The Fortunate Fall, was it fortunate for mankind that we fell?
I do understand that this is a position held by the Mormon church. I, however, am not interested in debating for or against Mormonism per say. I am interested in the theology and reasoning behind whether the fall of Adam, thereby the fall of mankind, was a fortunate or unfortunate thing. I'm looking for reasoning and biblical reference.
The general concept, to me (I am not aware of the debate issues), seems to revolve around the ultimate state of mankind, i.e., the glorified man. Anyone saying that the fall was a fortunate thing for mankind would seem to suggest that Adam (thereby mankind) could only attain the state of Able to Sin, Able not to Sin (posse peccare, posse non peccare), which is not the ultimate state of mankind, which is posse non peccare (meaning Not Able to Sin). This postition, of the fall being fortunate, would hold that Adam was created perfect and complete in regard to how Adam could possibly be (both of these terms would need to be defined for a proper discussion). Thus, being created perfect and complete, Adam had no path to posse non peccare (Able Not to Sin).
This position, that the fall was fortunate would seem to require one of few lines of thought; (1) God had a plan and it was thrwarted by sin so he went to plan B, (2) The final end of mankind has always been tied to sin. We had to sin to get to our ultimate state. As Orson F. Whiteney said in 1908, “Adam’s fall was a step downward,” but teach that “it was also a step forward . . . in the eternal march of human progress.”
1. Was the fall fortunate of unfortunate?
2. Was Adam created complete with no path toward glorified man?
3. Did mankind have to sin so that our ultimate state of posse non peccare could be achieved? (Is sin necessary)
Thank you for your responses in advance
I do understand that this is a position held by the Mormon church. I, however, am not interested in debating for or against Mormonism per say. I am interested in the theology and reasoning behind whether the fall of Adam, thereby the fall of mankind, was a fortunate or unfortunate thing. I'm looking for reasoning and biblical reference.
The general concept, to me (I am not aware of the debate issues), seems to revolve around the ultimate state of mankind, i.e., the glorified man. Anyone saying that the fall was a fortunate thing for mankind would seem to suggest that Adam (thereby mankind) could only attain the state of Able to Sin, Able not to Sin (posse peccare, posse non peccare), which is not the ultimate state of mankind, which is posse non peccare (meaning Not Able to Sin). This postition, of the fall being fortunate, would hold that Adam was created perfect and complete in regard to how Adam could possibly be (both of these terms would need to be defined for a proper discussion). Thus, being created perfect and complete, Adam had no path to posse non peccare (Able Not to Sin).
This position, that the fall was fortunate would seem to require one of few lines of thought; (1) God had a plan and it was thrwarted by sin so he went to plan B, (2) The final end of mankind has always been tied to sin. We had to sin to get to our ultimate state. As Orson F. Whiteney said in 1908, “Adam’s fall was a step downward,” but teach that “it was also a step forward . . . in the eternal march of human progress.”
1. Was the fall fortunate of unfortunate?
2. Was Adam created complete with no path toward glorified man?
3. Did mankind have to sin so that our ultimate state of posse non peccare could be achieved? (Is sin necessary)
Thank you for your responses in advance