good and evil itself, then striving to acquire such knowledge will damn us, and apparently damn all my further generations (even though they took no part in our wrong doing)
Furthermore, you say " In eating from the tree, they essentially received the command of law, at once becoming knowledgeable of good and evil." Well if they did not know how to differentiate between good and evil, because they didn't have knowledge, because this knowledge could only be attained by eating from the tree itself, then how are they supposed to know that the act that God forbade them from was evil? They did not have that reasoning power until after the deed was done, and to take this a step further, God is supposed to have infinite knowledge (at least in the Quran) and in the bible as well last I checked.
However, if God is fair, then this wasn't a sin, nor a mistake, because this is what God wanted anyway,. And so, since God IS fair, not to mention logical (since he's all knowing), Adam never sinned. And without Adam's sin, there is no mythical "original sin" (Ezekiel 18:20), and therefore NO need for the vicarious atonement of sin by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
You seem to be asserting one of the following:
1. No one has ever sinned.
2. People have sinned, but those people were not created by Allah.
3. People have sinned, those people were created by Allah, but Allah had no idea they would do so.
Can you confirm for me that you are making one of these assertions? If you are not making any of these assertions, I don't follow what your claim is and I wonder if you could clarify for me.
Thanks.
I was not making any of those claims, rather I was trying to say that logically Adam and Eve didn't sin (at this event at the very least. I claim that since God knows everything, he knew that Adam and Eve would eat from the tree, and therefore did not make it a legislative commandment to stay away from the tree.
When he says in the Quran "Do not approach this tree" It is an advisory statement, not legislative. I hope that clarifies my stance
http://www.godcontention.org/index.php?qid=286
You said:
"God knew that they would eat from this tree, and yet still made it a sin to do so. This is vindictive, compulsive, and unfair to humans... However, if God is fair, then this wasn't a sin, nor a mistake, because this is what God wanted anyway,. And so, since God IS fair, not to mention logical... Adam never sinned."
Your argument seems to be that if God knows humans will do something, then He will not make it a sin to do so, as that would be vindictive, unfair, etc.
This seems to mean that either humans do not sin, or God did not know they would, or God is vindictive and unfair.
If it does not mean this, then I'm afraid I am not following your argument.
What I meant by "God knew" is that he knew because he wanted it. He wanted Adam and Eve to eat from the tree, so that they would procreate and give way to humanity. My argument is that he did not intend to just make Adam and Eve, but all of humanity. In order for that to happen they had to be aware of their private parts, and that knowledge would be attained from the tree. Since God wanted this to happen, he wanted them to eat from the tree. He knew they would, so why make what God wants to be a sin?
Furthermore, Adam and Eve, according to the Bible only come to learn about right and wrong after eating from the tree. So how can God expect Adam and Eve to stay away from that which is "wrong" when he didn't give them the knowledge of right and wrong? THIS scenario, where the human do not have any knowledge of right and wrong, of good and evil, and yet still God demands that I be a moral being, otherwise I am to be put to punishment long with my upcoming generations, it is THIS
scenario that I have no choice but to say that God is being vindictive, unfair, etc. For how can he demand from me to abide by moral code, when I have no clue what right or wrong is?
You see, in Islamic thought, we believe that Allah is all-merciful, and in this infinite mercy, he has given us 124,000 Prophets and Messengers who were all infallible. We are all aiming towards perfection, because anyone aiming towards Allah, must be aiming towards perfection, because Allah is the absolute, and every relative being that aims towards Allah, aims towards perfection.
Since we look up to perfection, it therefore necessitates, that there be Prophets and books that are perfect, and these instruments sent from Allah, are the ones that will lead towards perfection. The trial on earth is not whether or not we achieve this perfection, but what is judged is our effort towards achieving that perfection.
Perfection is a necessity, and it must be in place before anything comes into existence, hence we understand that when Adam was created, he is not only the first human being, but also a Prophet of Allah, who is perfect, for IF he were a man, and not a Prophet, he would
have no template to move towards perfection, for he would be bereft of guidance. And we understand that mankind is always given the best of examples of moral character, in our Prophets. When we move towards perfection, we strive to be like them, they are our templates of what is right and wrong.
