Adam's Choice to Remain with Eve--The keeping of a commandment and blessing.

[TheQuestioner]

Genesis does not say Eve did not “fear the Lord”. Just because Job says the “fear of the Lord, that is wisdom”, does not mean (I hope) that we aren’t allowed to think for ourselves, and to act from a position and perspective of having thought without having some deep-seated fear in our bosom about God or whether He loves us or whether He will punish us for thinking. It would be pretty high and mighty of a believer in Christ to say that no one else in the world has any wisdom at all than one who “fears the Lord” especially if “Lord” is narrowly defined.

…word? Did you actually just say that? How can anyone who does not fear the Lord have any wisdom? Only those who fear the Lord (whether knowingly or unknowingly) have wisdom. It says so in Job and Proverbs. But to clarify it better, it would mean that any wisdom anyone has comes from any moment they feared the Lord (knowingly or unknowingly). You can’t just pick and choose what you want to believe. And no it does not say Eve “did not fear the Lord”, but sin is pride born out of neglect for the commands of God. And as it says in 1 Timothy 2: 14 “4And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner (in the trangression in Douay-Rheims).”

Genesis does not say “foolish”, nor does that match with what Christ said about “foolish.” A “foolish man” builds his house upon sand rather than the rock of Christ (Matthew 7:26) or is full of hypocrisy (Matthew 23:13-28) or has not read the scriptures and understood that “ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?” (Luke 24:25-26). Those are the uses of the word “foolish” or “fools”.

From Psalm 14:1 “The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good.”

Isaiah 44:9 “All who make idols are nothing, and the things they treasure are worthless. Those who would speak up for them are blind; they are ignorant, to their own shame.”

1 Cor. 15:34 “Come back to your senses as you ought, and stop sinning; for there are some who are ignorant of God—I say this to your shame.”

In their sin they are ignorant to their need for God. This is what happened to man. Look around today, many people are ignorant to their need for God.

Adam and Eve did not loose understanding after the fall. They gained understanding after the fall.

Again, Job 28:28
28 And he said to man,
‘The fear of the Lord—that is wisdom,
and to shun evil is understanding.’ "

Eve did not shun what was evil, she chose evil, and in your arguments you say she willingly chose to bring it in the world. Well then…she gained no understanding.

 

[TheQuestioner]

Continuation to Questioner:
If Moses wrote something by inspiration, then either God said it with the direct communication from God to man that we should be “listening” and “hearkening”, or Moses knew by inspiration that Adam or Eve had been thinking or saying something specific in the situation in the garden of Eden and thereafter. Genesis 2:24 could just as easily be saying that Adam and Eve are going to be given that teaching in the garden of Eden and are going to begin to understand it, as that God gave that teaching and eventually men and women are going to understand it at some future point in time. To me it makes more sense given the sequence, that Adam and Eve were given the teaching and that Moses was inspired to write about it exactly where he wrote about it.

…huh? I have no clue what you mean here.

Perhaps I shouldn’t have used the word “horrible”. I disagree that they “did deserve to be abandoned”. At least you believe the “Lord was merciful to them and all mankind”, but obviously we differ profoundly on how that mercy is extended and what it means to receive it. I think it is evident from Genesis 4:1 that Eve already is aware that mercy has been extended to them and she thus has received a blessing from God.

I don’t disagree that they learned later that mercy had been extended (there is no indication that they knew this before, and i don’t even think there is any indication of this in Nephi) but yes, after the fall man deserved nothing good.

 

[ParkerD]

Paul never talks about death as a good thing, that’s for sure. It has always been one of those sad but necessary things needed to get into heaven. If death was held so highly there would be no reason for angels to rescue Peter from prison.

Questioner,
I am surprised once again, but oh well, I’ll cite the scriptures to show that Paul and John saw that death was indeed necessary and that such a circumstance was not “sad.”

1 Corinthians 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

35 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?
36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:

42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.

48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

2 Timothy 2:11 It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him:

Revelation 14:13 And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them.

No it is not mere opinion. Adam and Eve were not blind and then suddenly saw after the fall. (this would go against the nature of the fall). … Why did their nakedness bring them shame when it had not given them shame before? Did they realized something after the fall? Maybe…

You are correct that they were not blind before the fall. However, they did not see and “know good and evil” until after the fall, as shown in Genesis 3:22

22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:

That is what is meant by the fact that they could now identify that they “were naked.” They could see differently than they had seen before, and saw the need to wear clothing as one of those new differences in how they viewed the world and themselves in it.

To “know good and evil” was to “see” in a way they didn’t see before. This was not expressed as a bad thing, at all, in Genesis 3:22. Now they just needed to not be able to live forever because God knew they had already “sinned” and they would make mistakes and “sin some more” and if they lived forever doing that, they could not return to His presence.

Genesis 3:22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

Rather than post answers to your other comments and thus possibly lose highlighting the importance of this one response, I am going to respond to the others much later today or tonight. These items above are extremely important to understand this entire subject.

