the original sin

withwonderingawe · Nov 27, 2015

AV1611VET said:
I'm going to disagree with that on the grounds that:

Adam was full-grown: probably 20 or 30 years old.

Adam was given a job: tend the Garden.

Adam was given a task: name the animals.

Adam was given a wife: Eve.

After the Fall, Adam & Eve were punished as adults.

That one is a toughy, and I don't know what all it entails.

All I know is that Adam & Eve had one proscription: don't eat of the tree of knowledge.

And they violated that proscription and were punished accordingly.That's true.

But that doesn't mean Eve was a virgin at the time of the Fall.

In Genesis 1, we read:

Genesis 1:28a And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it:

This prescription came before the Fall, and I can only assume they were obedient to it.

Sorry but I'll stick with the Bible account here, he knew his wife after they were out of the Garden.

jimmyjimmy · Nov 27, 2015

withwonderingawe said:
Okay I should have said, child like.

Gotcha. That might be a way to explain why they were ashamed at their nakedness, but I don't think it's a very good explanation.

withwonderingawe · Nov 28, 2015

ViaCrucis said:
I think these sorts of questions can be, effectively, impossible to respond to. It's important when reading these stories to read them for what they're saying.

Personally, I don't believe Adam and Eve were literal, historical figures. But the story is nevertheless true, because of what it's telling us about the fallen-ness of man, the breech between God and man, and man's toil in the world in his sin and mortality. This view isn't unique to me or to modern Christians, but has antecedent right down to the earliest centuries of the Church:

"Now who is there, pray, possessed of understanding, that will regard the statement as appropriate, that the first day, and the second, and the third, in which also both evening and morning are mentioned, existed without sun, and moon, and stars— the first day even without a sky? And who is found so ignorant as to suppose that God, as if He had been a husbandman, planted trees in paradise, in Eden towards the east, and a tree of life in it, i.e., a visible and palpable tree of wood, so that anyone eating of it with bodily teeth should obtain life, and, eating again of another tree, should come to the knowledge of good and evil? No one, I think, can doubt that the statement that God walked in the afternoon in paradise, and that Adam lay hid under a tree, is related figuratively in Scripture, that some mystical meaning may be indicated by it." - De Principiis, Book IV, 16

Of course for Origen his view was that the story should be read as an allegory, I wouldn't argue necessarily for an allegorical reading; I merely bring this up to demonstrate that the non-literal reading is not a modern innovation, but ancient (St. Augustine likewise reads the Creation story as allegorical and figurative).

The point of the story is the deep wrongness in the world, and the place of the human creature in the world as an intrinsic part of the wrongness--it is therefore the redemptive work of God to restore and heal the wound in creation, and that means the salvation of mankind from sin and death, i.e. the Gospel, Jesus Christ crucified and risen from the dead, His ascension, and His coming again in glory at the End to judge the living and the dead and make new all things.

-CryptoLutheran

Personally, I don't believe Adam and Eve were literal, historical figures.

If we do that where do we start believing the Bible narrative, at what point do we say now I believe this story.

I believe the story is real but it’s placed in the context of an allegory type setting.

Jesus “…was foreordained before the foundation of the world,” 1Peter 1

So the fall was preplanned, he didn’t set the fall in motion without having a plan to save us first. Adam did represent us, he and Eve made the decision to partake of to fruit for us. How much they understood of what they were doing we’ll never know.

God said let us make man in our image and after our likeness, once Adam partook of the fruit the Lord says man has become like one of us to know good from evil. Must have been part of the plan. Or do you think it was an accident?

I think of the command not to eat of the fruit more like me warning my granddaughter, ‘don’t touch hot!’ I know full well she must someday touch the hot oven for her to understand and appreciate what hot is.

AV1611VET · Nov 28, 2015

withwonderingawe said:
Sorry but I'll stick with the Bible account here,

So will I.

withwonderingawe said:
he knew his wife after they were out of the Garden.

But not for the first time.

In your opinion, how much time elapsed from the time Adam & Eve were married until the Fall?

I'll say about a year.

But even if it was a week, I'm sure Adam & Eve consummated their wedding on their wedding night -- the night they were created.

Day six.

AV1611VET · Nov 28, 2015

withwonderingawe said:
So the fall was preplanned,

No, it wasn't.

Just because you set up triage in a war zone, doesn't mean you are responsible for the war.

withwonderingawe said:
he didn’t set the fall in motion without having a plan to save us first.

He didn't set the Fall in motion at all.

Lucifer did.

withwonderingawe said:
Adam did represent us,

Adam was made the federal head of the human race.