And if the first man were not a Prophet, then he would need a human before him to look to as a template, but that is counter intuitive since he was the FIRST man. Therefore we say that the first man MUST have been a Prophet, for there is no other way for him to be driven towards perfection, unless he represents perfection. Because his progeny certainly would need to be driven towards perfection, and therefore the first human being MUST be a Prophet of Allah.
Just to clarify on the part about Perfection being a necessity, and having to be in place before anything comes into existence, what I mean is, Allah in his infinite mercy, creates the goal (that is, Perfection) before he creates the creature that will try to attain that goal. If it were the other way around, then until perfection was created (i.e. the first Prophet was Noah, and all human from Adam until the coming of Noah), then all humans who came before the existence of the goal, basically existed with no purpose in life. Since Allah is infinitely merciful he made the goal (Adam) before he made the others who would try to reach this goal. For Allah wouldn't let an unbalanced, meaningless life occur for a second.
So to recap, Adam is the Prophet of God, meaning he is perfect, meaning his progeny and all humans until Noah could look up to Adam, and derive the best of moral character from the Prophet of their time. All Prophets are our templates, and they cannot err.
According to Islam, does Allah know for each and every individual human whether or not he or she will achieve perfection? And if one man will, while another will not, is this result according to Allah's overarching plan? Or does it happen in opposition to Allah's overarching plan, and in spite of everything He has in futility done to achieve contrary results? Or is there another option?
If it happens according to Allah's plan, then it seems to me that in some sense He wanted it to happen, knew it would happen, and still made it sin for the human to not achieve perfection. It seems then that, using your reasoning, Allah is therefore vindictive and unfair.
If I am missing something, please let me know what it is. Thanks.
For example, just because the meteorologist knows what the 5 day forecast is, I'm not going to blame him/her or credit them. Yes, they had knowledge, but they did not cause it. It's the same way with Allah, he knows everything, but isn't causing us to make certain decisions, for there is no accountability then for us in the hereafter, and if there is, this is not Just of God, which renders that whole idea illogical.
Yes, Allah knows what will happen (Would you worship a God that did not know what would happen tomorrow? Of course not), but that doesn't mean he wants or doesn't want it. The meteorologist may or may not want
snow on Wednesday, because that's when his vacation starts, but whether he wants it or not won't change the fact that it'll happen nonetheless, and being a meteorologist he knows it will. It's similar with God, he knows what will happen, but doesn't interfere, because once he interferes then the system is flawed. Meaning that since God stepped in and stopped such and such from committing a crime, but didn't do it for others in the past, the test is invalid.
Rather than switching topic to Islam, let's stay on the Biblical perspective of the the story of Adam, and the sense (or lack thereof) that the story makes, biblically. We will discuss Islam some other time, God willing.
God Bless
But in order to know what is perfection he sent his perfect examples, his representatives. So we strive to be like the Prophets, (doesn't Jesus say in Matthew 5:20 that your righteousness must exceed the scribes and pharisees? Without that there's no possibility of getting into Paradise? WELL why not follow an infallible Prophet? They definitely exceeded the scribes and pharisees)
Though we know we can never entirely be like them, we can keep getting closer. It is our struggle that is taken into account. Also let me mention again, that Prophets of Allah have the capacity to disobey Allah, but through their free will they chose not to, therefore within their life spans they never disobeyed Allah
Further, using your arguments, if Allah were to be praised when your neighbor feeds you, then your neighbor is not responsible for his actions and therefore cannot be held accountable for doing a good thing, defeating your claim that your effort towards achieving perfection will be judged -- it certainly will not, as you yourself cannot be responsible for any good you do if Allah is behind it, according to your argument.
[continued]
Of course, I disagree with your argument.
In Christianity, God is to be glorified for the things we like as well as the things we dislike (Job 2:10). He is behind it all (Col 1:16). This is in fact the conclusion of Kalām, an Islamic argument, as well as the declaration of the Christian scriptures. God is the ultimate cause of all things.