 

[wussup]

I hope you don’t mind me putting in my 2 cents here…

I thought I understood the RC Doctrine of the Fall until I read these 15 odd pages of the forum and am now somewhat confused about the Catholic Doctrine of the Fall. So that I don’t misspeak, could you folks contribute to answering some questions I have?

1. What were the commandments given to Adam and Eve?
2. What is the RC position of God putting the Forbidden Tree in the Garden? I ask this one because Parker pointed out that it would be very odd for God to put what would be essentially poison, make it attractive (almost addictive) to His two guests there.
3. Do you believe Jesus was the Christ from the ‘beginning’, i.e., the Alpha and Omega?
4. Do you believe the Holy Ghost was with The Father and The Son ‘from the Beginning’?
5. Was Eve in sin for eating of the forbidden fruit?
6. Was Adam also in transgression?
7. Do you believe Adam and Eve had children in the Garden before the Fall?
8. What was the consequence of the Fall?

Thank you for any efforts to help with these questions. Maybe we have more similarities than differences?

Oh well.

 

[SteveVH]

Oh well.

Wussup, don’t despair. I love the questions you asked and can’t wait to answer them. Just looking for the time to give them justice which probably won’t be until this evening. Maybe someone will get to it before I can.

Steve

 

[SteveVH]

I hope you don’t mind me putting in my 2 cents here…

I thought I understood the RC Doctrine of the Fall until I read these 15 odd pages of the forum and am now somewhat confused about the Catholic Doctrine of the Fall. So that I don’t misspeak, could you folks contribute to answering some questions I have?

1. What were the commandments given to Adam and Eve?

Lets begin with “be fruitfull and multiply”. I want to begin with this because, why I can see that one may interpret the statement as a command, I think it may be something else; a blessing, rather than a commandment.

“God blessed them, saying to them ‘Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth’. God also said: ‘See, I give you every seed-bearing plant all over the earth and every tree that has seed bearing fruit on it to be your food; and to all the animals of the land and the birds of the air, and all living creatures that crawl on the ground, I give all the green plants for food…’” (Gen 1:28-30) (NAB)

Doesn’t it seem, as He was in the process of creation, that His words were more of a creative action - when He spoke, it happened. They would be fruitfull and multiply. The verse begins with “God blessed them”, not “God commanded them”. He was bestowing the gift of one to the other, creating them to be a communion of persons. To be fruitfull and multiply was now their very nature as man and woman. In addition, the statement “be fruitfull and multipy” is just one of the many gifts in a long list. His giving of the earth to them was not a command, but rather a gift of a Father to a son and daughter. No one has to command me to sleep with my wife. What do you think?

Other than the command to cultivate the land and “keep” or “guard” the garden, the only command that I know of was not to eat of the fuit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. “For in the day that you eat of it, you shall die.”

1. What is the RC position of God putting the Forbidden Tree in the Garden? I ask this one because Parker pointed out that it would be very odd for God to put what would be essentially poison, make it attractive (almost addictive) to His two guests there.

What is clear is that they were not suppose to eat the fruit and they disobeyed. What is also clear were the consequences for their disobedience. So, for whatever the reason that God put the tree in the garden, it is obvious that they disobeyed and the consequences were a disaster. While we no little of the true nature of God, we do know that He is absolutely just (for He is Justice), absolutley loving (for he is Love) and we know that placing the tree in the garden was not driven by a tricky or evil motive, but a perfectly just one. Adam and Eve are not off the hook, scripture is abundantly clear on that one. Their disobedience affected all of history.

The Catechism states: “The ‘tree of the knowledge of good and evil’ symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom. Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of. All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.” (CCC par 396-397)

1. Do you believe Jesus was the Christ from the ‘beginning’, i.e., the Alpha and Omega?

The short answer is YES, of course, but I think you’ll find the following quote fascinating, I sure did:

(CCC par 359) “In reality it is only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of man truly becomes clear.”

“St. Paul tells us that the human race takes its origin from two men: Adam and Christ… The first man, Adam, he says, became a living soul, the last Adam a life-giving spirit. The first Adam was made by the last Adam, from whom he also received his soul, to give him life… The second Adam stamped his image on the first Adam when he created him. That is why he took on himself the role and the name of the first Adam, in order that he might not lose what he had made in his own image. The first Adam, the last Adam: the first had a beginning, the last knows no end. The last Adam is indeed the first; as he himself says: I am the first and the last” (CCC par 359; St. Peter Chrysologus, In Gen. Sermo II)

continued…

 

[SteveVH]

Continued…

1. Do you believe the Holy Ghost was with The Father and The Son ‘from the Beginning’?

Again, YES. We believe that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are co-eternal and never act independently from each other. They cannot, for they are One.

