How did The fall of Adam and Eve Happen?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chistian-ity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Chistian-ity

Guest
  1. God is omnipresent and omniscient
  2. God is infallible
  3. Meaning God is morally infallible
  4. God was all present and all knowing during the temptation of Adam of Eve
  5. God is all powerful and therefore could have stopped it.
  6. God did not stop it
Does this mean that God allowed the fall? Please explain.
 
Because now there is already sin in the world. It seems contradictory to God’s nature to not preserve the purity of creation before the original fall.

Still assuming that the beginning of Genesis is literal.
 
Last edited:
Because, among the other attributes God gave us in his image was that of free will.
 
Does this mean that God allowed the fall? Please explain.
I view the Fall account as being allegorical, as well as the Creation accounts. IMO, it’s the Christian repudiation of the much larger and earlier Babylonian creation account, also explaining that we have “free will” and the consequences of making immoral decisions.

The Babylonians, otoh, were polytheistic and thought it was the actions of various deities that caused different things to happen, and that these deities often fought with one another for control of people and events.
 
Does this mean that God allowed the fall? Please explain.
Yes, God obviously allowed the Fall and all moral evil/sin that followed, for His purposes, in order to bring an even greater good out of it all at the end of the day, knowing the beginning from the end as only He does. From the larger perspective God made his world “en statu viae”, “in a state of journeying” to perfection as the Church teaches. Man’s own perfection is realized to the extent that he wills rightly, in line with the truth, in line with God’s will to put it another way. Adam introduced humanity to another orientation, away from truth and God. We’re here to learn how wrong he was, and to begin to reverse that orientation within ourselves, with the help of revelation and grace. From the catechism:

1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility. By free will one shapes one’s own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.

1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil , and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.
 
I view the Fall account as being allegorical
If by ‘allegorical’, you mean “it really happened, but not literally in the way the narrative describes”, then you’ve hit the Catholic teaching on the nose. If, on the other hand, you mean “it’s a nice story, but no ‘fall’ ever happened”, then that’s problematic, since it asserts that there’s no need for a savior.
IMO, it’s the Christian repudiation of the much larger and earlier Babylonian creation account
I get that, in the context of the creation account (scholars tend to assert that the narrative of Genesis 1 stands as a refutation of the Babylonian creation account), but the fall of man?
  1. God is all powerful and therefore could have stopped it.
  2. God did not stop it
Does this mean that God allowed the fall?
Does the fact that God could have forced Adam and Eve to make a decision that they didn’t want to make, mean that God is responsible for their decision?

(There are those who make precisely that claim, but without much merit.)
 
Are you assuming Adam and Eve were literal people?
The Church teaches this. It doesn’t teach that Genesis is literal. It doesn’t teach that the forbidden fruit is literal. It does however insist that our two prime ancestors, “Adam” and “Eve” committed the Original Sin and that their fall from grace is the cause of our sinful nature as humans.
 
If by ‘allegorical’, you mean “it really happened, but not literally in the way the narrative describes”, then you’ve hit the Catholic teaching on the nose. If, on the other hand, you mean “it’s a nice story, but no ‘fall’ ever happened”, then that’s problematic, since it asserts that there’s no need for a savior.
“Savior” can be taken different ways, thus even a literalist perspective doesn’t necessarily change that.

The use of symbolism throughout the scriptures is obvious at times, but less obvious at some other times. As I am not a literalist, nor does the Church teach that literalism is the only way to go, thus even though the Church has its “official” teachings on many narratives doesn’t mean that there’s no wiggle room for other interpretations. Catholic theologians, for example, are “all over the map” when it comes to exactly what “original sin” is and its ramifications. Many of the historical controversies are well covered in James Hitchcock’s “History of the Catholic Church”.

BTW, a rather notable Jewish scholar, Maimonides (the RAMBAM) [see Maimonides - Wikipedia ], hypothesized that most of the narratives within the first dozen chapters in Genesis use much symbolism but are not entirely symbolic. Allegory is a traditional method used within the Jewish scriptures, thus the use of literalism often misses the mark.
 