God created Adam not only knowing that he would sin, but having planned it that way. This does not in any way remove Adam's culpability for his sin, nor does it make God sinful. Why would it?
"Furthermore, you say " In eating from the tree, they essentially received the command of law, at once becoming knowledgeable of good and evil." Well if they did not know how to differentiate between good and evil, because they didn't have knowledge, because this knowledge could only be attained by eating from the tree itself, then how are they supposed to know that the act that God forbade them from was evil? "
On first blush, the Bible account makes no sense.
Actually, the Bible is very clear on the issue and my initial answer to the initial question also addresses the issue, and I simply saw no real reason to repeat myself. But...
As I stated above:
"Adam and Eve were created in an initial state of ALMOST-complete ignorance of good and evil." Not complete ignorance.
...and...
"Adam and Eve were originally sinless because they had VIRTUALLY no command of law." They did have at least one explicit command, to not eat from the tree.
Where does the Bible indicate that A&E had a little knowledge of good and evil? What does that even mean, anyway?
What good is a 'command' if they have no idea that disobeying a command is evil?
It seems like you are adding to the text. Please support your position that they had some knowledge of Good and Evil.
Please re-read my initial replies, you have brought up points that you brought in your first reply on this post. Also your last line in reply to me is quite interesting. You accuse my religion of ill logic, when there is nothing, and you do not see the ill logic in your own, classic Matthew 7:3. Let's analyze.
"God created Adam not only knowing that he would sin, but having planned it that way. This does not in any way remove Adam's culpability for his sin, nor does it make God sinful. Why would it?"
Now you are proposing, that God created someone without any knowledge of good and evil, as 'Confuzzled' pointed out, and yet expects them to act morally? But I suppose all that is nothing when you hold it up to God himself, who you are so bold as to accuse that he not only PLANNED for an innocent to fall into a trap, but ALSO cursed all his children, and he says if you want to be saved and not be tortured, you MUST believe in a crucifixion story which uses such
backward logic, that it makes a rational mind disgusted with religion.
What religion is this? That a God would make a beautiful new creation, and then start planning to have him err, without that creation being given any knowledge of good and evil.
Adam was a great man, Noah, Lot, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad peace be upon them all, were outstanding moral standards. Not drunkards, committing fornication with their daughters, (Genesis 19:30-38), and other people committing incest so that the illegitimate children would then be ancestors of Jesus Christ, and disobeying God in ways that a lay person would not even do. And these are God's elite?? What convoluted religion is this? You can't just lump it all together and encapsulate it and say "Ah it's in the Bible it's all pure and wonderful" USE the mind that God has given you.
I refuse to accept that the people that God chose over all humanity chose to act in such shameful ways and then God would demand of me to be upright and moral
God has commanded everyone to obey a standard that none of us can. Only Christ has obeyed perfectly, and this is because He is God the Son. The message of Christianity is that we CANNOT be good enough for God. The message of Christianity is that WE ARE NOT SOVEREIGN -- EVEN OVER OURSELVES. Rather, GOD IS SOVEREIGN. If we are to have any kind of positive future, we must rely COMPLETELY ON HIM TO ACCOMPLISH IT. We are merely created objects. We are not the creators.
You seem to be saying that according to Islam, we ought not to rely on God. We have no one to rely on but ourselves. Is this correct? If so, it sounds more like Atheism than anything else.
I encourage you to trust in the God of Abraham rather than in your own free will. Working in your own free will, under your own sovereignty, you will NEVER meet God's standard.
God bless.
I have a great amount of trust in the God of all the afore mentioned Prophets, and I do not make any distinction between any of them {Quran 2:285} Each and every one of them are infallible, and therefore I thank God for giving me role models to aspire to. No where have I said do not rely on God, so I would appreciate it if you move out of this sickness of planting words in other people's mouths.
You seem to be laboring under the delusion, that by bringing your conclusion into your main argument, you will win this debate. This is irresponsible, and unethical. You have brought forward no proof, that Christ was the ONLY one who was perfect, (for example prove Muhammad wasn't perfect).