That means that Jesus died ...

Hebrews 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Had God not done that, Jesus would have to come back and die on the Cross for each individual separately.

withwonderingawe said:
he and Eve made the decision to partake of to fruit for us.

Not hardly.

Eve was tricked.

2 Corinthians 11:3a But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty,

withwonderingawe said:
How much they understood of what they were doing we’ll never know.

"Don't eat this."

Which word do you think these two mature adults didn't understand?

If you see a sign in the road that says ...

DANGER: MINE FIELD

... do you keep walking?

withwonderingawe said:
I think of the command not to eat of the fruit more like me warning my granddaughter, ‘don’t touch hot!’ I know full well she must someday touch the hot oven for her to understand and appreciate what hot is.

Viewing this scenario as a grandmother-to-granddaughter exchange will confuse you.

Adam & Eve were not anyone's grandchildren.

They were two mature, consenting adults.

jimmyjimmy · Nov 28, 2015

withwonderingawe said:
I think of the command not to eat of the fruit more like me warning my granddaughter, ‘don’t touch hot!’ I know full well she must someday touch the hot oven for her to understand and appreciate what hot is.

You believe Adam & Eve were childlike and yet you think that they are responsible enough to bring down the entire world with their sin. How does that work?

ViaCrucis · Nov 28, 2015

withwonderingawe said:
If we do that where do we start believing the Bible narrative, at what point do we say now I believe this story

Notice that you're putting words in my mouth. Suggesting that I don't believe the story. I don't believe Adam and Eve were literal historical figures, that doesn't mean I disbelieve the story--the story remains very much true.

If I told you that I don't believe there was a literal historical Good Samaritan are you going to tell me that I don't believe the story of the Good Samaritan? Of course not.

However, as to where I take Scripture literally, and where I don't, that's a matter of critically examining the text based on context and content. The Bible is a complex composition of many different books that fall into a wide array of literary genre. I'm not going to read Psalm 23 the same way I read the Gospel of St. Mark.

The "all or nothing" approach is fatally flawed, because it is instantly contradicted as soon as someone bothers to read one of the Psalms, or one of Jesus' parables, or comes across any form of non-literal language. God isn't literally the husband of Israel, God isn't literally the father of Israel. Israel is described both as God's son and as God's bride in the Old Testament, neither of these are literally true, but are metaphors. Jesus isn't literally a lamb, yet St. John the Baptist proclaims, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world!" this is paschal language for the intent of metaphor.

Scripture contains all this variety, trying to shoehorn everything into one absolute thing is ridiculous and results in a complete and total butchery of Sacred Scripture.

Jesus “…was foreordained before the foundation of the world,” 1Peter 1

So the fall was preplanned, he didn’t set the fall in motion without having a plan to save us first. Adam did represent us, he and Eve made the decision to partake of to fruit for us. How much they understood of what they were doing we’ll never know.

Christ was predestined before all things, that doesn't make the Fall predestined.

God said let us make man in our image and after our likeness, once Adam partook of the fruit the Lord says man has become like one of us to know good from evil. Must have been part of the plan. Or do you think it was an accident?

The story is rather clear that they were forbidden, and they disobeyed. So no, the eating of the tree of knowledge was not part of the plan which God ordained for them in Eden. Just the opposite actually.

The Imago Dei has nothing to do with "knowing good and evil" but being the image-bearing creation of God.

I think of the command not to eat of the fruit more like me warning my granddaughter, ‘don’t touch hot!’ I know full well she must someday touch the hot oven for her to understand and appreciate what hot is.

There's nothing in the text to suggest that the commandment not to eat was intended so that they might eventually eat. So no, I don't accept that position.

-CryptoLutheran

BigDaddy4 · Nov 29, 2015

withwonderingawe said:
I don't think you read my first posting all the way through, I said;

"Now no children were born to them but hypothetically if Cain and Able had been born to them before they partook of the fruit and say they went several generations until one of them wandered up to the tree of knowledge and took a bite what would have happened?
Would the original sin be retroactive? Would everyone living suddenly be deemed sinful?"

So what would have happened if Adam's great grand son Mahalaleel had been the one to part take of the fruit? Would Adam and all of mankind suddenly become sinful or would it have been Mahalaleel' descendants only. I hope you can understand my point. The problem wouldn't even be there in Mormon Doctrine.

To us a baby which dies is perfect, his spirit returns to the presence of the Father. My foster son does not have the mental capacity to sin or to choose Jesus, so he can not sin. How does your doctrine work this through?

