Isn't God evil, if He allowed Adam's fall to harm us?

[Tone]

But again, as an act of kindness, if it were up to you, you'd do everything in your power to protect children from suffering for the sins of some man. Especially if you had enough power to do it by the snap of your fingers.

That's just what kindness does.

Particularly problematical is option 1 of the OP (Adam as rep) as it flatly contradicts almost every page of the Bible. How so? Representation means that we have no moral status. Our actions have no status. All that matters is the status of the rep. His status is our status.

If that's the case, our individual actions have no judicial status. You can't classify them as either evil or good. Therefore God can never be justifiably angry about the behavior of an individual. He can only be angry with Adam. Yet virtually every page of the Bible reminds us that God does regard individual acts as either sinful or righteous.

This leads to another contradiction. The Bible says that Eve sinned first! But if Adam is the rep, then she was still innocent because he hadn't sinned yet. In fact, as already stated, if he is the rep, her act cannot be called sin!

Traditional views of Adam simply aren't scriptural.

I think it is more a matter of course. I am watching this sermon on youtube:

It is very good and if you go to 35:45 you will read and hear a very interesting thought!


*In short, because of Adam's sin...humanity could not continue on the course the Creator had for us, because we became unholy (un set-apart).

 

[JAL]

According to the Church Fathers, Adam was spiritually growing in the Garden, and was not ready to partake of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. With patience and obedience, he would have eaten of it when the time was right and according to the wisdom of God, for his own advancement and illumination. For after all, evil already existed prior to the Garden and in fact was slithering in the Garden waiting to devour him.

Thus, Adam was not ready or mature enough yet to be able to ‘digest’ the fruit from this tree, and like an infant being given a piece of meat, it put him in extreme danger. For that reason God said, if you eat of it, you will die. It wasn’t a threat of punishment more than it was a warning of its consequence.

But through Adam’s pride and disobedience, he ate of it, and ‘choked on’ it because he was not noetically or spiritually ready. There was knowledge of things, such as evil, which he was too immature and inexperienced to yet correctly understand. So instead of being to his growth and advancement, as was God’s desire in God’s good time, it caused him fear and anxiety and separation from God.

This is the state Adam found himself to be. The state his children would be in as well, since he is our father.

But God set the plan to redeem Adam, and his children, and restore the broken nature. But to ensure this fix would be eternal, it would have to be true and tested and grown to spiritual maturity greater than Adam had in the Garden. And thus the suffering and selfless love we share now is what trains us so that when we too learn the mysteries of the Tree of the Knoweldge of Good and Evil, we will be prepared to accept it with trust and understanding, and not fear and anxiety, and for eternity.

The words in bold do not constitute a viable theodicy. A maximally good God would not visit either the sins of the parents or the consequences of their actions upon innocent children (such as fetuses).

You can't construe God as behaving in a way more callous than any of us would act, and then claim to have a valid theodicy.

 

[zoidar]

Oh but I have a VERY satisfying answer to those questions, although I would have to move that discussion to Controversial Theology.
And all we have to do - regarding those issues which I CAN discuss on this thread - is define Adam in a way logically consistent with God's goodness and holiness, such that He doesn't have the world suffering unjustly and unkindly for Adam's sin. That's what I did in the OP and I see no alternative to my view.

The closest I've seen a theologian coming to admitting my view is Millard J. Erickson who admitted in his systematic theology (Christian Theology) that "We were all physically present in Adam, such that we all sinned in his act." (That book is a standard textbook in evangelical seminaries). But so desperate to uphold the mainstream dogma of an immaterial soul indivisible into parts and without size and shape, he corrupts his conclusion with the following gibberish. He claims that the soul is an immaterial soul by nature but, just before God puts it in the body, He converts it to a material soul. Then after death, He reconverts it to an immaterial soul. Total nonsense. That's like saying, "I sat on my chair yesterday, but today I can't sit on it because it is now an immaterial substance with no size and shape and thus is, indeed, nowhere to be found."

I don't fully get why you are so deep into this question. What is your purpose, to prove that God is love, that He is just? We allready know that from scripture. John 3:16-17 etc.

 

[Antoni]

The words in bold do not constitute a viable theodicy. A maximally good God would not visit either the sins of the parents or the consequences of their actions upon innocent children (such as fetuses).

You can't construe God as behaving in a way more callous than any of us would act, and then claim to have a valid theodicy.

That would only be the case if I knew what God knew. If I knew what He knew, (and we will get a revelation of it when we ‘shall see Him as He is’, and all will be revealed), then I am confident not only will it make complete and reasonable sense to me, that I would chose it upon my own children, but you would too as well as all who will face judgment.

