D
devoutchristian
Guest
Could have, not would have.
Was it preordained that mankind commit original sin?
- Thread starter meltzerboy
- Start date
- Status
E
Eufrosnia
Guest
To say as such would mean that Adam and Eve had the beatific vision which they did not.
In a sense this discussion is somewhat like talking about a square circle though. Because if there was any logically possible World where man kind did not sin (i.e. Adam & Eve did not sin), God would have created that World because he wishes the GOOD of the creature.
So it must be true that the idea of a world where man does not sin is a logically impossible world. In this way, it feels like we are somewhat talking about a square-circle scenario.
E
Eufrosnia
Guest
Oh I see. My first language is not English so I sometimes use the two interchangeably
but I see here the difference matters.
D
devoutchristian
Guest
I said they would have had the beatific vision if they had chose not to sin, not that they started out with the beatific vision.
This is not Catholic teaching. The idea that God created imperfect creatures (rather than creatures being corrupted by their own actions or by the actions of other creatures) is contrary to Catholic teaching on free will. It’s more in line with Calvinist teaching, although to my knowledge not even they go that far.
A
Ad_Orientem
Guest
This is very speculative, but without a fall there would be no need for sacrifices of propitiation or satisfaction, but it would still be fitting (and perhaps mandated) to offer sacrifices of adoration and thanksgiving. This would certainly change the character of the revealed religion. Would there have been a temple? I don’t know. The temple is so bound up with atonement and with its fulfillment in Christ.
In the end, however, we are left with what God actually did.
E
Eufrosnia
Guest
So what and how do you propose this will happen? Like it seems to me like empty speculation.
I am not sure what you are saying here. I only claimed that God can only create a logically possible world. Given that God wants human beings to have free-will, it seems to be true that there is no possible world in which humanity is free of sin. In other words, there is no scenario where all human beings will freely choose God.
This does not mean that man is imperfect. It only means that man has free-will. That is something very much contrary to Calvinist teaching.
So given that is the case, there is likely no possible World in which man does not commit sin (which would become the Original sin). This would mean that the scenario we speak of is a logical impossibility.
Now if we are to speak of this scenario still, it is probably true that other exceptions would have to be made as to what this new possible world might be like. Perhaps man may not have free-will in such a possible world and perhaps it is limited till the incarnation. Basically, the possibilities are endless and we do not know what that possible world would even be.
D
devoutchristian
Guest
You deny that Adam and Eve would have had eternal life had they not sinned?
It was logically possible for Adam and Eve to have used there free will to choose not to sin.
S
steve_b
Guest
We know, before creation, God who is pure spirit, made Himself known to humanity as an “us”.
**Gen 1: *26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”
after the fall, God refers to Himself as “us”.
Gen 3: 21-22 And the LORD God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins, and clothed them. 22* Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing 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”–
Therefore, to answer your question, God is one, but He also refers to Himself as an “us”.
I don’t want my question to derail the thread. If you’ve answered this before on these forums just point me in the direction, or PM me if you think this doesn’t fit with the topic.
Judaism and Christianity believe in one God, that’s a given. 3 persons in 1 God is unique to Christianity. So given we both believe in one God,
Q:
What does “us” mean in those passages from Genesis, from the Jewish perspective?
Thanks in advance
meltzerboy
New member
Very good point. It would seem strange if the nature of G-d were determined by a logical necessity based on human behavior. That would be like saying that we designed G-d to fit our needs, which is exactly what some atheists claim.
Do you think the role of Jesus without having to atone for our sins would be to preach a new kind of morality on Earth? OTOH, without original sin, would we need anyone to preach morality?
D
devoutchristian
Guest
Not really.
meltzerboy
New member
Short answer from the Jewish perspective: the use of “us” in Genesis is the plurality of majesty as well as a sign of G-d’s humility by incorporating the angels in His act of creation. Humility is a pervasive theme in Judaism, and not only for living beings. I recently learned that the challah bread placed on the table during candle lighting on Friday night Sabbath is covered so that it will not be embarrassed by the bright light of the candles. Other variants on the theme of humility include: it is regarded as sinful to display unusual physical dexterity in the presence of disabled people; pets must be fed before ourselves since they are incapable of delaying their hunger drive.
E
Eufrosnia
Guest
No I am merely saying that we do not know how God will bring about the glorification of the human body in order to perceive the beatific vision.
It was logically possible to have an Adam or an Eve, yes. BUT, not that specific Adam and Eve. If there was anyway that Adam & Eve would have not sinned, then God would have brought that about.
That being said, if the two persons chosen to be Adam & Eve did not sin, there would have been someone else down the line that would have sinned. Why? Because otherwise God would have created that world in which no one freely chooses sins.
So after seeing all the possible logical worlds God could create, God creates the world that possible leads to the largest number of persons freely accepting his Grace to be saved. It just so happens its this one. We cannot therefore speak of a possible world where no one sins and by extension, where Adam and Eve does not sin.
Now one could however say that Adam and Eve could have been prevented of sin by God but he only did allow it to bring about the good of having a chance to experience the love of God. I personally find this line of thinking suspicious since it is as if God created a problem so that he can make us want him. I am of the position that we NEED God in any possible world. God just chose the world which will maximize the number of those who are saved.