Jesus is also a created being, he never once claimed to be anything but a human, and he actually denies being divine in the Bible. Jesus also DENIES being perfect in Matthew 19:17, and clearly says that the only one who is good is God.
Islam however says that all these Prophets were infallible.
And BECAUSE Islam says they are infallible, they are our role models, which I explained earlier, "we are going towards perfection". Therefore God does not have to interfere, he has already given us all the necessary components to succeed. In Islam we believe that God deems us worthy enough to win eternal Paradise on our own merit, or to mess up and damn ourselves.
You successfully avoided the main subject of this question and comment section: Adam's infallibility, in your last reply. Please re-focus, and at least try to address my points, logically AND from your scripture. I don't want your own input. If your religion truly is from God, and it's perfect, it won't need additions to protect it, it will protect itself...LIKE HOW ISLAM DOES.
One more thing, I found out that your NASB version of the Bible, is unfair, and doesn't make sense. I hovered over the verse, and it says "Why do you ask me what is good" The real translation from Hebrew is "WHY CALLEST THOU ME GOOD, THERE IS ONLY ONE GOOD WHICH IS GOD" in the NASB version it makes no sense, for if Jesus is being asked, he can tell, how are people going to talk to God? He is the representative, and so its his job to tell them what God is saying.
AH but if they're calling him good, and he is being humble AS A HUMAN BEING and saying none is good but God, that PERFECTLY makes sense. However if he IS God, as you would like to believe, then he is being a hypocrite in both regular versions and NASB version, because he SHOULDN'T be shying away from the title "good" which IS for God. But he would shy away if he was not God, and shy away HE DID.
Actually, what you are trying to pin me on, is exactly what I am trying to save you from. By having perfect examples, I have role models to follow. If they are flawed, then I cannot follow them, and then I have to rely on myself. THEREFORE our Prophets are the ultimate role models, and Adam was not only the first man, but also the first Prophet. And I went into great detail why he had to be a Prophet, in my argument for the necessity of the goal to exist before the created, for if it is reversed, and perfection (the goal) comes into existence after the humans, then all those humans until the first Prophet (who many Christians argue is Noah) had no purpose, and existed for no reason.
I was not trying to avoid the question of Adam's infallibility. The Bible says he sinned, therefore he sinned. This would make him fallible.
Here is how I see the discussion...
The Bible claims Adam sinned.
You gave an argument as to why you believe he did not. Here is the argument as I understood it:
P1. For Yahweh to know that a human will do something, and yet to make it a sin to do that, is unfair.
P2. Yahweh knew Adam would eat from the tree, yet He made it a sin for Adam to do it.
C. Yahweh is unfair.
I disagree with P1, and I believe that you do too, even though you are the one who proposed it. Look at it from an Islamic perspective:
P1. For Allah to know that a human will do something, and yet to make it a sin to do that, is unfair.
P2. Allah knew [whoever] would [do something bad], yet He made it a sin for [whoever] to do it.
C. Allah is unfair.
[continued]
The logic is identical and the conclusion follows from the premises in both arguments. The only way to reject the conclusion is to abandon one of the premises.
I repeatedly asked you about P2, to see if you believed it was not valid for Islam. You seem to think that:
Allah knows what will happen; and Allah decides that some things that will be done are sins.
This means you must reject P1, or else you must conclude that Allah is just as unfair as Yahweh. If you reject P1, your argument against Adam being a sinner falls flat.
I am not trying to avoid the question -- I am trying to show you that you don't agree with your own argument.
God bless.
I disagree with postulate 1. what I argue is that from the Bible, Elah (Elohim for plural of respect) knew Adam did not have the ability to judge right or wrong, since that was concealed within the fruit of the tree, and he knew the future so he knew Adam would eat, and he made it a sin.
And the same goes for Islam and Allah. If it is a command to stay away from wrong, then Adam should be given a fair test, give him a conscious, give him the knowledge of good and evil. If you don't (provide Adam with this knowledge) and in your experiment you find that oh he did it anyway, and then you make that a sin, THAT is unfair. I also addressed postulate 2 as many times as you imposed it. There is NO correlation between God's foreknowledge and predestination.