 

[JAL]

I think it is more a matter of course. I am watching this sermon on youtube:

It is very good and if you go to 35:45 you will read and hear a very interesting thought!


*In short, because of Adam's sin...humanity could not continue on the course the Creator had for us, because we became unholy (set-apart).

"WE" became unholy? Sin is by definition the result of a freely willed act and therefore the notion of a sinful nature transmitted from Adam to someone other than Adam is a logical absurdity.

The Protestant theolgoian Donald Bloesch admitted in his systematic theology that, on the Protestant view of Adam, the transmission of original sin is a logically insoluble problem. That's putting it mildly. As I said, it's a contradiction in terms.

He himself didn't abandon the Protestant view, but at least he admitted that it leads to logically "insoluble" problems (his word). Understand what he's saying. He's not just admitting it hasn't been solved. He's admitting it cannot be solved. Gee I wonder why? Obviously, because a bona fide contradiction cannot be remedied.

 

[Tone]

"WE" became unholy? Sin is by definition the result of a freely willed act and therefore the notion of a sinful nature transmitted from Adam to someone other than Adam is a logical absurdity.

The Protestant theolgoian Donald Bloesch admitted in his systematic theology that, on the Protestant view of Adam, the transmission of original sin is a logically insoluble problem. That's putting it mildly. As I said, it's a contradiction in terms.

He himself didn't abandon the Protestant view, but at least he admitted that it leads to logically "insoluble" problems (his word). Understand what he's saying. He's not just admitting it hasn't been solved. He's admitting it cannot be solved. Gee I wonder why? Obviously, because a bona fide contradiction cannot be remedied.

Being set apart (holy) for a purpose has little to do with logical formulations.



*The perpetuity of sin is not through His Spirit...His Goodness and Love...rather,it is through the darkness, flesh, and death.

 

[renniks]

Adam as a robot? I wasn't disputing whether Adam had free will or needed to. In fact, in my view Adam's freedom was a logical necessity. What I oppose is the notion that it was logically necessary for his kids to suffer either the guilt or the consequences of his sin. Seems to me only an evil monster would allow such unkindness and injustice.

So, God's an evil monster because your mind can't comprehend why he would allow what? Suffering? Nevermind that you only know what kindness is because God created you in such a way that you could experience it. God didn't have to create kindness or a capability to love or experience beauty. What if the cost of being free or knowing love is to give evil a loophole to invade? Would it be better if God had created a man incapable of these things? Again, the most likely explanation is that this is the best world possible for the maximum satisfaction of both man and God, despite all it's faults.

 

[Neostarwcc]

All Christians including myself believe that God is good and proclaim His goodness.

But what if our doctrines inadvertently extrapolate otherwise? The church clings to two views of Adam:
(1) Adam was our representative. ( Catholics and Protestants)
(2) Adam's sin didn't incriminate us but did have horribly painful consequences for our world. (Orthodox).

I suppose a third view exists.
(3) Adam never literally existed. Biologically we evolved into this horrible world.

All three views unacceptably extrapolate to a God who is hardly the epitome of kindness and thus is either comparatively evil or totally evil. After all, given the power to create a world, any of us would have exercised more kindness than 1,2, and 3.

2,000 years of investigation have demonstrated that only one solution is possible. And the church is well aware of it but has rejected it because it flatly contradicts their dogmatic assumption of an immaterial soul indivisible into parts.

The obvious solution is that God only made one material soul named Adam (even Eve was a physical subsection extracted from Adam's ribs). After Adam sinned, God removed most of that material soul from his body unto a place of suspended animation. When each of us was later conceived, God mated a separate microscopic portion of that sin-stained soul to each of our bodies. In other words, YOU are 100% Adam (not a mixture). YOU are the one who freely chose to eat of the forbidden fruit (although none of us currently remember doing so).

P.S. This remedy isn't a complete solution to the problem of evil. The larger issue is, why would a perfectly kind God allow temptation in the first place? Historically the church has made a pretense of providing satisfactory answers but has patently failed. Problem is I can't discuss this aspect on the current forum as my solution falls under Controversial Theology.

When God gives us new bodies he will give us all bodies that are free from sinning EVER again. It will be completely impossible for us to sin. Forever.

But since Adam and Eve were created with a free will they had the choice whether or not to follow God. They chose disobedience and this world has been plagued with sin ever since. Gods goodness and greatness is proven by a few facts. Since God knew what adam and eve would do if he created the universe and humanity if he wasnt Good he could have chosen to not create us at all. But he loved us and wanted to spend eternity with his children.

Second if God was not good and good at keeping his promise he would have never promised a savior to Adam and Eve. And he would have been completely righteous and just to either let us continue in sin for forever or wipe us all out when he couldnt take it anymore. But again, he loved us and it was because of his goodness that he spared us.