So yes, he could have perhaps postponed original sin to a second or third generation from Adam and Eve but it seems reasonable to say that it will always happen. I feel God did not want that because that would create one generation without sin and another with sin etc.
This way, God creates a world where sin comes in through one man and salvation comes in through God who became Man, Jesus Christ!
In short, my point is that there can be no possible world in which humanity never sins. Could there be a world where Adam and Eve doesn’t sin? Possibly. But it still does not mean humanity will not sin. If Adam & Eve never sinned, maybe someone else would have taken on the mantle for Original Sin.
It must also be noted that Adam & Eve were tested by God in the Garden of Eden. It seems true that there is no possible world in which Adam & Eve will freely choose correctly and pass that test or God would have created that world.
D
devoutchristian
Guest
No, it is directly contrary to Catholic teaching to impute the failures of humans to the how they were created by God.
E
Eufrosnia
Guest
As I am arguing with DevoutChristian, I do think that such a world in which there is no sin is perhaps logically impossible.
But hypothetically, I think Christ would come in to the world to reveal God to us and even the truth that God is three persons. But as you can see, this causes the problem because there is a question again if we even need Christ to come and tell us that because maybe we can see it first hand once we are glorified (using whichever mechanism God was hypothetically planing to use).
So it seems to me that it would be reasonable to conclude that no humanity with free-will exists that will not sin as a species. In other words, at least one of its members will introduce sin in to the world by freely choosing it or failing the test of God.
Now one could say that God could have created a world in which he never tested man and therefore they would all be saved. BUT, God must test man for it is in choosing God over the “Not God” that makes us truly love him. So it seems reasonable for God to want to allow us to choose him and conform ourselves to him. Perhaps to look at it differently, God respects our freedom in giving us the option, if we choose, to conform ourselves to whichever form we like and then he will let us live in eternity to the selves we conformed. Those who conformed themselves more toward God to live with him and enjoy him in heaven while the others to their own eternal state of unquenchable emptiness in hell.
At this point it may seem cruel because if God had shown clearly the two options, perhaps all men will choose God. Maybe it is surely that all men will choose God (for it is said that the beatific vision is all we desire). I think here what is important is the element of trust. God perhaps requires that we trust him and his love for us.
Anyway, (sorry for the side track), my feeling is that there is no possible world in which humanity does not sin and therefore we will always need salvation. As for the purpose of Christ existence is in a sense like questioning God’s existence. The existence of Christ is simply due to God’s nature and not out of purpose. If God had chosen to simply not bring about creation, Christ would still exist, albeit he will never become man through the incarnation. But in the event that God does create and also creates man, I think we cannot speak of a possible world where man does not sin unless God does not test or create the angels (including those who rebel). But since God will create them in all possible worlds since he loves them perfectly as a thought in his mind, we can assume that humanity will be created, the angels will be created, and therefore humanity will also sin OR God would have created the possible world in which neither of us sinned.
E
Eufrosnia
Guest
But I am not saying God is responsible for human failure. I am merely pointing out that God, even if he choose to, in his foreknowledge and providence cannot arrange a possible world where humanity does not sin.
That is not a statement imparting responsibility on God but simply a statement showing the respect God has for human free-will. If he had wanted to, he could have created a human race without free-will that would always choose him. But God did not. Instead, he wanted us to be free creatures and truly love him freely. It so happens that we would fail the test of loving him perfectly. That is why he sends his son so that we can attain forgiveness and continue to seek him till we are glorified one day and enjoy the beatific vision.
R
R_C
Guest
s. Iraeneus, “Against Heresies”:
And he isn’t the only one who teaches that the Incarnation would have occurred for other reasons. The poems of s. John of the Cross also present a similar image, though in a mystical way. s. Aquinas was great, but not infallible on all matters, nor are his writings the Magisterium.
D
devoutchristian
Guest
Yes it is. By saying that Adam and Eve couldn’t have not sinned you’re saying that God created them defective.
Where in that did he say that Jesus would have incarnated anyway? All he said was that Jesus’s existence necessitated Adam’s, which sounds kind of out of order.
E
Eufrosnia
Guest
You misunderstand. It seems to me that you are of the impression that a PERFECT MAN will not freely choose sin when he/she is tempted/tested. That is not true.
Adam and Eve were perfect and yet they freely choose to sin. The key here is FREE-WILL. It is God’s desire to give us FREE-WILL that limits his possible set of worlds that he can create. Why? Because there is no such world where Humanity has FREE-WILL and yet all its members choose God.
So this is not an issue of imperfection in man that he falls. It is a sign that man needs the Grace of God. This is why Christ didn’t just wipe away original sin. He also won merits to be used to wipe away our own personal sins as well and instituted the sacrament of Penance for that.
E
Eufrosnia
Guest
I think the Bl. John Duns Scotus’s Christology (different from the Thomists) states that Christ would still come for
"God would have become man even if Adam had not sinned, since He willed that in Christ humanity and the world should be united with Himself by the closest possible bond." – (From newadvent.org article, Bl. John Duns Scotus)
Perhaps that is a difference between Scotus school of thought and Thomistic school of thought. The Church has not rejected either.
D
devoutchristian
Guest
I’m saying that a perfect man CAN choose to not sin.
- Status