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

[TheQuestioner]

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.

You realize that if nakedness was evil God would have clothed them right from the start right? But he said “it is very good” when He made man, even though he was naked. This indicates that nakedness was not evil in and of itself, there is an internal property that makes it shameful.

You have to be careful when talking about creation, especially when you point one aspect of it as shameful, but that Adam and Eve did not know it was. The question is then asked “if it was so shameful in and of itself then why didn’t God clothe them?” And suddenly God Himself seems imperfect.

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.

Of course it was a bad thing that man “knew good and evil”. We lost our privilage to immortality because of it. Remember death comes from sin, not God. God did not create death, but death entered into the world from sin.

1 Cor. 15

53For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory."g]
55"Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting?"h] 56The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Why is sin “the sting of death”? And why must death be overcome? Why must there be a victory against it if it was such a blessing God gave us from the garden?

Romans 5

12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned—

God did not create death, but it entered the world through sin. How then can you say death is a good thing since it comes from sin? God did not create death and say “it is good”, nor did He create sin.

 

[TheQuestioner]

Parker,

You have taken up a very dangerous position. You tried to explain the Fall in an incorrect manner. Instead of admitting you were wrong, you have made compromise after compromise. Now you have wormed your way into the position of saying things like:

“sin is ok with God and God-willed”

and

“Sin is not sin as long as you recognize it as a sin (what?) and go to Christ”

and

“death is a good thing”

Certainly they may be used for good, but they are in and of themselves are not good. Neither are they ok with God. They are only tolerated, and not forever, as God Himself will put an end to these things one day. You have taken on positions that are not only contrary to Catholic but Mormon doctrines (I hope anyway). To say the fall had to happen so we could gain wisdom is a phrase that reeks of gnosticism (salvation through knowledge and wisdom, and not by the saving grace of Christ). In this case Rebbecca has pointed out your flaws.

You tried to defend Mormon doctrine using the Bible only and you failed. Admit that you failed and move on.

 

[ParkerD]

But that doesn’t answer the question. Would you say, “Do not go…” using those specific words? (Those are the words used in Genesis (“Do not”) - not a long explanation about choices.)

And with the part of your quote I bolded above, why would you have made a commandment against what you really wanted them to do in the first place?

I’m still not seeing your logic in your analogy. I still think SteveVH’s analogy portrays your position better, at least as far as you have presented it in this thread.

Jay53,
I think I won’t try and break down the reasons SteveVH’s analogy don’t reflect my position, since it would be futile as I’ve already restated my position and given the analogy that does reflect my position, so if it doesn’t match what you thought my position was that merely means I hadn’t explained myself well enough to have been clearly understood.

The reason for the words “thou shalt not eat of it” thus making the eating of that particular fruit the breaking of a commandment, is that by eating that fruit Eve and Adam would go into a world of choices where they and their posterity would often make the wrong choice which God knew perfectly well since He is omniscient about the future and omniscient about the imperfection of humankind.

Of course God also knew that by making those wrong choices, every person so choosing would be unclean and impure and thus be continuously shut out from being in His presence eternally.

So the plan for the rescue from the effects of those wrong choices must be built into the plan that allowed Adam and Eve to choose to go into that world (school) where the learning of wisdom was the ultimate choice. In other words, that one particular choice needed to be a “sin” so that they would be subject to spiritual death (i.e. being eternally shut out of the presence of God) because they were going to immediately go into a condition where God knew they would indeed be less than perfect and would sin in other choices they were going to make and their children were going to make. Therefore, they immediately would need a Redeemer to suffer the penalties of that one sin and all the other upcoming sins, and if they did not consider themselves “spiritually dead” they would not be humble enough to claim the blessings of their Redemption and allow themselves to not only be Redeemed, but be changed in their hearts by the Master teacher and by the Holy Spirit coming into their lives as the Sanctifier and Comforter.