God is good because he created a race that he knew would disobey him and be plagued with sin. He is good because he offers complete forgiveness to us FOREVRR and blot out our sins as if they never happened. God is good because he willingly sacrificed himself on the cross so that salvation could be possible. Not only because he loved his children but because he desired to be with them FOREVER.

 

[JAL]

That would only the case if I knew what God knew. If I knew what He knew, (and we will get a revelation of it when we ‘shall see Him as He is’, and all will be revealed), then I am confident not only will it make complete and reasonable sense to me, that I would chose it upon my own children, but you will too as well as all who will face judgment.

Or we could stop believing nonsense right now and advocate a theology that actually makes sense.

What I mostly object to in the pulpit today is the false sense of security. Most leaders preach with an air of confidence as though they understand quite well what the Bible says, as though their theology is copacetic. I would be more in their favor if they were simply honest enough to regularly admit things like, 'We just don't have know for sure the anwsers. For one thing our theory of Adam seems to contradict the notion of a kind God so it quite possibly needs some reform'.

Projecting a false sense of security is intellectually dishonest, grieves the Holy Spirit as to thereby suppress revival, and doesn't spur on the audience to look for better answers. It stagnates instead of nourishes.

 

[JAL]

So, God's an evil monster because your mind can't comprehend why he would allow what? Suffering? Nevermind that you only know what kindness is because God created you in such a way that you could experience it. God didn't have to create kindness or a capability to love or experience beauty. What if the cost of being free or knowing love is to give evil a loophole to invade? Would it be better if God had created a man incapable of these things? Again, the most likely explanation is that this is the best world possible for the maximum satisfaction of both man and God, despite all it's faults.

I already answered this. You are making false dichotomy. All these things that you regard as valuable such as each of us having free will and the ability to experience kindness and beauty do not logically necessitate a world where unborn fetuses suffer for the actions of their parents.

 

[Tone]

Or we could stop believing nonsense right now and advocate a theology that actually makes sense.

What I mostly object to in the pulpit today is the false sense of security. Most leaders preach with an air of confidence as though they understand quite well what the Bible says, as though their theology is copacetic. I would be more in their favor if they were simply honest enough to regularly admit things like, 'We just don't have know for sure the anwsers. For thing our theory of Adam seems to contradict the notion of a kind God so it quite possibly needs some reform'.

Projecting a false sense of security is intellectually dishonest, grieves the Holy Spirit as to thereby suppress revival, and doesn't spur on the audience to look for better answers. It stagnates instead of nourishes.

After Adam sinned he could not pass on the Ruach (Spirit) he had to his offspring, because in the day he ate he did surely die. The only way to get it back is through Messiah the life giving spirit:

1 Corinthians 15:45
"45So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being;” the last Adam a life-giving spirit."

 

[JAL]

When God gives us new bodies he will give us all bodies that are free from sinning EVER again. It will be completely impossible for us to sin. Forever.

But since Adam and Eve were created with a free will they had the choice whether or not to follow God. They chose disobedience and this world has been plagued with sin ever since.

You wouldn't be so unkind. So one man sins by free will. Fine? So what? Punish the whole world for it? That's ineffably evil.

God is good because he created a race that he knew would disobey him and be plagued with sin.

God seems to be the one who plagued us with sin, in the Protestant view according to which, after Adam sinned, God somehow managed to pollute, corrupt,and infect the rest of us with his sin-tainted soul. Was this an act of kindness in your view?

He is good because he offers complete forgiveness to us FOREVRR and blot out our sins as if they never happened. God is good because he willingly sacrificed himself on the cross so that salvation could be possible. Not only because he loved his children but because he desired to be with them FOREVER.

So he is evil to all the children at the outset, due to Adam's sin, but in the long run He will eventually give them candy and ice cream. That's your theodicy?

 

[JAL]

After Adam sinned he could not pass on the Ruach (Spirit) he had to his offspring, because in the day he ate he did surely die. The only way to get it back is through Messiah the life giving spirit:

1 Corinthians 15:45
"45So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being;” the last Adam a life-giving spirit."

None of this is a logical necesssity. God can create a world where each child pays for his own sins, not the sins of the parent. In fact that's precisely what He did (Ezek 18). The problem is that the Protestant view of Adam contradicts Ezek 18.

 

[Antoni]

Or we could stop believing nonsense right now and advocate a theology that actually makes sense.

Christ crucified is foolishness to those who use human knowledge and reason to define or circumscribe divine knowledge and reason.