I did read your post. And re-read it. And yet again. And my conclusion is still that your post is against the SoP, as it has no real argument, only heresay.

Good luck with that.

jimmyjimmy · Nov 29, 2015

BigDaddy4 said:
I did read your post. And re-read it. And yet again. And my conclusion is still that your post is against the SoP, as it has no real argument, only heresay.

I just read the OP again myself, and I agree. It violates the SoP on two counts. (nothing personal withwonderingawe)

1) "The purpose of the Christian Apologetics forum is to give non-Christians the opportunity to start threads to challenge Christian theology, beliefs and practices". No orthodox Christian beliefs are even mentioned.

2) non-Christians who are challenging Christianity should offer arguments as to why Christian beliefs are incorrect or untrue. No argument was made against Christian beliefs.

I really was hoping that this was going to be a tightly moderated forum. . .

withwonderingawe · Nov 29, 2015

thatbrian said:
I just read the OP again myself, and I agree. It violates the SoP on two counts. (nothing personal withwonderingawe)

1) "The purpose of the Christian Apologetics forum is to give non-Christians the opportunity to start threads to challenge Christian theology, beliefs and practices". No orthodox Christian beliefs are even mentioned.

2) non-Christians who are challenging Christianity should offer arguments as to why Christian beliefs are incorrect or untrue. No argument was made against Christian beliefs.

I really was hoping that this was going to be a tightly moderated forum. . .

Is the idea that Adam and Eve were having sex and able to have children before the fall not orthodox?

withwonderingawe · Nov 29, 2015

ViaCrucis said:
Notice that you're putting words in my mouth. Suggesting that I don't believe the story. I don't believe Adam and Eve were literal historical figures, that doesn't mean I disbelieve the story--the story remains very much true.

If I told you that I don't believe there was a literal historical Good Samaritan are you going to tell me that I don't believe the story of the Good Samaritan? Of course not.

However, as to where I take Scripture literally, and where I don't, that's a matter of critically examining the text based on context and content. The Bible is a complex composition of many different books that fall into a wide array of literary genre. I'm not going to read Psalm 23 the same way I read the Gospel of St. Mark.

The "all or nothing" approach is fatally flawed, because it is instantly contradicted as soon as someone bothers to read one of the Psalms, or one of Jesus' parables, or comes across any form of non-literal language. God isn't literally the husband of Israel, God isn't literally the father of Israel. Israel is described both as God's son and as God's bride in the Old Testament, neither of these are literally true, but are metaphors. Jesus isn't literally a lamb, yet St. John the Baptist proclaims, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world!" this is paschal language for the intent of metaphor.

Scripture contains all this variety, trying to shoehorn everything into one absolute thing is ridiculous and results in a complete and total butchery of Sacred Scripture.

Christ was predestined before all things, that doesn't make the Fall predestined.

The story is rather clear that they were forbidden, and they disobeyed. So no, the eating of the tree of knowledge was not part of the plan which God ordained for them in Eden. Just the opposite actually.

The Imago Dei has nothing to do with "knowing good and evil" but being the image-bearing creation of God.

There's nothing in the text to suggest that the commandment not to eat was intended so that they might eventually eat. So no, I don't accept that position.

-CryptoLutheran

"Christ was predestined before all things, that doesn't make the Fall predestined. "

I think you are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

My understanding is that God can only make that which is perfect, the bodies of Adam and Eve were perfect. They could not die. But Adam and Eve's spirits lacked knowledge, one must experience pain to appreciate no pain. One must experience a broken heart to really learn to love. One must experience loss to learn how to give. Our Father in Heaven wanted us to become like him to know all of these feelings and to have empathy. So he created a world for us to go through the experiences of pain, sorrow, love and joy. In order for this to happen Adam had to be less than perfect, he had to fall. Partaking of the fruit changed their physical bodies from the perfect immortal to the fallible mortal. It was all
pre-planned in order to carry out the perfect will of God.

But getting back to the original topic of the original sin being upon every soul born how does it fit with Eze 18

20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

ViaCrucis · Nov 29, 2015

withwonderingawe said:
"Christ was predestined before all things, that doesn't make the Fall predestined. "

I think you are trying to have your cake and eat it too

I don't believing the coming of Christ into the world was predicated on there being a Fall. The Incarnation is not God's response to the fallen world, the Incarnation is, in some sense, the point of the world at all. In Colossians we read St. Paul write, "All things were created by Him and for Him."

In the history of the Church different theologians have answered two different ways to the question of whether the Incarnation would have happened even without human sin. For example Thomas Aquinas argues no, relying on Augustine. Others, such as John Duns Scotus argue the opposite, yes, the Incarnation would have happened regardless. The latter view is also typically found in Eastern Orthodox writers and thought.