That is why I would have had the prior audacity to say “I choose to fall also” in that I recognize that by acknowledging the need to fall, I also acknowledge the need to be Redeemed from my fall and recognize that without Christ as the Master teacher and the Holy Spirit as the Sanctifier and Comforter, I would be nowhere good in my life because I am indeed imperfect and need to learn from Them and be changed by Them. I need to be “reborn” spiritually, period, when I begin to make choices in my own life that reflect knowledgeable choices. If I didn’t acknowledge that I “spiritually died” before I was “spiritually reborn” then I didn’t really sufficiently allow myself to “spiritually die”. I needed to “die carnally” to be “awakened spiritually” and spiritually return to the presence of God in this world (by having the Holy Spirit in my life) and be enabled to return to the physical presence of God in the eternal world to come, through the grace of our Redeemer.

 

[ParkerD]

I’d also like to know what anyone who views Adam and Eve’s choice as “good” sees as the significance of Satan being the one who is tempting Adam and Eve to disobey God.

If this sin of partaking of the fruit was simply a “choice” that would bring wisdom and good to Adam and Eve, why is it Satan and not God who is doing the tempting? (Particularly if one believes that God, as a Perfect Parent WANTED Adam and Eve to make that choice.)

Satan, who admittedly deliberately rebelled against God is the one trying to make Adam and Eve make the “choice” to disobey God. Do we think that Satan somehow had Adam and Eve’s best interests at heart? He was so good natured that he wanted them (and us) to have this wonderful freedom to grow in wisdom and learn?

Even today, he tempts all of us into disobeying God and His commandments because it gives us “choices” and the freedom to grow in wisdom?

Jay53,
First, please understand that the idea must be clearly in mind that what God WANTED was for Adam and Eve to have a choice with consequences, and that it be their choice in the matter. The Perfect Parent could think “wisdom is a good choice for them to make if they want wisdom” or “staying in the garden of Eden with no wisdom available to them is a good choice if that is what they want to do.” In other words, either choice is a “good choice” if it is what they want to do–what matters is that they choose what they want, and live by the choice they make.

The Perfect Parent would obviously never deceive nor tell half-truths, although giving knowledge only when we ask sincerely with full purpose of heart and full intent to live by the knowledge given. But by allowing Lucifer as the serpent to tempt Eve, this matches what is written in Revelation 12:9-11. Those who overcome “the accuser of our brethren” “by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony” do so because that accuser has indeed been cast out of Heaven and been cast “out into the earth” along with his followers (“angels”) who will deceive and tell half-truths whenever they are listened to. This means God has allowed this to happen. It means He allows the Tempter to tempt, but that ultimately the blood of the Lamb will overcome the effects of the fall and the effects of all the other sins if they are repented of by the person who has sinned, through and only through the blood of the Lamb.

You asked if Satan had Adam and Eve’s “best interests at heart.” I would answer “obviously not”. He obviously wanted to both interrupt God’s plan and purposes of free will and choice being allowed, and wanted to be followed himself and thus replace the Master teacher in the minds of the students. But what Eve did, even though she said she was “beguiled”, was reflected in what Moses said about her thinking in Genesis 3:6 so although the serpent had indeed “beguiled” her, she had more on her mind than what the serpent had said. She had in mind the original issue at hand–that knowledge of good and evil could eventuate the possibility of learning wisdom, even though it meant the eventuality of having pain and having to die.

She “blamed” the serpent for her choice, but she should have admitted that she only had herself to “blame”. Satan would have had occasion at that moment to think he had “won” by placing into the mind of Eve a temptation about the fruit, but we know that he will indeed ultimately “lose” even though God cast him out of Heaven, down to the earth with the possibility and allowance that while here he will tempt humankind, often using half-truths and false promises (deceptions).

Have a good day. I certainly don’t have the assumption that this will finally make “sense” to you–but it makes sense to me.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker,

You have taken up a very dangerous position. You tried to explain the Fall in an incorrect manner. Instead of admitting you were wrong, you have made compromise after compromise. Now you have wormed your way into the position of saying things like:

“sin is ok with God and God-willed”

and

“Sin is not sin as long as you recognize it as a sin (what?) and go to Christ”

and

“death is a good thing”

Certainly they may be used for good, but they are in and of themselves are not good. Neither are they ok with God. They are only tolerated, and not forever, as God Himself will put an end to these things one day. You have taken on positions that are not only contrary to Catholic but Mormon doctrines (I hope anyway). To say the fall had to happen so we could gain wisdom is a phrase that reeks of gnosticism (salvation through knowledge and wisdom, and not by the saving grace of Christ). In this case Rebbecca has pointed out your flaws.