 

[Neostarwcc]

You wouldn't be so unkind. So one man sins by free will. Fine? So what? Punish the whole world for it? That's ineffably evil.

God seems to be the one who plagued us with sin, in the Protestant view according to which, after Adam sinned, God somehow managed to pollute, corrupt,and infect the rest of us with his sin-tainted soul. Was this an act of kindness in your view?

So he is evil to all the children at the outset, due to Adam's sin, but in the long run He will eventually give them candy and ice cream. That's your theodicy?

Technically God did not infect us with sin. Adam and Eve did and God warned them ahead of time the dangers of sin and what it would do. Again if he did not care about humanity he could have never warned them. God cursed us after we disobeyed him by making men work hard all of their life and make giving birth an experience that was meant to be painless and wonderful now painful.

God had to curse us and Satan because we disobeyed him and God is a God of justice. God is sinless and love by nature. To not curse us would cause God to sin. But Gods curses had nothing to do with sin entering the world. Sin entered the world because Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit and disobeyed Gods direct command not to eat from it. If God was the one who made us sinful than yes he would have been evil and would have sinned himself. But humanity brought sin into the world by its disobedience.

Has nothing to do with cake and icecream (although I'd love some) . It has to do with Gods mercy because we are ALL guilty. And he would be completely just to separate us from him and punish us all for sinning against him. But it's only because of his mercy and his willingness to die for us that proves his love and that he is good by nature.

 

[JAL]

I don't fully get why you are so deep into this question. What is your purpose, to prove that God is love, that He is just? We allready know that from scripture. John 3:16-17 etc.

My motive is to halt the church from continuing to espouse a position that, in terms of extrapolation, leaves one in doubt as to whether God is an evil monster. As I don't see it conducive to revival. Recall that God consumed Aaron's sons for entering the temple with strange fire. Therefore if we can't be honest about the ways in which our teaching might potentially be slandering God and offensive to Him, how can we expect revival?

My own experience might serve to clarify. The day after I got saved, the Christian most influential upon me approached me in congratulations, asking "Are you excited about your new life in Christ?".

My response, "I feel that I hate Him, and I'm pretty sure I always will. Yes I accepted His salvation because I don't want to go to hell, but I don't know why He would make a world like this."

At that time all I knew about were traditional views of Adam, and traditional views of God.

But when I eventually figured out a theology that seemed to fully make sense in all respects, I finally fell in love with God for good!

 

[JAL]

Christ crucified is foolishness to those who use human knowledge and reason to define or circumscribe divine knowledge and reason.

But that's not what the churches claim. They claim that their conclusions are reasonable and, in fact, the very most reasonable interpretations of Scripture among the options.

Secondly it's not clear from Paul's statement in what sense the cross is foolishness. For example some atheists consider it a logical impossibility - and thus foolishness - for an all-knowing God to become an ignorant man. And they have a cogent argument there. Although it doesn't weigh against my position, since I hold to a non-traditional view of God.

The point is that a person convinced of the Cross by the Spirit will accept it even before he has resolved all the logical problems. That's by direct revelation. But theology as a discipline is not based on direct revelation, but on exegesis, and aims to glean the most reasonable interpretation of the text. That's what I'm seeking here.

 

[com7fy8]

You are assuming that we suffer because of other people, that is, we suffer not because we did something to deserve suffering/punishment, but because God is so unkind and unjust as to permit such injustice.

Other people is only one reason we can suffer. People can suffer because of their own pride nature which is stubborn plus weak enough to suffer.

But "God resists the proud" (in James 4:6, and in 1 Peter 5:5) > it can be for a proud person's own good, how God resists the person; but the person in stubbornness pushes it and suffers because of staying stubborn. But if it were not for God resisting the person, he or she would get into much more cruel stuff which his or her own stubborn nature makes him or her capable of suffering.

But in love the person would have immunity almighty not to be able to be proud and suffering >

"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love.'" (1 John 4:18)

 

[JAL]

Technically God did not infect us with sin. Adam and Eve did and God warned them ahead of time the dangers of sin and what it would do. Again if he did not care about humanity he could have never warned them. God cursed us after we disobeyed him by making men work hard all of their life and make giving birth an experience that was meant to be painless and wonderful now painful.

God had to curse us and Satan because we disobeyed him and God is a God of justice.

"WE" disobeyed? When did all those fetuses - especially the unborn ones - disobey God? Paul said all had sinned and there were plenty of fetuses when he said that. So when did they sin? He says they sinned in Adam. I fail to see how this cogently extrapolates to anything other than my conclusion.

 

[charsan]

This kind of response is proof that you can't refute the arguments.

I don't intend to refute heresy there are people on here that can do that but you will never accept that because your mind and heart are locked to your own ideas.