Secondly, it is not my argument that falls at all, for I have rationally backed up my point with firm points, of examples, why the people representing God cannot make mistakes, etc. Also, if a person cannot judge between right and
wrong, how can they be held liable for their actions? If the entire idea of right and wrong can only come into play AFTER they have eaten from the tree of knowledge, then how can anything before that be judged?
It is not my argument that falls flat at all, rather it is yours. Why is God making it a unbelievably huge deal out of going to get knowledge? Does THAT make sense to you? The supposed fact in Christianity that he has sweetened the deal of acquiring knowledge, with damning all your progeny is logically implausible.
I think I understand your argument better now. Thanks for clarifying.
As I said above, Adam and Eve were both well aware that they ought not eat from the tree, and the Bible makes this perfectly clear. Eve even told the serpent this herself (Gen 3:2-3), so their ability to judge whether they ought or ought not do it is explicitly stated in the text.
You seem to be suggesting that if the Bible is to be taken at its word, then even though (A) they knew that they ought not do it, it is also true that (B) it is not the case that they knew that they ought not do it. If the Bible affirmed both of these in the same way and at the same time, it would surely be contradictory. However, it does not affirm them both. It only affirms (A).
[continued]
The Bible is not explicit in its reconciliation of these facts, leaving the issue open to interpretation. From my perspective, it appears that Adam and Eve received only external commands from God prior to the fall: they had no internal consciences. After the fall, Adam and Eve no longer needed the external commands of God to know good from evil -- they now (along with their offspring) had internal consciences and could tell right from wrong without God's explicit commands.
This seemed like a good idea to them in part because they believed their independence from God would increase. However, we have been unable to follow our new consciences perfectly, and thus we now need God not only as Sovereign, but also as Savior.
So we see that Adam's sin brings glory to God by causing us all to call out to Him for help and by providing Him with the opportunity to show His great mercy.
I agree that one who foreknows does not necessarily cause. John is not the cause of the events in the book of Revelation, yet he foreknew them. Likewise with the other prophets in scripture.
Nonetheless, given that everything that is not God is created by God, He is the ultimate cause of everything that happens. Given that He knew what you would do if He made you and provided you with the environment that you have, He therefore caused it all intentionally.
You seem to disagree and I am not sure why or on what grounds.
How then is God not the cause of your "free" choices?
Genesis also states that they had not yet eaten from the tree, and that once they did eat they suddenly knew good from evil. So how is this lack of knowledge of good and evil reconciled with (A)?
Apologies.
This, of course, is not justified in reading the text. Eve said that God said they would die. What did that mean to them? Nothing had died before!
So they knew that it was wrong to be 'dead' or to disobey God... Why did they need to eat from the tree of knowledge again? You are adding to the text and your additions do not make sense.
"The Protestant doctrine of God requires that it be made foundational to everything else as a principle of explanation. If God is self-sufficient, he alone is self-explanatory. And if he alone is self-explanatory, then he must be the final reference point in all human predication.
Van Til, Cornelius. A Christian Theory of Knowledge (New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 1969), 12"
How can you determine what the reference point is, if you don't trust your own autonomous reasoning?
"You are adding to the text and your additions do not make sense."
Having an internal conscience rather than needing God to tell them what's right and wrong every single time?
What part of that didn't make sense, exactly?
"If you are just going to add your own interpretations to the Bible, then you must trust your autonomous reasoning - yet this is something that presuppositionalists claim cannot be done."
There is no such thing as autonomous reasoning.
God bless.
Number one, If Adam and Eve got their inner conscience after their fall as you interpret, you have beautifully illustrated what Confuzzled and I have been trying to say: Without a conscience how are they to have the slightest idea what to do? Sure, God said it, but without the necessary tools to process it how can they be held accountable? It's like telling a deaf child to do something but they do it anyway, then you yell, and they still do it. They do not have the ability to hear, like how Adam and Eve did not have the ability to distinguish basic do's and don'ts.