You tried to defend Mormon doctrine using the Bible only and you failed. Admit that you failed and move on.

Questioner,
What I will admit is that we are not even in the same world with our thoughts. I allow that you can have whatever world you choose to have, but it is so far off of being scripturally based and what you have said about me is so off base that we have no communication going on so to try and do so is entirely futile. I don’t care what you think about me or my choices in life or the fact that I admit I commit communication sins with those I love, and fall short and need the Redeemer and His redeeming grace and am grateful for His grace beyond my ability to express.

You have the world you choose to have–but it’s not my world. We are worlds apart, and haven’t communicated from square one. I simply can’t help that situation, though I tried.

 

[Stephen168]

Adam and Eve were given two commandments:

1. Be fruitful and multiply (Genesis 1:28)
2. Do not eat of the tree of knowledge (Genesis 2:16-7)

The commandments conflict: Adam and Eve were unable to have children in the Garden of Eden and were unable to keep the greater commandment that they had been given, to multiply and replenish the earth.(BoM 2 Nephi 2:22-23)

Solution to conflict: God gave Adam and Eve a higher and a lower commandment - multiply on one hand (higher), or avoid the tree of knowledge of good and evil on the other (lower). Disobeying the lower commandant allowed Adam and Eve to obey the higher commandment.

Result of the fall: The earth could be populated and Jesus would come and bring us grace. The Fall is a good thing

The problem with the Mormon view is the conflict was made up, just like the book it came from. The conflict is not biblical. What is biblical: all sin is bad and God is good.

 

[Jay53]

Jay53,
First, please understand that the idea must be clearly in mind that what God WANTED was for Adam and Eve to have a choice with consequences, and that it be their choice in the matter. The Perfect Parent could think “wisdom is a good choice for them to make if they want wisdom” or “staying in the garden of Eden with no wisdom available to them is a good choice if that is what they want to do.” In other words, either choice is a “good choice” if it is what they want to do–what matters is that they choose what they want, and live by the choice they make.

The Perfect Parent would obviously never deceive nor tell half-truths, although giving knowledge only when we ask sincerely with full purpose of heart and full intent to live by the knowledge given. But by allowing Lucifer as the serpent to tempt Eve, this matches what is written in Revelation 12:9-11. Those who overcome “the accuser of our brethren” “by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony” do so because that accuser has indeed been cast out of Heaven and been cast “out into the earth” along with his followers (“angels”) who will deceive and tell half-truths whenever they are listened to. This means God has allowed this to happen. It means He allows the Tempter to tempt, but that ultimately the blood of the Lamb will overcome the effects of the fall and the effects of all the other sins if they are repented of by the person who has sinned, through and only through the blood of the Lamb.

You asked if Satan had Adam and Eve’s “best interests at heart.” I would answer “obviously not”. He obviously wanted to both interrupt God’s plan and purposes of free will and choice being allowed, and wanted to be followed himself and thus replace the Master teacher in the minds of the students. But what Eve did, even though she said she was “beguiled”, was reflected in what Moses said about her thinking in Genesis 3:6 so although the serpent had indeed “beguiled” her, she had more on her mind than what the serpent had said. She had in mind the original issue at hand–that knowledge of good and evil could eventuate the possibility of learning wisdom, even though it meant the eventuality of having pain and having to die.

She “blamed” the serpent for her choice, but she should have admitted that she only had herself to “blame”. Satan would have had occasion at that moment to think he had “won” by placing into the mind of Eve a temptation about the fruit, but we know that he will indeed ultimately “lose” even though God cast him out of Heaven, down to the earth with the possibility and allowance that while here he will tempt humankind, often using half-truths and false promises (deceptions).