“…For as the Trinity has only one and the same nature, so too does it have only one and the same operation: ‘The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not three principals of creation but one principal.’ However each divine person performs the common work according to his unique personal property… ‘one God and Father from whom all things are, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and one Holy Spirit in whom all things are…’” (CCC par 257)

1. Was Eve in sin for eating of the forbidden fruit?

Yes, see No. 2 above.

1. Was Adam also in transgression?

Yes, see No. 2 above.

1. Do you believe Adam and Eve had children in the Garden before the Fall?

No. If Genesis was written with some semblance of sequence they had children after they had been banished from the garden.

1. What was the consequence of the Fall?

“Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness. They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives. The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination. Harmony with creation is broken; visible creation has become alien and hostile to man. Because of man, creation is now subject ‘to its bondage to decay’. Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will ‘return to the ground,’ for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history” (CCC par 399-400)

I would add that original sin was the greatest consequence. “By one man’s disobedience many [that is all men] were made sinners: sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned”. (Rom 5:12, 19)

Thank you for any efforts to help with these questions. Maybe we have more similarities than differences?

That’s my best shot at giving the Catholic view.

God bless.

Steve

 

[wussup]

Lets begin with “be fruitfull and multiply”. I want to begin with this because, why I can see that one may interpret the statement as a command, I think it may be something else; a blessing, rather than a commandment.

Wow! That is a lot of thinking. I have read all of what you said and will get to questioning and nitpicking as it goes on (in the purest sense of the word). The LDS thinker would agree with you here. God gives no commandment that will do anything but bring happiness and joy to the obedient.

His giving of the earth to them was not a command, but rather a gift of a Father to a son and daughter. No one has to command me to sleep with my wife. What do you think?

Dude! That is funny! :clapping:

What is clear is that they were not suppose to eat the fruit and they disobeyed. What is also clear were the consequences for their disobedience. So, for whatever the reason that God put the tree in the garden, it is obvious that they disobeyed and the consequences were a disaster.

As our resident Attorney would notice, motivation is much of the law. Why God put the Temptation is of paramount importance. Another question (which LDS Doctrine or me do not have an answer for) is how long were they in this state? Personally, in terms of time, I can’t help but think it was many many years. Yet as you say, they had no children until after the fall? Why not? It is LDS Doctrine that they did not know ‘how’ to have children until after the fall.

 

[wussup]

Thank you very much for the time you spent on this. It is appreciated.

Some critiques and hoped for responses, and perhaps from my questions you will see a little better LDS Doctrine Re the fall…

1 Timothy 2:14 says, "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.". Clearly, it was a doctrine amoung the Jews that Adam was not in transgression. He was not deceived. There are a number of questions not answered (at least in my mind) sufficiently by RC Doctrine. Perhaps you can explain it.

1. Why was the Tree put in the Garden? Logically, not from an LDS perspective, but from Wussup, it would follow:

• God is omniscient
• As justice and mercy incarnate, he would not deny man his freewill
• While all you say about the command/blessing is true, nevertheless, it is God’s will we populate the Earth (granted, if he told Adam and Eve this from the beginning, are we to understand they heard the command but did not understand how to fulfill it?)* Cause and effect of this existence lead us to believe that ‘something’ about the fall helped bring about Adam and Eve’s desire to procreate
• Part of the Freewill clause is he provided and avenue for the First Couple to forsake paradise for life with a family, the fruit would be partaken of and death would enter the world (as well as life through procreation)
• He ‘planned’ for this by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, thus providing a path for forgiveness and salvation
• Thus we do have two blessings given to Adam and Eve depending on the ultimate road they traveled: a) Obey and not partake and enjoy paradise forever, or b)partake (at least with some awareness of the consequence from Adam’s part, he not being in transgression) and enjoy the pleasures of Fatherhood

It would seem to me that we could spin the ‘command’ function of Genesis 2:17; But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. It would seem to me one could see a hint more of a consequence than a command. Yes, if you eat of this tree, serious consequences will result. These being you will have to leave the Garden, the Earth will not respond as it does here to your will, but rather to your physical force, and you will ‘die’. At this time, what does the word ‘die’ mean to immortal Adam and Eve? Do they have the ability to comprehend such a thing? Did anything die in the garden? I don’t believe so. And so, Eve was talked into partaking of the Fruit by the Serpent. Adam saw what she had done, and he partook also, and [was not in transgression (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?t=KJV&x=0&y=0&b=1Ti&c=2&v=14#).

Anywho, that is a different take on the story, all without referencing a modern day prophet.

 

[ParkerD]

Close, but you missed the mark. They were ashamed because they lusted after each other. This is why they were ashamed… Their disposition is what became shameful, and they looked at each other in a shameful way.

