Were Adam and Eve different from mankind after the fall?

[~Anastasia~]

not to stir things, but we choose as well. We choose to sin, we can choose not to sin as well, in fact in the power of the HS we can be without sin. The key is to be in constant fellowship with God...how is that different from Adam and Eve? We just had a longer discussion about this on the other thread...don't want to just beat my opinion as if I have some special place on here, so if we need to talk more about it, let me know. I see no reason to assume that Adam and Eve were no more or less able to choose sin than we are, the only difference is that we have God living in us and empowering us to choose not to sin whereas they were walking and talking face to face with God in the times they chose not to sin. in our own strength...that is the key, sure we need to be in fellowship with God to be sin free, but how is that not also true of Adam and Eve, the difference being how we are in fellowship. but...other than how that fellowship happens, what is the difference? we will also be in face to face fellowship...so we still need that fellowship, we still need that focus on God...in fact, scripture talks a lot about glory and very little about heaven itself. you know me, I don't buy into what others tell me to believe, I base it on what scripture tells me. at this point, the only thing I don't get it how a different means of fellowship equals a difference in choice? other than the above, I am at the same place, I think I understand your position, at this point, can't agree with it, cause I still see no real difference, only a difference in how that is carried out.

Well, if I have made myself understood, and that's what you were asking, then I'm satisfied. You certainly don't have to agree with me, and I'm fine with that.

BTW, I do just want to say, I did not survey what the churches said and decide to agree with it. I'm not about that either - the opposite in fact, at this point. My interest is in developing a theology outside of what I have been told (because I believe I have been told wrong things). I do not say that is what we all should do. I believe if one trusts the teaching of one's church - it is a very comforting place to be. I've simply been in too many churches and found little teaching, and what I have found I sometimes can see myself is wrong from Scripture, so the need to re-examine all.

However, once I pinned down where my thoughts are at this point, I do think it's very valuable to compare it to the churches. My thoughts are this - If Baptists, and Presbyterians, and Catholics, and Methodists, and Lutherans, and Orthodox, and Episcopalians, and every other church I check all believe what I think is truth -- then I'd say the chances are pretty good that I'm on the right track.

IMO, it would be the height of presumption for me to "discover a new belief" that no church before has found or taught or believed, and suddenly think that I myself have the truth and all of them are wrong. Know what I mean? That's where we get Islam, and Mormonism, and things like that. I don't personally believe God is likely to act in that way - give lil' ole' me a brand new truth that no one else has or has ever had. So if I thought I had found a truth, and the churches all disagreed on it, it's time to do some very serious re-thinking.

This is not a central doctrine, so no biggie. And I think it is alluded to in Scripture, and not contradicted, but it's not spelled out abc you must believe this way.

Because of that and because I have many other things I am anxious to look into - this was a bit of a side-track for me - I'm satisfied to accept that the churches all agree, I agree, and we're good.

If it was a salvation matter, my answer would likely be different (though I'd still question if I came against all the churches - though I am never surprised when I disagree with a segment of them since they don't all teach the same things.)


My point of difference is mainly that I don't think a human being today is capable of being sinless without God.

And you may be onto something with the fellowship. You mentioned grace in your other post. I think those are important, I just think it goes deeper than that.

And I've looked into original sin, btw, and I'm not saying that - I don't actually agree with original sin to the point that I would say for certain that babies would need a salvific element - my pov is that I'd have to leave that for God to say and I won't comment either way.

Although I must say, limbo is a very pretty way of resolving it. But I am not advocating for that either.

Thanks for the discussion. Principally I suppose we disagree, but as I said, I'm ok with that, and we're still good with each other.

 

[razzelflabben]

Well, if I have made myself understood, and that's what you were asking, then I'm satisfied. You certainly don't have to agree with me, and I'm fine with that.

BTW, I do just want to say, I did not survey what the churches said and decide to agree with it. I'm not about that either - the opposite in fact, at this point. My interest is in developing a theology outside of what I have been told (because I believe I have been told wrong things). I do not say that is what we all should do. I believe if one trusts the teaching of one's church - it is a very comforting place to be. I've simply been in too many churches and found little teaching, and what I have found I sometimes can see myself is wrong from Scripture, so the need to re-examine all.

However, once I pinned down where my thoughts are at this point, I do think it's very valuable to compare it to the churches. My thoughts are this - If Baptists, and Presbyterians, and Catholics, and Methodists, and Lutherans, and Orthodox, and Episcopalians, and every other church I check all believe what I think is truth -- then I'd say the chances are pretty good that I'm on the right track.

