The Fall From Grace involved just the Eating Fruit?

[Radrook]

That is a statement that was recently made in a discussion concerning the importance of accepting the Genesis account as actual historical fact. I think that the following reply is very important in furthering a Christian understanding of the issues that emerged in during that Edenic event.


No, the fall wasn't caused over a simple insignificant matter of having a right to eat or not to eat fruit.
Such description of the event overlooks very significant issues which arose at Eden. Those issues are totally unrelated on whether it was a fruit involved or not. It could have been a piece of cake or any other prohibition over anything which could represent the right to choose for yourself without regard to God what is morally right or wrong. The rebellious behavior itself constituted a demand for moral independence from God, to be like him in setting up moral standards. God granted that symbolic request for moral independence, but the effects, as had been warned, were costly.

But other issues concerning the right to universal sovereignty and the relation of God's creatures to that sovereignty were involved. That is demonstrated in the account of Job where the Devil is shown expressing his views concerning why God's creatures choose to serve him. God is depicted as buying loyalty via material gifts with the purpose of preventing man from being morally independent. In that way Satan sought to malign all those obedient to God [including angels] as selfish and to tag God, once more, as a dictating tyrant who wanted to keep his creatures unjustly under his foot via bribery. That's why in Revelation he is described as the accuser of our brothers who accuses them day and night before our God.

Such a accusation against God's right to rule the universe needed to be resolved and the immediate destruction of Satan was not the answer. Instead, time was needed to allow the challenge to be refuted to the fullest extent. To permit mankind the attempt to wing it on its own under the guidance of the one who claimed God's way was wrong. To permit mankind to reach the zenith of technological sophistication. To allow a rebuttal if the accusation that all of God's creatures would buckle under and curse God if things went badly for them. the prinmary refuatation of that accusation being Jesus followed by other faithful men and angls who have remained faithful despite everything leeled against them. Once those issues had been resolved to their fullest, then God could step in and restore things to their original state.

So the fall wasn't just a matter of just eating a piece of fruit.

 

[Greg J.]

...
Such a accusation against God's right to rule the universe needed to be resolved and the immediate destruction of Satan was not the answer. Instead, time was needed to allow the challenge to be refuted to the fullest extent.

Why was there a need?

 

[Sammy-San]

That is a statement that was recently made in a discussion concerning the importance of accepting the Genesis account as actual historical fact. I think that the following reply is very important in furthering a Christian understanding of the issues that emerged in during that Edenic event.


No, the fall wasn't caused over a simple insignificant matter of having a right to eat or not to eat fruit.
Such description of the event overlooks very significant issues which arose at Eden. Those issues are totally unrelated on whether it was a fruit involved or not. It could have been a piece of cake or any other prohibition over anything which could represent the right to choose for yourself without regard to God what is morally right or wrong. The rebellious behavior itself constituted a demand for moral independence from God, to be like him in setting up moral standards. God granted that symbolic request for moral independence, but the effects, as had been warned, were costly.

But other issues concerning the right to universal sovereignty and the relation of God's creatures to that sovereignty were involved. That is demonstrated in the account of Job where the Devil is shown expressing his views concerning why God's creatures choose to serve him. God is depicted as buying loyalty via material gifts with the purpose of preventing man from being morally independent. In that way Satan sought to malign all those obedient to God [including angels] as selfish and to tag God, once more, as a dictating tyrant who wanted to keep his creatures unjustly under his foot via bribery. That's why in Revelation he is described as the accuser of our brothers who accuses them day and night before our God.

Such a accusation against God's right to rule the universe needed to be resolved and the immediate destruction of Satan was not the answer. Instead, time was needed to allow the challenge to be refuted to the fullest extent. To permit mankind the attempt to wing it on its own under the guidance of the one who claimed God's way was wrong. To permit mankind to reach the zenith of technological sophistication. To allow a rebuttal if the accusation that all of God's creatures would buckle under and curse God if things went badly for them. the prinmary refuatation of that accusation being Jesus followed by other faithful men and angls who have remained faithful despite everything leeled against them. Once those issues had been resolved to their fullest, then God could step in and restore things to their original state.

So the fall wasn't just a matter of just eating a piece of fruit.

What is your view on the purpose of them being tempted?

 

[Radrook]

What is your view on the purpose of them being tempted?

The option of obedience or disobedience was placed there in order for them to demonstrate a voluntary appreciation and respect for what God had done for them. Which was provided them with life in paradise Earth.

 

[Sammy-San]

The option of obedience or disobedience was placed there in order for them to demonstrate a voluntary appreciation and respect for what God had done for them. Which was provided them with life in paradise Earth.

Do you think people would have gone to Heaven if the Fall didn't happen?

 

[Radrook]

Do you think people would have gone to Heaven if the Fall didn't happen?

The promise of going to heaven came about via the Ransom Sacrifice of Jesus which was provided for our sins. Had mankind remained sinless then Jesus' would have never needed to die and the New Covenant, which involves the promise of a heavenly reward and the shedding of Jesus' blood would have never come into existence.

Luke 22: 20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

John 14:2
“In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.”

That doesn't mean that the Earth is to be abandoned:

Isaiah 45:18
“For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.”

Isaiah 65:17
"For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; And the former things will not be remembered or come to mind.

Peter 3:13
But in keeping with God's promise, we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.