I don’t think this is either a fair judgment or an accurate judgment at all based on the text of Genesis. "To know good and evil"as 3:22 indicates they now had that kind of knowledge, is not the same as being lustful. You have introduced a word with a very negative connotation that has no such comparative word from the text of Genesis 2-3. Genesis 3:10 says Adam says he was afraid because “I was naked”, and he hid because of that. To arrive at a conclusion that he was lustful and that is why he hid, is way off on conjecture with no basis from the Bible.

I’m glad you posted this. See, if we were all Mormon you could just post up 2 Nephi and this conversation would be over:

"If Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created…

“And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin” (2 Nephi 2:22-23.)

However, if what was said in 2 Nephi was so obvious in the Bible then there would have been no need to put it in 2 Nephi in the first place. Like I said, what 2 Nephi says is found nowhere in the Bible, you are trying to defend Mormon doctrine that comes from the Book of Mormon by using only the Bible, and it doesn’t work.

This again is a completely wrong conclusion. 2 Nephi 2 contains the teachings of Lehi, and he had what are called the “Brass Plates” which contained the writings of the Old Testament up to Isaiah including some prophetic writings not in our Old Testament. But your assumption that the Book of Mormon only includes items that are not in the Bible, is mere supposition and shows you haven’t read the Book of Mormon at all (which is OK).

I showed you 1 Kings 3, but I’ll outline everything here because it is either hard for you to see or grasp.

1 Kings 3

4 The king went to Gibeon to offer sacrifices, for that was the most important high place, and Solomon offered a thousand burnt offerings on that altar. 5 At Gibeon the LORD appeared to Solomon during the night in a dream, and God said, "Ask for whatever you want me to give you."(so already we see God offered Solomon anything he wanted because of the burnt offerings)…

7 “Now, O LORD my God, you have made your servant king in place of my father David. But I am only a little child and do not know how to carry out my duties. 8 Your servant is here among the people you have chosen, a great people, too numerous to count or number. 9 So give your servant a discerning heart to govern your people and to distinguish between right and wrong. For who is able to govern this great people of yours?” (you have two options at this point Parker. You can either admit that distinguishing between right and wrong is wisdom as per what you have been claiming with Eve, or you can deny it but destroy your entire argument for Genesis)

10 The Lord was pleased that Solomon had asked for this. 11 So God said to him, "Since (in Douay Rheims translated as “Because”) you have asked for this and not for long life or wealth for yourself, nor have asked for the death of your enemies but for discernment in administering justice, 12 I will do what you have asked.** I will give you a wise and discerning heart**, so that there will never have been anyone like you, nor will there ever be. …(here we see God gave him a “wise and discerning heart” simply **because **Solomon asked for one)

This is fine. You have explained the “why” about Solomon receiving wisdom–both why Solomon desired it (to rule his people) and why God gave it to him (because he asked for it after he had shown that he was righteous.) But none of this explains the “how” of receiving the wisdom he was going to receive.

16 Now two prostitutes came to the king and stood before him…(now we see the next major event in Solomon’s life after the dream was the famous decision between the two women and the baby, for which Solomon was praised for showing extraordinary wisdom)

This example of Solomon’s wisdom is a very good one. He could have taken the situation, said to himself “let’s see–God has promised me wisdom: I should be able to discern which of these women is the true mother of the child, by inspiration from God according to His promise to me.” Then he could have waited for that inspiration…and waited…and waited…and waited.

Instead of just waiting for some inspiration from God (which would be implied in the notion that he did not need to use his experience or some human experience from which to gain wisdom), he used the human experience that is the most relevant of all–that a mother loves her child! This was the wisdom he arrived at–that a mother loves her child, and does not want that child to die. This was not new information that had suddenly arrived into the world through Solomon. Do you think no mother before the moment this woman was standing in front of Solomon, had ever previously loved her child and done something to protect her child?

Solomon drew upon the natural inclination of a mother to love and protect her child, to provide the wise response to the situation and be able to easily figure out who was the true mother of the child, by their reaction to what he wisely proposed to do with the child. (If both had said “OK” to his proposed solution, then he would have known that neither one was the true mother of the child.)

 

[ParkerD]

…word? Did you actually just say that? How can anyone who does not fear the Lord have any wisdom? Only those who fear the Lord (whether knowingly or unknowingly) have wisdom. It says so in Job and Proverbs. But to clarify it better, it would mean that any wisdom anyone has comes from any moment they feared the Lord (knowingly or unknowingly). You can’t just pick and choose what you want to believe. And no it does not say Eve “did not fear the Lord”, but sin is pride born out of neglect for the commands of God. And as it says in 1 Timothy 2: 14 “4And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner (in the trangression in Douay-Rheims).”

So you are saying that you know more than God and Moses, because you decided that Eve’s particular case was a case of “pride” and neither Moses nor God said that in Genesis, but you’re saying it now? I believe the text in Genesis was given by inspiration, but evidently you think it needs to be added to in order to know what Moses meant. I disagree strongly, especially in this case when each word is so very precise and very important.

From Psalm 14:1 “The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good.”