IMO, it would be the height of presumption for me to "discover a new belief" that no church before has found or taught or believed, and suddenly think that I myself have the truth and all of them are wrong. Know what I mean? That's where we get Islam, and Mormonism, and things like that. I don't personally believe God is likely to act in that way - give lil' ole' me a brand new truth that no one else has or has ever had. So if I thought I had found a truth, and the churches all disagreed on it, it's time to do some very serious re-thinking.

obviously from the discussion, it isn't a new teaching....since I just reread some passages I think apply, (while studying Jesus as our High Priest) let me point out a couple of them and something about what each says...

Romans 5:12
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—
13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law.

notice that sin is only imputed where there is law...iow's Adam and Eve had one law and fell...we have hundreds of laws and fall...why should we think the difference is in heart and not in the amount of law needed to keep us from hurting ourselves with the new knowledge of good and evil. Also note that it doesn't say we all were "forced" to sin or had no choice but to sin, it simply says, all have sinned...in addition to both of those points, notice that sin was in the world before the law was given, that is to say, sin was always in our world, even in the days of Adam and Eve. Which goes back to the one nagging question, did Adam and Eve have a choice and do we have that same choice.

Now look at 14-16 13for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.…

what would that highlighted part mean? those who did not sin in the likeness of Adam's offense, wouldn't that suggest we have a choice in whether or not we sin, but like Adam and Eve, we choose to sin?

I could go on, but I'm not really interested in convincing anyone of anything. I have talked about how similar our being in fellowship is to our choice to be without sin...I have just now, laid out scriptures that suggest we have choice. We could go on and on, but as I said, I have no interest in swaying you....what I still don't understand is what difference you see in Adam and Eve needing to be in the presence of God to choose to be without sin and our needing to have the HS to choose to be without sin apart from how that fellowship is carried out. That is the one thing not yet explained to me in a way that makes sense. Everything else, makes sense sort of, but I can't agree with. This one still doesn't make sense. Sin is the thing that separates us from God...when sin breaks that bond, we die, that is no different for us than for Adam and Eve. Likewise, it is when we take our eyes of God and put them on ourselves, (as we see in Gen. Adam and Eve doing) that we sin...I for the life of me, can't see what difference you see apart from our fellowship being face to face or indwelling HS. Sorry, I just don't understand what difference you see that I don't.

This is not a central doctrine, so no biggie. And I think it is alluded to in Scripture, and not contradicted, but it's not spelled out abc you must believe this way.

Because of that and because I have many other things I am anxious to look into - this was a bit of a side-track for me - I'm satisfied to accept that the churches all agree, I agree, and we're good.

If it was a salvation matter, my answer would likely be different (though I'd still question if I came against all the churches - though I am never surprised when I disagree with a segment of them since they don't all teach the same things.)

as to the matter of salvation, I do think it affects how many people see salvation, and I already mentioned that...the two big one's being 1. the devil made me do it, so I'm not responsible and 2. it's God's fault all He had to do was...and I have met and talked with people who took this approach so yes, it does exist, and is dangerous to the truth of scripture...no, I am not saying you take either approach but saying that some do and they are justified by this belief you are presenting.

My point of difference is mainly that I don't think a human being today is capable of being sinless without God.

on that we agree....

And you may be onto something with the fellowship. You mentioned grace in your other post. I think those are important, I just think it goes deeper than that.

deeper than grace? You have me intrigued but I know you want to move on, so I will hold my tongue.

And I've looked into original sin, btw, and I'm not saying that - I don't actually agree with original sin to the point that I would say for certain that babies would need a salvific element - my pov is that I'd have to leave that for God to say and I won't comment either way.

Although I must say, limbo is a very pretty way of resolving it. But I am not advocating for that either.

Thanks for the discussion. Principally I suppose we disagree, but as I said, I'm ok with that, and we're still good with each other.

actually, the only thing I think we disagree on, is that Adam and Eve could be without sin without the presence of God in their lives...of which I still don't understand how one could take that stand given some of the passage we have, starting with Gen. and moving right through the bible. But alas, I may never find the answer to that question...thanks for the discussion.

 

[seeingeyes]

Well ... I tend to think of "the beginning" as more encompassing Creation as well. Sometimes I say Creation and the Fall.

The reason I said "the Fall" is because I was trying to make a distinction between Adam and Eve before they sinned, and Adam and Eve after they sinned. I was specifically pointing to that event - and I know of no other succinct way to say it than "the Fall".

I didn't actually mean "the beginning".

Just to clarify, not arguing.

Calling it "the Fall" does imply certain thoughts theologically, I will agree with you on that. If one does not believe there was no "fall from grace" or however one wishes to interpret it, then that term wouldn't even make sense?

The scriptures don't make that distinction of "Adam before" and "Adam after", though. That distinction is only the result of some interpretation of some other passage that makes it necessary for "Adam before" and "Adam after" to be different. Same thing with the idea that Adam was "perfect". (Or for that matter, that the fruit was an apple! )

Layers and layers of culture and interpretation stand between us and the text (this is always true and will always be true, no matter how many layers we dig down), sacred cows, as it were. I am only mentioning it here, because this particular cow had escaped me until today...