It is indeed true that through the Incarnation God healed the world by redemption, the death and resurrection of Christ is indeed the means by which God takes fallen man--and indeed the whole of fallen creation--and redeems, restores, and renews it; both in the person of Christ, in us present by the grace of God through faith, and in the future at the restoration of all things.

The question however is whether that is the sole purpose of the Incarnation--to heal what was wounded and restore what was lost. The Orthodox, of course, have kept strong the Christian understanding of Theosis (the West has never forgotten it, though it has less often been at the forefront of Western theological thought). For as St. Athanasius says, "He became man that man might become God" and before St. Ireaneus had said, "The Lord became what we are that we might become what He is."

In the Incarnation God has taken hold of the human creature and united it to Himself, once and forever. And in Christ we, by grace, have become (as St. Peter writes) "partakers of the divine nature". Not that we shall become the ever and eternal Deity or deities in such fashion as the Holy Trinity, but that by grace God extends the intimacy of His divine life with us creatures.

For Irenaeus Adam and Eve were not created "perfect", that is, complete. Man was created with the potential to grow, for the purpose of growing into the perfect--that is Christ. By their disobedience they rejected God's purpose for which they were made, and so the Word becomes flesh and in the Incarnation Christ undoes what Adam has done and thus redeems the human creature in Himself, restoring what was lost. The Fall does not hinder the purposes of God, nor is the Incarnation necessitated by sin and the fall. Instead the Incarnation is the point, the Fall does not interfere or hinder God's purpose, but becomes subsumed in God's purpose which is Christ and in Christ, and by the Incarnation God restores what was broken and wounded by sin and death, and also fulfills all that He had purposed for us and the world. All things for His glory, world without end, life never ceasing.

My understanding is that God can only make that which is perfect, the bodies of Adam and Eve were perfect. They could not die. But Adam and Eve's spirits lacked knowledge, one must experience pain to appreciate no pain. One must experience a broken heart to really learn to love. One must experience loss to learn how to give. Our Father in Heaven wanted us to become like him to know all of these feelings and to have empathy. So he created a world for us to go through the experiences of pain, sorrow, love and joy. In order for this to happen Adam had to be less than perfect, he had to fall. Partaking of the fruit changed their physical bodies from the perfect immortal to the fallible mortal. It was all
pre-planned in order to carry out the perfect will of God

And I disagree. I do not need to drink poison in order to cherish water. I do not need to starve in order to appreciate food. God's good gifts are enjoyed on their own merit; if it is required that we experience the bad in order to have any appreciation for the good, then it would follow that there must always be the bad with the good. There must always be death to appreciate life. There must always be mourning to appreciate joy. But I disagree with all of this. Had there never been the deprivation of the good, the good gifts of God would have still have been appreciated--even as they shall be appreciated when, on that Day there is no suffering, no death, and no mourning for the new has come and the old has gone.

As such I do not believe your above statements to be a sufficient argument to justify a belief that sin, death, and suffering was God's intention for us, and that this world, this life, exists merely as a testing ground. This world is the intrinsically good creation of God.

But getting back to the original topic of the original sin being upon every soul born how does it fit with Eze 18

20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

The iniquity of the father doesn't fall upon the son. We are not punished for Adam's offense, we are not held accountable for the iniquity of our ancestors. That's not what Original Sin entails.

-CryptoLutheran

jimmyjimmy · Nov 29, 2015

withwonderingawe said:
Is the idea that Adam and Eve were having sex and able to have children before the fall not orthodox?

According to the SoP, you need to make an argument against a Christian doctrine/teaching. This is not a teaching of the Christian church. It's pure speculation.

In order to keep this forum on track, I will only respond to posts that are in compliance with the SoP, in future.

St_Worm2 · Nov 29, 2015

withwonderingawe said:
...Adam had to be less than perfect, he had to fall. It was all pre-planned in order to carry out the perfect will of God.

Hi WWA, so the LDS church teaches that God didn't simply ordain the Fall (in the sense that He "allowed" it to occur), rather, you guys teach that He "caused" it to happen (and that for the greater good). Is that correct?

Thanks!

--David

Ironhold · Nov 29, 2015

St_Worm2 said:
Hi WWA, so the LDS church teaches that God didn't simply ordain the Fall (in the sense that He "allowed" it to occur), rather, you guys teach that He "caused" it to happen (and that for the greater good). Is that correct?

Thanks!

--David

More like "God knew it was going to happen well in advance, and so he figured out a way to achieve a victory even in this most pivotal moment."