That is a prophetic passage describing the condition that was going to be upon the earth at some point in time–when “there is none that doeth good, no, not one.”–a time when the leaders and the people don’t help the poor, and don’t “call upon the Lord.”

But Eve did “call upon the Lord” and that is shown in Genesis 4:1.

Isaiah 44:9 “All who make idols are nothing, and the things they treasure are worthless. Those who would speak up for them are blind; they are ignorant, to their own shame.”

Yes, indeed–to make an idol from a piece of wood or from molten metal is foolish, and to worship an idol is foolish indeed. This reminds of the prophecy of Moses in Deuteronomy that people would worship “the work of men’s hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell.” (Deuteronomy 4:28) This is a prophecy about the condition Israel was going to be in when they had lost their way and been scattered as a people “among the nations.” (v. 27)

1 Cor. 15:34 “Come back to your senses as you ought, and stop sinning; for there are some who are ignorant of God—I say this to your shame.”

In their sin they are ignorant to their need for God. This is what happened to man. Look around today, many people are ignorant to their need for God.

Agreed that many are ignorant of their need for God, but Eve was never one of those ignorant of the need for God, and she shows that she never was. Her desire for wisdom did not show an ignorance of the need for God. It only showed she thought knowledge of good and evil could bring her and Adam wisdom which they did not have in the garden of Eden.

Again, Job 28:28
28 And he said to man,
‘The fear of the Lord—that is wisdom,
and to shun evil is understanding.’ "

Eve did not shun what was evil, she chose evil, and in your arguments you say she willingly chose to bring it in the world. Well then…she gained no understanding.

To quote that passage in Job is kind of ironic, in that in order to “shun evil” one would need to “see” that evil exists.

You have again introduced a word–“evil”–and said “she chose evil”, which only shows you don’t think Moses gave a sufficiently clear description or used the right words. She chose to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil–this is not the same as “choosing evil”, at all. This is choosing knowledge, and choosing wisdom gained from making choices.

But I suggest that one such as yourself will never be able to see that, even though it is right there, plain to read in Genesis.

 

[ParkerD]

…huh? I have no clue what you mean here.

I don’t disagree that they learned later that mercy had been extended (there is no indication that they knew this before, and I don’t even think there is any indication of this in Nephi) but yes, after the fall man deserved nothing good.

I had cited Genesis 2:24 and you had said that Moses added that knowledge about “a man shall leave his father and his mother” which describes the need to leave home when getting married. I had said it seemed to be added at a particular point in the narrative with application to Adam and Eve as well as to their posterity.

I don’t agree that “man deserved nothing good” after the fall. I think that is a very, very cynical view of God and a very cynical view of man. That is not communicated in Genesis 2-4, at all. God does not show or say that His response is that Adam and Eve “deserve nothing good.”

 

[ParkerD]

To view the situation as Jesus having a “pre-planned mission” may be where some of our differences originate. We believe that Jesus is an eternal, divine Person. In eternity all of history unfolds at once, no past or future. “Pre-planned” implies that He was acting in time and space, rather than eternity. Since we have not experienced eternity, it remains a mystery, not in the sense of a puzzle to be solved, but in the sense that we cannot fully comprehend it. To suggest that sin was part of God’s original plan would mean that sin was part of His will. To say that some of the points I brought up are not reflected in the Bible is not really accurate in my estimation. We draw different conclusions based on the evidence offered in scripture, but we believe the evidence is there to make such conclusions. A Savior was needed precisely because we (along with Adam and Eve) failed and because God loves us “even unto death”. To take the view that God’s original plan was for man to be sinful so that He could save them (“pre-planned mission”) is certainly not the Catholic view.

He did. Jesus is the “New Adam” and Mary is the “new Eve”. Adam and Eve died but may have been redeemed through the “New Adam”, Jesus.

God bless.

Steve

SteveVH,
I disagree that Adam and Eve failed. Moses did not write that they failed. Paul did not write that they failed. God did not show by how He treated them that they had failed. This is adding a connotation that is not in Genesis, nor in the New Testament.

I disagree that for God to have allowed sin to begin to happen was to cause sin to happen and thus to have been “part of His will”. He really, truly could allow Eve and Adam to choose whether they were willing to experience “evil” in their world, and “good” in their world, and to have choices that would lead in those directions, without it being the case that God was making the choice for them or that by allowing evil to exist and thus sin to exist, He was creating evil or creating sin.

As I have said all along, to allow an opposing force in the world and opposite choices than doing good, is to allow for growth by needing to make choices and actually being able to learn from having made wrong choices some of the time. God had a plan that allowed for wrong choices, and planned for the growth of His beloved children, because He knew what would bring them eventual happiness to a greater degree than merely living in His presence without understanding why He was so very, very joyful and full of light.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,
I disagree that Adam and Eve failed. Moses did not write that they failed. Paul did not write that they failed. God did not show by how He treated them that they had failed. This is adding a connotation that is not in Genesis, nor in the New Testament.