Have a good day. I certainly don’t have the assumption that this will finally make “sense” to you–but it makes sense to me.

You’re right - it doesn’t make sense to me.

In your previous post you actually used the words that Adam and Eve “needed to “sin”” - implying that sin was part of God’s plan and Will.

You say that Satan wanted to interrupt God’s plan of free will and choice, but I don’t think that’s true at all. Adam and Eve already HAD free will and choice in the Garden of Eden - thus the fact that they chose to disobey God. Satan had no way to take that away from them - in fact he was counting on the fact that they had this free will to tempt them away from God.

If either choice is a “good choice” as you say above, then God would NOT have said “Do not eat”. That’s what I don’t understand about your thinking. You have this long explanation about choices etc. which never occurred in Scripture, but we DO have a clear declaration from God: “Do not eat” which Adam and Eve didn’t follow. You also want to rationalize Eve’s choice to listen to Lucifer rather than God by speculating on this internal debate that you think she had. There still has been no evidence of this internal debate resulting in her choice nor any evidence that Eve couldn’t have children unless she sinned and couldn’t receive wisdom from God without sinning.

I will also point out that in Genesis 3:16 God tells Eve that he will multiply her pain in childbirth, meaning that the original plan was that there would be no or very little pain in childbirth. That certainly does not indicate that she couldn’t have children without sinning.

Also, if you read Genesis 3:17, God reiterates the fact that He commanded Adam NOT to eat of the tree - it wasn’t simply an option among several “choices”, either one being a “good” choice.

Then to Adam He said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’;

Your post doesn’t address why God is not the one explaining these “choices” to them, but it is the Evil one tempting Eve and telling her that it is a “good” choice to eat of the fruit and disobey God. Satan is the same one that today tells single people that is OK to have premarital sex because they “love” each other and God wants us to “love each other”, or tells some that abortion is OK because it’s not really a baby yet, or tells some that embryonic stem cell research is OK because of all the suffering it will cure. Satan has all kinds of ways to rationalize sinful behavior and turning away from God. You seem to believe him when he said that acquiring “wisdom” is worth turning away from God and disobeying Him.

cont’d in next post

 

[Jay53]

Originally posted by ParkerD
Satan would have had occasion at that moment to think he had “won” by placing into the mind of Eve a temptation about the fruit, but we know that he will indeed ultimately “lose” even though God cast him out of Heaven, down to the earth with the possibility and allowance that while here he will tempt humankind, often using half-truths and false promises (deceptions).

I’m confused about whether you actually believe that Satan will “ultimately lose” because in another thread you said (if I recall correctly) that you believe that the spirit children that parents have as part of eternal increase will have to go through mortality and live on an earth similar to ours; they will have a similar life as ours with a need to make choices between right and wrong - meaning that sin is present in their lives as well and thus there has not been a definitive “win” of Good over evil. Unless you think this triumph will occur sometime in the very distant future after there is no more eternal increase - which would be an oxymoron in itself .

 

[Jay53]

The problem with the Mormon view is the conflict was made up, just like the book it came from. The conflict is not biblical. What is biblical: all sin is bad and God is good.

The commandments conflict: Adam and Eve were unable to have children in the Garden of Eden and were unable to keep the greater commandment that they had been given, to multiply and replenish the earth.(BoM 2 Nephi 2:22-23)

I didn’t realize that this “greater” and “lesser” commandment was in the BoM. Perhaps they view it as mortal sin vs. venial sin (to put it in Catholic terms)? Either way, they then have to justify a “sin” as being “good” whereas I would agree that ALL sin is bad.

 

[Stephen168]

I didn’t realize that this “greater” and “lesser” commandment was in the BoM. Perhaps they view it as mortal sin vs. venial sin (to put it in Catholic terms)? Either way, they then have to justify a “sin” as being “good” whereas I would agree that ALL sin is bad.

The idea of great and lesser is not in the Book of Mormon; just the idea that there is a conflict which required man to sin. The great and lesser sin idea come from a Mormon trying to explain why sinning against God was OK.