(Even the term "fall from grace" falls apart if you think about it! Ok, ok, I'll stop being difficult and have my epiphany over here in the corner. )

Here are some questions for examination: Why would it be important for Adam to be fundamentally (by nature) different than mankind after him? What idea or concept would that interfere with? What change would domino down from that?

 

[bling]

But we all acknowledge what it means, and as a matter of convenience it's easier to say "the fall" than it is to say "when Adam and Eve ate from the fruit of the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and were cursed as a result

A fall suggests we are in some lower position when Adam and Eve experienced a transition to another position. The Garden situation helped both Adam and Eve (plus all of us) to see how an apparent “heaven on Earth” place was also a lousy (really impossible) place for man to fulfill man’s earthly objective.

Answer me this: Would you prefer to be in a place where your eternal close relationship with God was solely dependent on your personal ability to obey God’s commands (the garden) or in a place where your eternal close relationship with God is dependent on your accepting God’s Charity (where you are today)?

I don't believe the knowledge is the only change.

What I mean by "nature" is essentially - I believe that people born after the fall are not able to live sinless perfect lives. I'm thinking more and more that Adam and Eve might have been able to do so. That is the most important factor of change I was concentrating on.

Adam and Eve were made “very good” by God’s standard and they did not “live sinless perfect lives” so how could any of us even if we had their same “nature” prior to their sinning

How can you even suggest “Adam and Eve might have been able to do so” when they didn’t and it is thought they sinned in less than a year in the Garden? It sure was not 1000 years after being in the Garden, since they did not live that long, so how could they hold out for a trillion years?

I think it is our inability to live perfectly sinless lives from birth that defines our "fallen state".

]Yet Adam and Eve’s state was not “perfect”, like Christ’s state.

Why do we need it? I don't follow where the question is necessary? Have not given it any thought, I'm sorry.

If Adam and Eve had a “better” nature than I have than I have an excuse they did not have. I also see that as being “unfair” since God could make me just as good as Adam and Eve.

Deity? Compared to Christ, that is. Other than that, compared to Christ, I believe their human-ness was probably the same as that which Christ was incarnate with - which is to say I believe Christ's human-ness was of an unfallen nature.

Than we cannot be held to the standard Christ set. Deity is Love since God is Love. Here in lies the problem: Godly type Love cannot be made instinctive since that would be a robotic type love and God cannot force this Love on a person (like a shotgun wedding with God holding the shotgun), so it has to be the result of a real free will choice with likely alternatives (the perceived pleasures of sin being man’s alternative). Christ did not have to obtain Godly type Love since he always had it, but Adam and Eve could not be created with Godly type Love (so they are very good and not perfect).

I don't follow you. Their personal objective? Their reason for being created by God? I'm guessing you mean God's reason for creating them which I think would be several-fold: to worship God, to share in relationship with Him, as an object of His love, for the sake of His glory (and I may be forgetting some).

God created man for totally unselfish reasons since He is Love, so man was created for those humans that would allow God to gift with unbelievable huge gifts the greatest being Godly type Love really making them like God Himself

]Whatever God does, it is for the sake of those that are just willing to accept God’s help (His pure charity/Love). Those that refuse to accept God’s Love (Charity) mostly out of pride or wanting to be “loved” for who they are trying to be perceived as and not in spite of who they are, take on a much lessor objective of helping those that are still in the process of accepting God’s help.

God is not trying to get humans to “do” something, but is trying to gift humans with the greatest gifts possible, but they still have to want these gifts the greatest gift being His Love. [/font]

Interesting question, and I've thought of it. Possibly. Probably even. I don't know all the nuances. For example, I think it is to God's glory that He accomplishes redemption of mankind. It also gives us reason to love Him more than we might if we never needed forgiveness.

Since obtaining this Godly type Love while here on earth is the objective and He that is forgiven of an unbelievable huge debt would have automatically an unbelievable huge Love (Godly type Love), sin is needed to have the opportunity for that forgiveness.

I would suppose that they help mankind to appreciate what was lost, and perhaps provide some incentive to seek God, as well as giving Him a setting in which He is able to more obviously express His lovingkindness toward us. If our environment were perfect, we would have less need of Him, so we might think.

Everything God does is to help willing humans fulfill their earthly objective.

I don't think so. I believe Adam and Eve were prevented from the Tree of Life as a matter of mercy. Death is necessary - or at least the ending of our time in these bodies on earth is necessary. Which means death, translation, or rapture, afaik.

]Death is needed to help willing individuals fulfill their objective.