Parker, We may be closer than we both realize, but we do differ on some fundamentals. When I say that Adam and Eve failed, I mean they abused their freedom and fell into sin through disobedience of God’s command. Breaking God’s command is pretty much the definition of sin. God did show by how He treated them that they had failed (in the way I just described). As I said in my post to wussup they immediately lost the grace of original holiness, were thrown out of the Garden, were no longer in harmony with the rest of creation, would have to struggle in pain just to live and, they would die. This sin (failure) has changed the history of all creation. Paul said “By one man’s disobedience many [that is all men] were made sinners.” “…sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned.” (Rom 5:12,19)

I disagree that for God to have allowed sin to begin to happen was to cause sin to happen and thus to have been “part of His will”. He really, truly could allow Eve and Adam to choose whether they were willing to experience “evil” in their world, and “good” in their world, and to have choices that would lead in those directions, without it being the case that God was making the choice for them or that by allowing evil to exist and thus sin to exist, He was creating evil or creating sin.

I agree that God’s “allowance” of sin is different than God causing sin. But your conclusion as to what that means differs from mine. You seem to be saying that sin was a necessary part of God’s plan, that without sin Adam and Eve would never be able to “experience evil in their world and good in their world”. They were in the Garden of Eden, walking in the presence of God in a state of original holiness and justice. Yes, they experienced good; God Himself proclaimed that it was “very good”. Your conclusion is that evil was necessary for their spiritual growth somehow. Submitting to the slavery of sin is not “good” for anyone and was not what God wanted. He commanded them not to do it, he didn’t just offer them a choice of “experiences”.

As I have said all along, to allow an opposing force in the world and opposite choices than doing good, is to allow for growth by needing to make choices and actually being able to learn from having made wrong choices some of the time. God had a plan that allowed for wrong choices, and planned for the growth of His beloved children, because He knew what would bring them eventual happiness to a greater degree than merely living in His presence without understanding why He was so very, very joyful and full of light.

Again, you are saying that sin is necessary in order to grow, that they “needed” to make choices. Yes they needed to make choices, but chosing sin is not the right choice. God gave man freedom by giving him a free will, but feedom does not consist in doing whatever we wish. Freedom consists in the ablility to choose good. Chosing evil places us in slavery. Yes they had a choice but they had this choice from the beginning. They made the wrong choice. God had given them all that was necessary for their complete happiness; He gave them dominion over the entire world and God said is was “very good”. Sin brought suffering and death, the antithesis of what God had given them.

I agree that the passion, suffering, death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ has brought us glory beyond all telling, even greater then Adam and Eve experienced in the garden.

"Christ’s inexpressible grace gave us blessings better than those the demon’s envy had taken away. (St. Leo the Great)

“There is nothing to prevent human nature’s being raised up to something greater, even after sin; God permits evil in order to draw forth some greater good. Thus St. Paul says ‘Where sin increase, grace abounded all the more’; and the exultet sings 'O happy fault… which gained for us so great a Redeemer” (St. Thomas Aquinas)

The fact that God overcomes sin with a superabundance of grace does not mean in any way that sin is somehow good or necessary, that is all I am trying to say. In fact, sin has no place in eternal happiness. I will admit that the whole thing is a mystery, something we will not completely understand until we attain heaven.

Thanks for your response Parker. Let me also say that I’m glad to still see you posting. You had me worried there for a moment.

God bless you.

Steve

 

[SteveVH]

Thank you very much for the time you spent on this. It is appreciated.

Some critiques and hoped for responses, and perhaps from my questions you will see a little better LDS Doctrine Re the fall…

1 Timothy 2:14 says, "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.". Clearly, it was a doctrine amoung the Jews that Adam was not in transgression. He was not deceived. There are a number of questions not answered (at least in my mind) sufficiently by RC Doctrine. Perhaps you can explain it.

1. Why was the Tree put in the Garden? Logically, not from an LDS perspective, but from Wussup, it would follow:

• God is omniscient
• As justice and mercy incarnate, he would not deny man his freewill
• While all you say about the command/blessing is true, nevertheless, it is God’s will we populate the Earth (granted, if he told Adam and Eve this from the beginning, are we to understand they heard the command but did not understand how to fulfill it?)* Cause and effect of this existence lead us to believe that ‘something’ about the fall helped bring about Adam and Eve’s desire to procreate
• Part of the Freewill clause is he provided and avenue for the First Couple to forsake paradise for life with a family, the fruit would be partaken of and death would enter the world (as well as life through procreation)
• He ‘planned’ for this by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, thus providing a path for forgiveness and salvation
• Thus we do have two blessings given to Adam and Eve depending on the ultimate road they traveled: a) Obey and not partake and enjoy paradise forever, or b)partake (at least with some awareness of the consequence from Adam’s part, he not being in transgression) and enjoy the pleasures of Fatherhood

It would seem to me that we could spin the ‘command’ function of Genesis 2:17; But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. It would seem to me one could see a hint more of a consequence than a command. Yes, if you eat of this tree, serious consequences will result. These being you will have to leave the Garden, the Earth will not respond as it does here to your will, but rather to your physical force, and you will ‘die’. At this time, what does the word ‘die’ mean to immortal Adam and Eve? Do they have the ability to comprehend such a thing? Did anything die in the garden? I don’t believe so. And so, Eve was talked into partaking of the Fruit by the Serpent. Adam saw what she had done, and he partook also, and [was not in transgression (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?t=KJV&x=0&y=0&b=1Ti&c=2&v=14#).