 

[ParkerD]

I’m confused about whether you actually believe that Satan will “ultimately lose” because in another thread you said (if I recall correctly) that you believe that the spirit children that parents have as part of eternal increase will have to go through mortality and live on an earth similar to ours; they will have a similar life as ours with a need to make choices between right and wrong - meaning that sin is present in their lives as well and thus there has not been a definitive “win” of Good over evil. Unless you think this triumph will occur sometime in the very distant future after there is no more eternal increase - which would be an oxymoron in itself .

Jay53,
One of my points has been that if Eve and Adam (especially Eve since she is the one who made the first decision to eat the forbidden fruit) wanted wisdom, they had a choice that they could make that had been given to them by God. So, if they wanted real wisdom they indeed would “need” to eat the forbidden fruit, which meant they would be disobeying a commandment they had been given.

Talking about future worlds is of course talking about something where we only have this present world to draw an implication about what those future worlds might be like. The “growth by overcoming opposition” concept is found repeatedly in the Bible (not in those words, but in concept). So it seems like an eternal principle along with the availability of how to gain wisdom through making choices, which would mean that new worlds would have similar patterns. It would mean that new spirits could rebel and after this present world and its “life cycle” for all the spirits sent to this world is completed and Satan is sent to Outer Darkness for all eternity, that a new rebel spirit could rebel against God within the initial phase of a new world where spirits gathered and some “shouted for joy” at the prospect of their progress on an earth while one new rebel spirit opposed the plan and created real opposition to it by gathering followers of that new rebel spirit.

Have a peaceful and pleasant day.

 

[Jay53]

Jay53,
One of my points has been that if Eve and Adam (especially Eve since she is the one who made the first decision to eat the forbidden fruit) wanted wisdom, they had a choice that they could make that had been given to them by God. So, if they wanted real wisdom they indeed would “need” to eat the forbidden fruit, which meant they would be disobeying a commandment they had been given.

Which means they had to sin, turn away from God, if they wanted “real wisdom”. So it would seem again that you are saying that you then believe that “real wisdom” is worth sin (which we know God abhors). I don’t know how to get past that basic point.

Talking about future worlds is of course talking about something where we only have this present world to draw an implication about what those future worlds might be like. The “growth by overcoming opposition” concept is found repeatedly in the Bible (not in those words, but in concept). So it seems like an eternal principle along with the availability of how to gain wisdom through making choices, which would mean that new worlds would have similar patterns. It would mean that new spirits could rebel and after this present world and its “life cycle” for all the spirits sent to this world is completed and Satan is sent to Outer Darkness for all eternity, that a new rebel spirit could rebel against God within the initial phase of a new world where spirits gathered and some “shouted for joy” at the prospect of their progress on an earth while one new rebel spirit opposed the plan and created real opposition to it by gathering followers of that new rebel spirit.

Of course I realize this is all speculation, but in your scenario above, then there is no definitive triumph of Good over evil.

In your opinion, why would God allow a “new rebel spirit” to dwell in Heaven where nothing unclean can enter?

Have a peaceful and pleasant day.

You too.

 

[ParkerD]

(1) Which means they had to sin, turn away from God, if they wanted “real wisdom”. So it would seem again that you are saying that you then believe that “real wisdom” is worth sin (which we know God abhors). I don’t know how to get past that basic point.

(2) Of course I realize this is all speculation, but in your scenario above, then there is no definitive triumph of Good over evil.

(3) In your opinion, why would God allow a “new rebel spirit” to dwell in Heaven where nothing unclean can enter?

You too.

Jay53,
(1) I have previously cited 1 John 1:7-10 as follows:

7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

The fact that those who sin, if they do not repent through the blood of the Lamb and become cleansed “from all unrighteousness” (which means everyone needs to do that), could otherwise not dwell in the presence of God, would not mean “God abhors sin” in the sense that God cannot see a good purpose in there being an opportunity for growth through people being less than perfect and being corrected by Him and repenting and forgiving others. John did not write that “God abhors sin”. Those uncleansed from their sins can’t dwell in His presence, but He still loves them and wishes they would change and come unto Christ and be cleansed. As they come unto Christ, they can become sanctified, and until they do they will not be sanctified and after they do come to Christ their sanctification is a process, not an event. It means they will still be learning, repenting, growing, changing. Why would God abhor that process?

