Was it preordained that mankind commit original sin?

[Eufrosnia]

I’m saying that a perfect man CAN choose to not sin.

No one disagrees. Only pointing out the truth that a perfect man may choose to disobey God in every possible world because that is who he is.

Think about the view you speak of a for a minute as well. If you are right, it would mean that God deliberately created a world where man does choose to sin in his divine providence and foreknowledge WHEN he could have created one where man never sins.

Wouldn’t that make God look bad?

 

[devoutchristian]

WHEN he could have created one where man never sins.

That would require overriding our free will.

 

[Eufrosnia]

That would require overriding our free will.

Exactly. So that means, to speak of a world where man freely chooses not to sin is like speaking of a square circle i.e. such a world does not exist.

 

[devoutchristian]

Exactly. So that means, to speak of a world where man freely chooses not to sin is like speaking of a square circle i.e. such a world does not exist.

But it’s non-existence is due to humanity’s choice, rather than necessity. Perhaps we have misunderstood each other, when you said logically impossible I assumed you meant that the situation in question somehow violate the law of non-contradiction, did you merely mean that it would be impossible within the context of reality as it actually exist?

 

[R_C]

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.

I’ll break it in 3 parts.

1. the Word, the Maker of all things, had formed beforehand for Himself the future dispensation of the human race, connected with the Son of God;
2. God having predestined that the first man should be of an animal nature, with this view, that he might be saved by the spiritual One.
3. For inasmuch as He had a pre-existence as a saving Being, it was necessary that what might be saved should also be called into existence, in order that the Being who saves should not exist in vain.

It’s not about redemption from the fall, but about a human nature to be divinized.

Also, I suggest reading the work of s. John of the Cross: “Romance on the Gospel text "In principio erat Verbum”, for he is one of the few who had received a significant insight on the Blessed Trinity.

for he would make himself
wholly like them,

and he would come to them
and dwell with them;

and God would be man
and man would be God,

and he would walk with them
and eat and drink with them;

and he himself would be
with them continually
until the consummation
of this world,

when, joined, they would rejoice
in eternal song;

for he was the Head
of this bride of his
to whom all the members
of the just would be joined,

who form the body of the bride.

He would take her
tenderly in his arms
and there give her his love;

and when they were thus one,
he would lift her to the Father

where God’s very joy
would be her joy.

 

[Eufrosnia]

But it’s non-existence is due to humanity’s choice, rather than necessity. Perhaps we have misunderstood each other, when you said logically impossible I assumed you meant that the situation in question somehow violate the law of non-contradiction, did you merely mean that it would be impossible within the context of reality as it actually exist?

Well what I mean is that there is no possible world where mankind is free and no one in mankind sins and introduces an original sin. In this sense, the world where mankind never sins when tested and yet has free will is like a square circle. It is not possible that it exists.

Perhaps it is also true that there is no possible world where Adam and Eve freely chooses not to sin when tested as well. I say this because God would have created that world if it ever existed.

 

[devoutchristian]

Well what I mean is that there is no possible world where mankind is free and no one in mankind sins and introduces an original sin. In this sense, the world where mankind never sins when tested and yet has free will is like a square circle. It is not possible that it exists.

Where is the contradiction in this scenario?

 

[Eufrosnia]

Where is the contradiction in this scenario?

It is not a self refuting claim but rather a logical impossibility. It so happens that there is no possible world where humanity is free and does not sin. How do we know that? Because if there was such a world in which humanity did not sin, God would have created such a world since all of humanity will then freely choose God.

 

[devoutchristian]

It is not a self refuting claim but rather a logical impossibility.

Then show how it is contrary to an essential characteristic of reality.

 

[steve_b]

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.

Thanks for the response.

Could you clarity

How far does plurality of majesty go? My understanding of angels are messengers. Not co creators.

 

[cornbread_r2]

I know that (most) Christianity, like Judaism, puts a high premium on free will. However, if Jesus is thought to have existed at the beginning of “time” with G-d the Father and the Holy Spirit as the three Persons of the Trinity, would not original sin have been necessary from the start so that Jesus serve his main function as Savior from sin? IOW, would Jesus have been necessary if the creation were designed so that Adam and Eve did not bring original sin into the world?