Last edited:
I get that, in the context of the creation account (scholars tend to assert that the narrative of Genesis 1 stands as a refutation of the Babylonian creation account), but the fall of man?
Even though chapter divisions were put into our Bibles much later than when they were written, the reality is that the Creation accounts continue on into and through the Fall.

BTW, there was quite a dispute in the early Church as to whether Jesus’ parables should be taken as being literal or allegorical, and generally the Church sorta concluded that they are likely the latter.
 
I think a lot of it hinges on the actual sin of Adam and Eve. In The Problem of Pain, C.S. Lewis hypothesized that it wasn’t so much the eating of the apple, or mere disobedience that was the cause of the fall. Lewis points out that there is one sin that anyone can commit - both rich and poor, smart and dumb, those who are in a group or those who are alone. “From the moment a creature becomes aware of God as God and of itself as self, the terrible alternative of choosing God or self for the centre is opened to it”.

God could not stop this because it is intrinsically impossible for Him to give us free will while at the same time overriding it with his own. The very nature of free will entails the possibility of rebellion.

Could God have, using his power, prevented this? Lewis touches on this too:
“It would, no doubt, have been possible for God to remove by miracle the results of the first sin ever committed by a human being; but this would not have been much good unless He was prepared to remove the results of the second sin, and of the third, and so on forever. A world thus continually underpropped and corrected by Divine interference, would have been a world in which nothing important ever depended on human choice.”
 
What do you mean by “prime” ancestors?
That they were the actual and only ancestors of the human race.
Edit: I just coined that phrase out of thin air. Not so weird you had to ask. 😉
 
Last edited:
Are you saying the parents of Adam and Eve were not human?
The Church doesn’t teach us anything about Adam’s heritage other than God created us Man from “the slime of the Earth” and gave us a soul.

Genesis 2:7
And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.
Formavit igitur Dominus Deus hominem de limo terrae, et inspiravit in faciem ejus spiraculum vitae, et factus est homo in animam viventem
If you believe in Evolution you at least have to believe the parents of Adam and Eve had no immortal, human soul. God is Our Father, no matter how you choose to see it, though.
 
Eve entered into dialogue with the evil spirit and was deceived into believing a lie about divine and human nature. She and Adam chose to listen to the evil spirit rather than God. New god new man neither good.

If God didn’t allow this thenwe would forever live a lie about our nature. Thats precisely what the devil handed to us.
 
If God didn’t allow this thenwe would forever live a lie about our nature. Thats precisely what the devil handed to us.
So the Devil did us a favour by making us sin? Or he did God’s will? I’m not sure I entirely agree with you there, if that’s what you’re saying.
 
  1. God is omnipresent and omniscient
  2. God is infallible
  3. Meaning God is morally infallible
  4. God was all present and all knowing during the temptation of Adam of Eve
  5. God is all powerful and therefore could have stopped it.
  6. God did not stop it
Does this mean that God allowed the fall? Please explain.
What’s there to explain?

Yes, he allowed the Fall. This is one of the simpler questions pertaining to man’s free will and God’s permissive will.
 
  1. God is omnipresent and omniscient
  2. God is infallible
  3. Meaning God is morally infallible
  4. God was all present and all knowing during the temptation of Adam of Eve
  5. God is all powerful and therefore could have stopped it.
  6. God did not stop it
Does this mean that God allowed the fall? Please explain.
You have a good question. Even us do our best to stop a crime when we know it is going to happen.
 
God can’t really stop a being with freewill from disobeying Him and sinning. Taking it literally, before the act of eating, Eve already accepted lies about God and desired to sin. Even if God stopped her from eating it, things were far gone. You can physically force someone to not murder another person, but they want to do it, and have already sinned. The angels/spirits sinned and fell without doing something physical.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top