(2) There is such a triumph from the Biblical standpoint of this world and of the heaven that ties to this world (which is the Biblical perspective that John had in the book of Revelation where he wrote about the triumph of Christ), and from the standpoint of all the people and spirits who are a part of that triumph.

(3) You might re-read Revelation 12:8, realizing that such a scenario can be repeated in a future situation in eternity, in that there was a pre-mortal “heaven” where Satan rebelled and was cast out of that particular “heaven”, versus the kind of post-mortal “heaven” your question seems to have implied.

 

[Jay53]

Jay53,
(1) I have previously cited 1 John 1:7-10 as follows:

7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

I still don’t see your logic. Yes, we all sin. Yes, we all need to repent and turn back towards God. Your opinion seems to be that God prefers that we sin and then repent as opposed to never sinning in the first place. I truly do not understand that logic. Yes, God forgives us when we truly repent, but that certainly does not mean that God WANTS us to sin in the first place.

1John 1:7-10 simply acknowledges that we are sinners. That is our reality after the fall. I’m not sure what correlation you are making between that and Adam and Eve before the fall.

Take the parable of the prodigal son. The father certainly rejoiced in the prodigal son acknowledging his sin and returning home, but he certainly doesn’t love that son any more than the son who did not sin in the first place - and he tells him so. Do you believe that the father was pleased that his son went out and sinned and squandered his inheritance? His rejoicing is in the fact that he turned back, NOT in the fact that was able to experience this sin and “gain the wisdom” that he shouldn’t have done it in the first place. God certainly rejoices when we repent and turn back to Him, but that certainly doesn’t mean that He rejoices in the fact that we sinned in the first place.

It’s similar to our children learning things “the hard way”. Learning things “the hard way” implies making needless bad choices. Yes, one may learn the lesson, but it certainly didn’t have to be that way.

The fact that those who sin, if they do not repent through the blood of the Lamb and become cleansed “from all unrighteousness” (which means everyone needs to do that), could otherwise not dwell in the presence of God, would not mean “God abhors sin” in the sense that God cannot see a good purpose in there being an opportunity for growth through people being less than perfect and being corrected by Him and repenting and forgiving others. John did not write that “God abhors sin”. Those uncleansed from their sins can’t dwell in His presence, but He still loves them and wishes they would change and come unto Christ and be cleansed. As they come unto Christ, they can become sanctified, and until they do they will not be sanctified and after they do come to Christ their sanctification is a process, not an event. It means they will still be learning, repenting, growing, changing. Why would God abhor that process?

God most definitely abhors sin. He does not abhor the “process” as you called it of repentence - he obviously gave us the Sacrament of Reconciliation whereby through His priests we can be absolved of our sins and try to do better. Part of repentence is the sincere effort to NOT repeat the sin - in other words we don’t want to sin in the first place. Just because our reality is that we fall short does not mean that God approves or desires sin. In His mercy He simply gave us a way to turn back to Him.

Maybe it’s a disconnect of what it means to “sin”? Maybe we have two different definitions. I just don’t understand why you believe we have to sin in order to gain knowledge/wisdom. One does not equal the other.

I don’t think you would believe that a spouse needs to commit the sin of adultery to gain the “wisdom” of fully appreciating their spouse and their marriage.

(2) There is such a triumph from the Biblical standpoint of this world and of the heaven that ties to this world (which is the Biblical perspective that John had in the book of Revelation where he wrote about the triumph of Christ), and from the standpoint of all the people and spirits who are a part of that triumph.

I do believe in a definitive triumph of Good over evil. I just didn’t understand your thoughts about future spirit children having to deal with sin/evil on future earths. That belies a triumph.

(3) You might re-read Revelation 12:8, realizing that such a scenario can be repeated in a future situation in eternity, in that there was a pre-mortal “heaven” where Satan rebelled and was cast out of that particular “heaven”, versus the kind of post-mortal “heaven” your question seems to have implied.