Anywho, that is a different take on the story, all without referencing a modern day prophet.

Wussup, there is much that you say with which I agree. Something I believe important to keep in mind here is that we are dealing with a poetic genre of writing in the book of Genesis. It certainly wasn’t as simple as Adam and Eve being tempted to eat a piece of fruit. The “Tree of the knowledge of good and evil” may and probably does represent something other than a literal “tree”. The Catechism states that “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.” (CCC par 390)

Yes, I agree that God is omniscient and never interferes in our free will. But lets take a look at the logic of your statement: “Cause and effect of this existence lead us to believe that ‘something’ about the fall helped bring about Adam and Eve’s desire to procreate.”

God gave them the gift of procreation at the beginning; it is listed along with all the other gifts God bestowed on them in the beginning. This is the real sticking point in my disagreement with both you and Parker; that God would give a gift (whether or not also a command) but that the gift could only be realized, or the command obeyed, through disobedience to the very One giving it. That is where the logic begins to unravel in my opinion. God abhors sin, so for Him to weave it into His plan as a necessary component doesn’t make sense. If I am following your logic, if this was God’s plan, then they had to sin in order to obey. That seems illogical.

continued…

 

[SteveVH]

continued…

Looking at it from another perspective and considering God’s omniscience, the fact that He knew from the beginning that Adam and Eve would choose to sin does not mean that He desired it and would make their decision to do so necessary in order for them to procreate. As far as having children after the fall, rather than before, its an interesting point. However, if we read the account literally, they “fell” almost immediately after being created. The length of time in the garden is simply not stated as far as I can see. This is why I said before that the genre of the writing is important to keep in mind. The fact that certain details of the story are missing may speak to the fact that they are not necessary in grasping the meaning of the story. No, I believe that they would have procreated (it was their nature to do so) had they chosen obedience over disobedience. The “command” was given prior to the fall. It is hard for me to believe that God would say “be fruitful and multiply” but you’ll have to disobey me in order to do so. God allowed them to procreate even after they sinned and had a plan in place to save them, out of love, from their sins.

I do agree for the most part with your statement “At this time, what does the word ‘die’ mean to immortal Adam and Eve? Do they have the ability to comprehend such a thing? Did anything die in the garden? I don’t believe so.” We must consider that before the fall Adam and Eve were, in a sense, super-human relative to man after the fall. Their intellects had not yet been darkened. They were having a conversation with the serpent about “death” and had already been told by God that they would “die” if they ate of the tree. Presumably, they had some understanding of death. They didn’t ask God what He meant. To what degree they understood - you’ve got me there. But would it be fair for God to warn them of a consequence that they could not understand? I remember my son trying to stick a paper clip into a wall socket. He was about two. He didn’t understand electricity but I did communicate the fact that it would really, really hurt him. He tried it again anyway until I popped him on the butt.

Its getting really late and I do have to work in the morning. I’ll revisit this tomorrow as I realize I haven’t yet addressed all of your points.

God bless you.

Steve

 

[ParkerD]

Parker, We may be closer than we both realize, but we do differ on some fundamentals. When I say that Adam and Eve failed, I mean they abused their freedom and fell into sin through disobedience of God’s command. Breaking God’s command is pretty much the definition of sin. God did show by how He treated them that they had failed (in the way I just described). As I said in my post to wussup they immediately lost the grace of original holiness, were thrown out of the Garden, were no longer in harmony with the rest of creation, would have to struggle in pain just to live and, they would die. This sin (failure) has changed the history of all creation. Paul said “By one man’s disobedience many [that is all men] were made sinners.” “…sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned.” (Rom 5:12,19)

I agree that God’s “allowance” of sin is different than God causing sin. But your conclusion as to what that means differs from mine. You seem to be saying that sin was a necessary part of God’s plan, that without sin Adam and Eve would never be able to “experience evil in their world and good in their world”. They were in the Garden of Eden, walking in the presence of God in a state of original holiness and justice. Yes, they experienced good; God Himself proclaimed that it was “very good”. Your conclusion is that evil was necessary for their spiritual growth somehow. Submitting to the slavery of sin is not “good” for anyone and was not what God wanted. He commanded them not to do it, he didn’t just offer them a choice of “experiences”.