Secondly, you have greatly misunderstood the concept of free will. What kind of a notion is it that I am not in control of my own free will? But God is? God GAVE me my free will, so that I would make my own choices. Upon these choices, which make me who I am, I will one day be called to account. If God is behind all of our choices, then what's the point of Hell? What's the point of this life? God doesn't make
Thirdly, I have mentioned this before and I'll say it again. The Bible should be able to defend itself, if it truly is God's word and it is preserved, then it won't need human interpretation. Human interpretation is many-a-times faulty, but what God
And if it can't justify itself from criticism, then it's not from God.
According to the Bible:
1. Sin is disobedience to God's law (1 John 3:4; Romans 4:15).
2. Adam knew before the fall not to disobey God's laws. We know this because God told him so (Genesis 2:17), and Eve reiterated it (Genesis 3:3).
3. Adam did not know what most of what God's laws were before the fall. We know this because when he fell he immediately understood that he ought not be naked (Genesis 3:7), and God Himself tells us how Adam knew this without being told (Genesis 3:11).
4. Through the fall, Adam became aware of God's laws to a much fuller degree. We know this because of the name of the tree (Genesis 2:17) and because God tells us that Adam knew of God's laws that God hadn't told him (Genesis 3:11).
5. Now that additional laws had been given to Adam, he was responsible for obeying them, or else He would be in sin (Romans 4:15).
Your argument claims that if the Bible is true, 2 is false. But as we see, the Bible doesn't support your claims about it.
"If all of our decisions are all God's then they're all perfect."
1. Sin is disobedience to God's law (1 John 3:4; Romans 4:15).
God is never violates any law that governs Him. This means His actions are always perfect. However, when He causes us to disobey His laws, we do in fact disobey His laws. This means our actions are disobedient to His laws, and are therefore sin. Perfection is obedience to His laws. He obeys them, we do not. He is perfect, we are not.
What He commands as law and what He causes us to do are not necessarily the same thing.
Your Quran seems to agree (Quran 2:15,17,20,26). Where does it teach that Allah is NOT behind our choices? I would love to know.
Before I comment on free will any more with you, please read the following links where I discuss it in depth:
http://www.godcontention.org/index.php?qid=287
http://www.godcontention.org/index.php?qid=164
http://www.godcontention.org/index.php?qid=217
http://www.godcontention.org/index.php?qid=242
Thanks.
All those verses that you have quoted are allegorical verses, they are examples. The Quran is clear, that should an allegorical verse come up, refer it to the decisive verses. But those with perversity in their hearts will deliberately misinterpret it.
Sir, if you would have just read the context, you would have known these verses clearly talk about the hypocrites. Those who shallowly accept Islam on surface level, for whatever reason, like marriage, inheritence, etc. So I'll elaborate on one of these examples and it will suffice.
They are in darkness and they cannot tell right from wrong. They light a fire (accept Islam, shallowly though) and they get some benefit. But then after their death, Allah will
not accept their Islam, and he will extinguish this fire. And their deeds won't be accepted and so on and so forth. However, like Sura Yunus Chapter 10 Verse 44 says "Indeed, Allah does not wrong the people at all, but it is the people who are wronging themselves."
Hence we will be judged by our actions. I cannot be accountable for what you have done, or what my father has done, or what my father Adam has NOT done (i.e. commit a sin by eating from the tree) JUST like Ezekiel 18:20 says.
"People do whatever they do because of its underlying wisdom and good. Legislation of laws is no exception to this rule; the laws too are made because of their underlying good and benefit. They reward the law-abiding citizens and chastise, if they so wish, the law-breakers. The said recompense must be correlated to the action done - in its quantity and quality. Also, it is accepted that the enjoinment and prohibition can be addressed to him only who is not under any duress or compulsion who has got freedom of will and choice. The above-mentioned recompense too is related to such actions only which emanate from free will and choice. Of course, if someone, by his own action, puts himself in a tight corner, in a difficult position where he has to transgress a law, he may be justly punished for that transgression, and his plea of helplessness will not be heeded at all.