Here is Revelation 12:5-10

And there was war in heaven, (E)Michael and his angels waging war with the (F)dragon The dragon and (G)his angels waged war,
8and they were not strong enough, and there was no longer a place found for them in heaven.

9And the great (H)dragon was thrown down, the (I)serpent of old who is called the devil and (J)Satan, who (K)deceives the whole world; he was (L)thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

10Then I heard (M)a loud voice in heaven, saying, "Now the (N)salvation, and the power, and the (O)kingdom of our God and the authority of His Christ have come, for the (P)accuser of our brethren has been thrown down, he who accuses them before our God day and night.

I don’t see where there is an indication that this scenario can be repeated if there is a definitive triumph of Good vs. Evil. . You may see it as being possible because you believe in eternal increase and future earths, different heavens, other gods etc etc. I obviously don’t believe in any of that. Again, this is all pure speculation.

 

[Jay53]

Psalm 119:97-104

This particular psalm contradicts the notion that we need to sin in order to gain wisdom.

O how I love Your law!
It is my meditation all the day.
98Your commandments make me wiser than my enemies,
For they are ever mine.
99I have more insight than all my teachers,
For Your testimonies are my meditation.
100I understand more than the aged,
Because I have observed Your precepts.
101I have restrained my feet from every evil way,
That I may keep Your word.
102I have not turned aside from Your ordinances,
For You Yourself have taught me.
103How sweet are Your words to my taste!
Yes, sweeter than honey to my mouth!
104From Your precepts I get understanding;
Therefore I hate every false way.

 

[Jay53]

For anyone who may be interested: (Particularly #52-61)

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/goda42a.htm

 

[ParkerD]

Psalm 119:97-104

This particular psalm contradicts the notion that we need to sin in order to gain wisdom.

O how I love Your law!
It is my meditation all the day.
98Your commandments make me wiser than my enemies,
For they are ever mine.
99I have more insight than all my teachers,
For Your testimonies are my meditation.
100I understand more than the aged,
Because I have observed Your precepts.
101I have restrained my feet from every evil way,
That I may keep Your word.
102I have not turned aside from Your ordinances,
For You Yourself have taught me.
103How sweet are Your words to my taste!
Yes, sweeter than honey to my mouth!
104From Your precepts I get understanding;
Therefore I hate every false way.

Jay53,
But there are more verses than those, which speak of being “afflicted” after going astray, and that the “affliction” resulted in the central theme of the Psalm: “that I might learn thy statutes”.

33 Teach me, O Lord, the way of thy statutes; and I shall keep it unto the end.
34 Give me understanding, and I shall keep thy law; yea, I shall observe it with my whole heart.
35 Make me to go in the path of thy commandments; for therein do I delight.
36 Incline my heart unto thy testimonies, and not to covetousness.
37 Turn away mine eyes from beholding vanity; and quicken thou me in thy way.
38 Stablish thy word unto thy servant, who is devoted to thy fear.
39 Turn away my reproach which I fear: for thy judgments are good.
40 Behold, I have longed after thy precepts: quicken me in thy righteousness.

49 Remember the word unto thy servant, upon which thou hast caused me to hope.
50 This is my comfort in my affliction: for thy word hath quickened me.
51 The proud have had me greatly in derision: yet have I not declined from thy law.

66 Teach me good judgment and knowledge: for I have believed thy commandments.
67 Before I was afflicted I went astray: but now have I kept thy word.
68 Thou art good, and doest good; teach me thy statutes.
69 The proud have forged a lie against me: but I will keep thy precepts with my whole heart.
70 Their heart is as fat as grease; but I delight in thy law.
71 It is good for me that I have been afflicted; that I might learn thy statutes.
72 The law of thy mouth is better unto me than thousands of gold and silver.

75 I know, O Lord, that thy judgments are right, and that thou in faithfulness hast afflicted me.
76 Let, I pray thee, thy merciful kindness be for my comfort, according to thy word unto thy servant.
77 Let thy tender mercies come unto me, that I may live: for thy law is my delight.