Again, you are saying that sin is necessary in order to grow, that they “needed” to make choices. Yes they needed to make choices, but chosing sin is not the right choice. God gave man freedom by giving him a free will, but feedom does not consist in doing whatever we wish. Freedom consists in the ablility to choose good. Choosing evil places us in slavery. Yes they had a choice but they had this choice from the beginning. They made the wrong choice. God had given them all that was necessary for their complete happiness; He gave them dominion over the entire world and God said it was “very good”. Sin brought suffering and death, the antithesis of what God had given them.

I agree that the passion, suffering, death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ has brought us glory beyond all telling, even greater then Adam and Eve experienced in the garden.

“There is nothing to prevent human nature’s being raised up to something greater, even after sin; God permits evil in order to draw forth some greater good. Thus St. Paul says ‘Where sin increase, grace abounded all the more’; and the exultet sings 'O happy fault… which gained for us so great a Redeemer” (St. Thomas Aquinas)

The fact that God overcomes sin with a superabundance of grace does not mean in any way that sin is somehow good or necessary, that is all I am trying to say. In fact, sin has no place in eternal happiness. I will admit that the whole thing is a mystery, something we will not completely understand until we attain heaven.

Thanks for your response Parker.
God bless you.

Steve

SteveVH,
We are a world apart in our view of this world.

I view it as still “very good” and that God truly had omniscience at all times and therefore knew that Eve and Adam would make the choices they made, before they made them, and knew there would be a requirement for a Redeemer, before they made the choices they made that eventuated the requirement for an opportunity of Redeeming grace through the planned and necessary atonement of Christ.

I view the words you have chosen to bring into interpreting the Genesis account–words such as “failed” (not in Genesis), “original holiness” (not in Genesis), “harmony with the rest of creation” (not in Genesis), “struggle in pain just to live” (not in Genesis), and certainly the idea that every sin is “slavery” and “this sin (failure) changed the history of all creation” as being wrong choices of words, not intended as the meaning conveyed by Moses. If he had meant for the account to have said those words, the account would have used those words or something very close to those meanings.

If your view is that God is the “first cause of all creation” then how can something happen by the choice of the created people whom He placed into a situation where they, having been created by Him with every single attribute they had, would choose “failure” and yet that not be some sort of failure of God since He created them and gave them their attributes plus placed them in a position where it was obvious they would fail (given Eve’s personality and given the opportunity presented to gain wisdom through their eyes being opened to see “good and evil”)?

 

[ParkerD]

SteveVH,
Continuation:

I guess I would perhaps learn something about your thinking if you were to convey answers to two questions:

1–What would have been the “history of all creation” in the ideal world, the “very good” world, you are thinking God wanted this world to have been?

2–What are the reasons God made humankind and placed them into this world if it was supposed to have been a world with only “good” and no “pain” and no “death.” Would there have been a need for a Redeemer had Adam and Eve not partaken of the forbidden fruit, in your view?

Aside from getting an answer to those particular questions, I really do think there is no use “beating a dead horse” and my original intent wherein I thought people could read the Genesis account and see the points I have tried to make, was simply not possible given all of the words that have been put into the thinking process that clouds the words that are actually there such that those words can’t speak for themselves. But I would be curious to know the answers to those particular questions, just for the sake of clarity about what you really mean.

(P.S. I think Paul’s writing in Romans 5 was conveying the importance of the grace of Christ through His atonement and death and resurrection, and was not describing a condition of “original sin” that was passed on to all humankind even though verse 19 can be used to mean that, except that “made sinners” is counterpointed by "made righteous, and both do not imply it is a forced situation. But I’m sure any Catholic would strongly disagree, of course.)

Peace to you and all.

 

[zaffiroborant]

SteveVH,

I view the words you have chosen to bring into interpreting the Genesis account–words such as “failed” (not in Genesis), “original holiness” (not in Genesis), “harmony with the rest of creation” (not in Genesis), “struggle in pain just to live” (not in Genesis), and certainly the idea that every sin is “slavery” and “this sin (failure) changed the history of all creation” as being wrong choices of words, not intended as the meaning conveyed by Moses. If he had meant for the account to have said those words, the account would have used those words or something very close to those meanings.

It’s kind of funny you saying “(not in Genesis)” over and over since you’ve spent so much of the thread creating monologues from Adam and Eve putting scores of thoughts in their heads and words in their mouths that are (not in Genesis).

 

[ParkerD]

It’s kind of funny you saying “(not in Genesis)” over and over since you’ve spent so much of the thread creating monologues from Adam and Eve putting scores of thoughts in their heads and words in their mouths that are (not in Genesis).

Yes, but I followed the logic of the words as they are written with the direct meaning, and the logic of human nature as it has been studied for thousands of years–not “fallen human nature”–just the nature of the instinctive human condition that anyone can study and figure out using the people around them or the people from history.