I’m passing along a response from one of the CAF apologists on this question.

Relevant bit:

From all eternity the Father and the Son wanted the Son to take on a human nature and redeem the human race on Good Friday. Since God has no beginning or end, the Father and the Son have always known that they wanted this. Why? We will have to ask them when we see them in heaven. I hope this helps.

From this, it seems to me that we were predestined to fall from grace and need a savior.

 

[devoutchristian]

From this, it seems to me that we were predestined to fall from grace and need a savior.

God doesn’t cause evil. It’s that simple.

 

[CrossofChrist]

I know that (most) Christianity, like Judaism, puts a high premium on free will. However, if Jesus is thought to have existed at the beginning of “time” with G-d the Father and the Holy Spirit as the three Persons of the Trinity, would not original sin have been necessary from the start so that Jesus serve his main function as Savior from sin? IOW, would Jesus have been necessary if the creation were designed so that Adam and Eve did not bring original sin into the world?

No. That is like saying it would be “necessary” for God to create the world, or else he wouldn’t serve his main function of preserving/creating creation. Keep in mind that the members of the Trinity are different only by relation (Father is not the Son, Son is not the Father…). God would’ve continued to be perfectly happy in his being had he not created us, but he chose to out of his love.

 

[meltzerboy]

God doesn’t cause evil. It’s that simple.

However, would you agree that G-d ALLOWS evil to happen? And if we believe that humans are endowed by G-d with free will, that free will may be used by us for good or evil, which does NOT mean that G-d caused us to do evil.

 

[devoutchristian]

However, would you agree that G-d ALLOWS evil to happen? And if we believe that humans are endowed by G-d with free will, that free will may be used by us for good or evil, which does NOT mean that G-d caused us to do evil.

Right. However, the position I was arguing against was that the correct use of our free will was impossible.

 

[R_C]

However, would you agree that G-d ALLOWS evil to happen? And if we believe that humans are endowed by G-d with free will, that free will may be used by us for good or evil, which does NOT mean that G-d caused us to do evil.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Then show how it is contrary to an essential characteristic of reality.

The truth assumed is that

“If a possible world exists where humanity does not sin, God will create that world since all will be saved”

The basic idea is that God will want to maximize the number of those who are saved and that he will always give enough grace for anyone to not fall in to sin if accepted.

So the existence of this world must mean that in every possible world, humanity always sins.

 

[devoutchristian]

The truth assumed is that

“If a possible world exists where humanity does not sin, God will create that world since all will be saved”

The basic idea is that God will want to maximize the number of those who are saved and that he will always give enough grace for anyone to not fall in to sin if accepted.

So the existence of this world must mean that in every possible world, humanity always sins.

You’re ignoring the existence of human free will.

 

[Eufrosnia]

You’re ignoring the existence of human free will.

I am honestly not sure what you mean. Are you telling me that it is impossible that a person will always freely choose to disobey God no matter which possible world he/she lives in?

Because if what you say is true, then God is the only one responsible for everything. Why? He did not create the possible world that humanity never sinned.

I am curious to know why humanity freely sinning in all possible worlds under test is impossible and that it being true = no free will. I am also interested to hear how you perceive what a “person” is. If by person, you mean the choices that person will make regardless of circumstances out of who they are, then it is certainly possible that there is no possible world where all persons are themselves and never choose to sin. There is no contradiction in Free-will.

The fact that Bob always sins in all possible worlds does not mean there is no free-will. It just means that Bob just doesn’t like to do what God wants him to do because THAT IS WHO HE IS. That is what makes Bob a “Bob” and not a “Peter”.

 

[meltzerboy]

No. That is like saying it would be “necessary” for God to create the world, or else he wouldn’t serve his main function of preserving/creating creation. Keep in mind that the members of the Trinity are different only by relation (Father is not the Son, Son is not the Father…). God would’ve continued to be perfectly happy in his being had he not created us, but he chose to out of his love.

Then what do you believe Jesus’ function as G-d the Son and G-d Incarnate would be in relation to G-d the Father without the Fall of mankind?