Allah uses these same principles in His dealing with His creatures. He does not compel the man to obey or to disobey the divine commands. Had there been any compulsion, rewarding the obedient ones with the paradise and punishing the disobedient ones with the hell would have been absolutely wrong: the reward would have been an unprincipled venture, and the punishment an unmitigated oppression and injustice and all of it is evil according to reason. Moreover, it would mean favouring one against the other without any justification, without any cause - and this too is a demerit according to reason. Furthermore, it would provide the aggrieved party with a valid argument against Allah; but Allah says: ...so that people should not have an argument against Allah after the (coming of) apostles (Quran 4:165); ...that he who would perish might perish by clear proof, and he who would live might live by clear proof (Quran 8:42)."
1)Divine laws are not based on compulsion. These rules have been made for the good of man in this life and the hereafter. And they have been prescribed for him because he has freedom of will, he may obey the rule if he so wishes, and may disobey if he so chooses. He will be fully recompensed for what-ever good or bad he does by his free will.
2)There are things and actions which are not in conformity with the divine sanctity, yet the Qur'an attributes them to Allah, like misleading, deceiving, scheming against some-one, leaving him wandering on in his rebellion, letting the Satan overpower the man and become his associate. All these actions are related to various kinds of misleading and misguidance. But Allah is above all defects and demerits, and, therefore, these words when attributed to Him, should convey a meaning in keeping with His sacred name. Initial misleading, even in the sense of making inattentive and forgetful, cannot be ascribed to Allah. What the above-mentioned expressions actually mean is this: When someone by his own free will, opts to go astray, chooses the wrong path and commits sins, then Allah leaves him in that straying, and, thus, increases his error - it is done as a punishment of his wrong choice. Allah says: He causes many to err by it and many He leads aright, by it, but He does not caus
e to err by it (any) except the transgressors (Quran 2:26)... . when they turned aside, Allah made their hearts turn aside (Quran 61:5). Thus does Allah cause him to err who is extravagant, a doubter (Quran 40:34).
3)The divine decree does not cover the actions of the man inasmuch as they are attributed to him - they are done by the doer, although not created by him.
4) Now that it has been seen that the divine law is
not based on compulsion, it should be clearly understood that it is not based on delegation of power either. How can a "master" issue an authoritative command if he has delegated all his powers to the servant. In other words, this theory of delegation negates the comprehensive ownership of Allah vis- a-vis many of His possessions
On another page you stated (about this thread):
"And before I continue the previous debate of free will, you still never apologized for your allegation that the Quran makes the case against free will, which I debunked."
http://www.godcontention.org/index.php?qid=470
How funny. First, I only suggested that the Qur'an *seems to make the case against free will. I never emphatically stated that it *does make that case. Second, I still stand by that (Quran 37:96, 76:29-30, 4:78-79, 5:41, 6:25, 6:39, 6:111, 6:107, 6:125, 7:177-179, 9:50-51, 14:27, 17:4, 17:16, 18:28, 19:83, 79:30). Third, you never debunked the accusation, which is why I never responded to your comment (till now). Instead, you:
(1) referred to some verses in the Qur'an that seemed to have no bearing on the question at all as far as I could tell:
[continued]
10:44: I never suggested Allah "wronged" them, in fact, quite the contrary, since He isn't disobeying laws when He causes people to sin, He is doing no wrong when He causes His creation to sin.
4:165: Allah warns people so that (when He causes them to reject Himself) they cannot claim ignorance.
40:34: Allah allows skeptics (that He caused to be skeptics) to remain skeptics.
(2) referred to several verses that frankly appear to agree with my "allegation" and not your rebuttal:
8:42: the people perish in a predestined manner.
2:26: Allah misleads the defiantly disobedient.
61:5: Allah causes people to deviate.
[continued]
(3) quoted an Islamic scholar at length to attempt to make your case, in spite of your own claim that the Qur'an could, should, and would defend itself.
So as far as I'm concerned, my "allegation" has not been debunked even remotely. Further, I would personally LOVE for you to debunk it as that would give me a wonderful argument against Islam, since a human will free of all prior causation is logically incoherent. The fact that the Qur'an *seems to argue against free will actually removes an arrow from my apologetic quiver.