173 Let thine hand help me; for I have chosen thy precepts.
174 I have longed for thy salvation, O Lord; and thy law is my delight.
175 Let my soul live, and it shall praise thee; and let thy judgments help me.
176 I have gone astray like a lost sheep; seek thy servant; for I do not forget thy commandments.

 

[ParkerD]

To the general reader:

I suppose that I need to again clarify for the benefit of anyone who happens to read bits and pieces of this thread, that when it is brought up about sexual sins such as adultery as though that is something to be tolerated and “learned wisdom from”, then that is a ludicrous example as I have previously noted. Adam and Eve were not dealing with a sin of adultery, and any sort of thinking along those lines has not only never been part of my thinking, but I think anyone who is that selfish and out of control of their own behavior needs more than repentance in their life–they need to re-learn basic human decency and self-control.

As one seeks to be lifted up by Christ and become sanctified by the Spirit, they are going to encounter hidden areas of their life that they need to “work on” through repentance, and those sins are not the obvious ones–they are the subtle ones like using the wrong tone of voice in interaction with loved ones, misjudging others, not using time in service to others but perhaps seeking self-entertainment instead, practicing poor health habits, spending money on frivolous things, not being patient with others’ mistakes, and a host of other things that a lot of people need to work on–self included (except that my money spending is the reverse in that I don’t spend money on anything beyond family basics and sometimes that means I am too tight with the finances.)

 

[Jay53]

And also to the general reader:

Sin is sin is sin. ALL of it is abhorrent to God. ALL of it is turning away from God.

Sin is NOT necessary for us to “learn” or “gain wisdom”.

 

[Jay53]

Jay53,
But there are more verses than those, which speak of being “afflicted” after going astray, and that the “affliction” resulted in the central theme of the Psalm: “that I might learn thy statutes”.

33 Teach me, O Lord, the way of thy statutes; and I shall keep it unto the end.
34 Give me understanding, and I shall keep thy law; yea, I shall observe it with my whole heart.
35 Make me to go in the path of thy commandments; for therein do I delight.
36 Incline my heart unto thy testimonies, and not to covetousness.
37 Turn away mine eyes from beholding vanity; and quicken thou me in thy way.
38 Stablish thy word unto thy servant, who is devoted to thy fear.
39 Turn away my reproach which I fear: for thy judgments are good.
40 Behold, I have longed after thy precepts: quicken me in thy righteousness.

49 Remember the word unto thy servant, upon which thou hast caused me to hope.
50 This is my comfort in my affliction: for thy word hath quickened me.
51 The proud have had me greatly in derision: yet have I not declined from thy law.

66 Teach me good judgment and knowledge: for I have believed thy commandments.
67 Before I was afflicted I went astray: but now have I kept thy word.
68 Thou art good, and doest good; teach me thy statutes.
69 The proud have forged a lie against me: but I will keep thy precepts with my whole heart.
70 Their heart is as fat as grease; but I delight in thy law.
71 It is good for me that I have been afflicted; that I might learn thy statutes.
72 The law of thy mouth is better unto me than thousands of gold and silver.

75 I know, O Lord, that thy judgments are right, and that thou in faithfulness hast afflicted me.
76 Let, I pray thee, thy merciful kindness be for my comfort, according to thy word unto thy servant.
77 Let thy tender mercies come unto me, that I may live: for thy law is my delight.

173 Let thine hand help me; for I have chosen thy precepts.
174 I have longed for thy salvation, O Lord; and thy law is my delight.
175 Let my soul live, and it shall praise thee; and let thy judgments help me.
176 I have gone astray like a lost sheep; seek thy servant; for I do not forget thy commandments.

Please explain your interpretation of line 67 which you underlined:

“Before I was afflicted I went astray.”

How do you interpret “afflicted” and what do you think it means to be “afflicted”?

Affliction is also used in line 50 as well, yet you possibly overlooked that.
“This is my comfort in my affliction: for thy word hath quickened me”

I truly don’t think this Psalm means what you are thinking it means because I don’t see any support of your position here. Perhaps your answers to the above questions will help me see your point.