St_Worm2 · Nov 29, 2015

Ironhold said:
More like "God knew it was going to happen well in advance, and so he figured out a way to achieve a victory even in this most pivotal moment."

Hi Ironhold, so is that what you guys teach, or is it what WWA said above first, that Adam "had" to fall because the fall was "pre-planned" by God as part of His "perfect will" for us? Her reasoning behind this idea does seem to indicate the latter, which may be the LDS understanding, but it does not agree with what Christianity teaches.

Thanks!

--David

Ironhold · Nov 29, 2015

St_Worm2 said:
Hi Ironhold, so is that what you guys teach, or is it what WWA said above first, that Adam "had" to fall because the fall was "pre-planned" by God as part of His "perfect will" for us? Her reasoning behind this idea does seem to indicate the latter, which may be the LDS understanding, but it does not agree with what Christianity teaches.

Thanks!

--David

Gospel Principles lesson #6: The Fall of Adam & Eve

I'll give you an official source that you can read from, lest anybody's words be misconstrued.

St_Worm2 · Nov 29, 2015

Thanks Ironhold. Wow, so WWA was correct about the LDS teaching concerning God and the Fall (I'm not amazed the she was correct, I'm amazed at the LDS teaching because it is so different than Christianity's is). Here's an except from Lesson #6 that I'd like to discuss:

Great Blessings Resulted from the Transgression

How does the Fall provide opportunities for us to become like our Heavenly Father?

Some people believe Adam and Eve committed a serious sin when they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. However, latter-day scriptures help us understand that their Fall was a 'necessary' step in the plan of life and a great blessing to all of us. Because of the Fall, we are blessed with physical bodies, the right to choose between good and evil, and the opportunity to gain eternal life. None of these privileges would have been ours had Adam and Eve remained in the garden.

After the Fall, Eve said, “Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed [children], and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient” (Moses 5:11).

Setting aside for the moment the fact that LDS teach that God caused the Fall, why do you guys believe that Adam/Eve didn't have bodies until they fell :scratch:

Genesis 2:7; Genesis 2:22; Genesis 3:6; Genesis 3:19, among many other verses, talk about them having physical bodies before the Fall, do they not? (and so does Lesson #6 actually, a little earlier in the lesson, so it's clear that I must be missing something :scratch:

)

Also, why was the Fall necessary for Adam and Eve to have children? God gave two commands that we know of prior to the Fall, 1) Be fruitful and multiply (which was given to all mankind) and 2) Don't eat that apple (which was only given to Adam/Eve). But if that is true, then our progenitors would have needed to choose to "disobey" God where the eating thing was concerned if they wanted to "obey" Him where the sex thing was concerned. I am confused

Finally, if our first parents did not have the right choose between "good and evil" prior to the Fall, on what basis did they choose to disobey God and eat the apple :scratch:

.. or are you saying they COULDN'T choose to obey, only to disobey at that point?

I'll stop here to see what I'm correctly understanding and what I am not.

Thanks!

--David

Ironhold · Nov 29, 2015

In a nutshell?

1. By choosing to disobey God and eat the fruit, Adam & Eve demonstrated that they had the ability to make choices in the first place, even if those choices were the wrong ones.

2. Their bodies weren't mortal bodies as we know them. They didn't know pain, age, or anything else mortal humans know.

3. As I noted earlier, A&E didn't even realize that they were naked, let alone have any concept of reproduction.

withwonderingawe · Nov 30, 2015

I sort of feel like my argument is being lost. Let me try again.

If all men become sinners because Adam fell what would have happened to mankind if he had not fallen, logic says then children born to him would not be sinners. No one would feel envy, no one would take something that didn’t belong to him. The desire to sin would not exist.

So now let’s say his grandchild got curious and Satan successfully tempted him and he partook of the fruit what would happen? If we’re going to be consistent and if God is the same yesterday today and forever then wouldn’t that sin have to be retroactive, Adam would then also become a sinner and be bared from God for something he did not do.

All of this goes against Eze 18
“ 20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.”

From the New Testament
Matt 12
35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.
36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

2Cor 5
9 Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him.
10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

I have a problem with the Evangelical and I guess traditional concept of the fall and how we all become sinners.

the original sin

Well-Known Member

Pardoned Rebel

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Pardoned Rebel

Confessional Lutheran

It's a new season...

Pardoned Rebel

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Confessional Lutheran

Pardoned Rebel

Simul Justus et Peccator

Member

Simul Justus et Peccator

Member

Simul Justus et Peccator

Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads