Adam and Eve

  • Thread starter Thread starter bmullins
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes. They could have. And if they had not fallen, we would all be living in Paradise.

The ability to bear children isn’t a punishment. Because of the fall, the physical consequences were increased (children could be born dead, or deformed, the mother could die in childbirth, and the normal physical pains were greatly increased), but the nature of men and women, the desire for the two to be one and to bear children, was there ‘before the fall.’
 
In looking to Genesis: if Adam and Eve had children before the fall, Genesis is silent on the matter, just as it is silent as to whether the two had more children that Abel, Cain, and Seth. I would venture to say, though I do not know if there is an official Church-supported answer to this question, that they certainly could have had children.
 
bmullins said:
Could Adam and Eve have children before the fall?
Click to expand...
Thomas Aquinas thought so, and at any rate in Genesis 1:28 God says to Adam and Eve (before the fall) “God blessed them saying 'be fertile and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it…”
 
Safia said:
In looking to Genesis: if Adam and Eve had children before the fall, Genesis is silent on the matter, just as it is silent as to whether the two had more children that Abel, Cain, and Seth. I would venture to say, though I do not know if there is an official Church-supported answer to this question, that they certainly could have had children.
Click to expand...
Gen. 5:4 (Douay-Rheims): And the days of Adam, after he begot Seth, were eight hundred years; and he begot sons and daughters.

In the Genesis account, Adam and Eve were given the command to multiply and fill the earth before the Fall. Surely they were allowed to fulfil this command; wouldn’t it have been a kind of Fall if they hadn’t?
 
Why would the serpent wait nine months before tempting Eve?

Wouldn’t he do it right away?
 
Adam and Eve vould well have had children before the Fall but they would not have been immune to its effects. Original sin is not inherited genetically but spiritually. We are not isolated individuals but members of the same body: the human race.

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called “concupiscence”. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.
 
anodos said:
Gen. 5:4 (Douay-Rheims): And the days of Adam, after he begot Seth, were eight hundred years; and he begot sons and daughters.

In the Genesis account, Adam and Eve were given the command to multiply and fill the earth before the Fall. Surely they were allowed to fulfil this command; wouldn’t it have been a kind of Fall if they hadn’t?
Click to expand...
Which Saturday? 😉 (That may or may not be relevant!)
 
Safia said:
In looking to Genesis: if Adam and Eve had children before the fall, Genesis is silent on the matter, just as it is silent as to whether the two had more children that Abel, Cain, and Seth. I would venture to say, though I do not know if there is an official Church-supported answer to this question, that they certainly could have had children.
Click to expand...
Genesis 5:4
And the days of Adam, after he begot Seth, were eight hundred years: and he begot sons and daughters.
 
Actually, Catholic teaching is that the state of original sin is transmitted by human propagation. It is one’s human nature deprived of original holiness that is transmitted from Adam through his descendants down to us. The concept of a wounded human nature (both soul and body) rules out other theories.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition has a section titled “The consequences of Adam’s sin for humanity” paragraphs 402 - 406. Do continue to the section titled “A hard battle…” paragraphs 407-409. It is helpful to read all the paragraphs in these sections.

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/402.htm

One can enter the Catechism at this paragraph. Use the first listed option.
 
danserr said:
Thomas Aquinas thought so, and at any rate in Genesis 1:28 God says to Adam and Eve (before the fall) “God blessed them saying 'be fertile and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it…”
Click to expand...
That they could have children, yes, but faith tells us they did not have any until after the fall.
🙂
 
We are taught that all mankind from our first parents was denied sanctifying grace because of their first sin.

But if our first parents had children before they lost sanctifying grace, then the children before the first sin would be with sanctifying grace, and therefore all their children would be with sanctifying grace. In this case, there would be a mixture of people with and without sanctifying grace. How would this reconcile with mixed marriges of one person with grace and another without grace? Would the children of this marriage be with grace or without grace?

Secondly, withdrawing grace from our first parents was for their personal sin. Would it be right for grace to be withdrawn from offspring who did nothing wrong? This does not fit with our teaching of how grace is lost today.

Just a thought.
 
Safia said:
just as it is silent as to whether the two had more children that Abel, Cain, and Seth.
Click to expand...
Which Genesis are you looking at?

[BIBLEDRB]Genesis 5:4[/BIBLEDRB]

That’s not silent to me.
 
fred_conty said:
We are taught that all mankind from our first parents was denied sanctifying grace because of their first sin.

But if our first parents had children before they lost sanctifying grace, then the children before the first sin would be with sanctifying grace, and therefore all their children would be with sanctifying grace. In this case, there would be a mixture of people with and without sanctifying grace. How would this reconcile with mixed marriges of one person with grace and another without grace? Would the children of this marriage be with grace or without grace?

Secondly, withdrawing grace from our first parents was for their personal sin. Would it be right for grace to be withdrawn from offspring who did nothing wrong? This does not fit with our teaching of how grace is lost today.

Just a thought.
Click to expand...
Very good point. Adam and Eve were technically able to have children before the fall, but they were not given the chance, because God’s plan was to “bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all” (Romans 11:32)
 
Shlomo said:
Very good point. Adam and Eve were technically able to have children before the fall, but they were not given the chance, because God’s plan was to “bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all” (Romans 11:32)
Click to expand...
Re: Context for Romans 11: 32.
To understand the relationship of Jesus Christ to the first human Adam and us, please read “Triumph of God’s Mercy.” Romans 11: 30-36. For additional teaching on this important doctrine of Original Sin and the Salvific Mission of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, please read Romans 5: 12-21.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top