posted
Yesterday I was discussing with the Jehovah's witnesses whether the ransom of Jesus Christ would be necessary if Adam and Even hadn't partaken of the fruit. My point was that even if they hadn't, Satan was still free to go about and could have tempted someone later on to disobey God. They didn't think so, though.
I have been thinking about the Fall a lot lately. We don't use the term "original sin" in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. But there is the unmistakeble idea that we all will unavoidably sin due to the effects of Adam's transgression.
I guess my question is how it helps for Mary to be free of Original Sin /the effects of the fall. If God could intervene so she wasn't fallen, why wouldn't it work just as well to only have Jesus not fallen?
[ January 06, 2005, 05:08 PM: Message edited by: Trisha the Severe Hottie ]
Posts: 666 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
From the site Dag linked to, I got the impression that it was a sort of reward for bearing Jesus. Which makes sense; pregnancy is pretty heavy work, by all accounts.
On a slightly related note : The same site states that baptism removes the stain of original sin from humans. Was baptism practiced among Jews at the time of Mary's birth? If not, do we know when it was introduced, either into Jewish or Christian tradition?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yesterday I was discussing with the Jehovah's witnesses whether the ransom of Jesus Christ would be necessary if Adam and Even hadn't partaken of the fruit. My point was that even if they hadn't, Satan was still free to go about and could have tempted someone later on to disobey God. They didn't think so, though.
Not a JW, but here's what I think. Before the Fall there was no sin, no death. No need for birth and reproduction. Adam is not said to have "known" his wife until AFTER the fall.
So your premise that Satan could tempt someone else later on doesn't hold up - who would he tempt? Had the Fall not happened, Adam and Eve would still be in the Garden. There would be no need for Christ's sacrifice because there would be no debt to pay.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does Adam need to have knowledge of his wife in order to produce children, though? It is only with the Fall that women are cursed to bear their children nine months, and all that. (So it seems to me, anyway.) Without the Fall, Adam and Eve might well have had children in some other way.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not sure which Protestant denominations, if any, believe in the doctrine, so I'm not sure who else will have detailed knowledge.
Dag, Dana may know better than I, but I don't think the Immaculate Conception is part of any protestant belief system.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Jehovah's Witnesses believe they would have eventually had children if they had stayed in the Garden. They were in particular contending that God didn't have a "plan" for Adam and Even to fall. I mean, I don't believe in predestination, so I feel things could have gone differently from how they did. Whether that would look like just Adam and Eve living forever in the Garden with no children, or something else I don't know.
Posts: 666 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Trisha, what do you think of the scripture in 2nd Nephi chapter 2?
22 And now, behold, 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 must have remained forever, and had no end.
23 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.
It is pretty accepted LDS doctrine that if Adam and Eve had not eaten the fruit, they would have had no children (for whatever reason, I don't know).
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Alma 22:14 And since man had fallen he could not merit anything of himself;
Alma 34:9 ... yea, all are hardened; yea, all are fallen and are lost, and must perish..
Ethere 3:2 "O Lord... we are unworthy before thee; because of the fall our natures have become evil continually; ...."
Posts: 666 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Was baptism practiced among Jews at the time of Mary's birth? If not, do we know when it was introduced, either into Jewish or Christian tradition?
Luke 3:16
quote: John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:
Isn't John (the Baptist/the Forerunner) the first to Baptise people? If this is the case, since he is born just before Jesus (son of Mary's cousin), Mary cannot have been baptised.
This is they way I see it:
Mary cannot be free of the effects of the fall unless she does not experience painful childbirth, which (I believe) is one of the things caused by the fall. Since nowhere in the Bible is such a thing written I assume she is as much affected by the fall as everyone else, holy, virtuous or not who came before her.
I wasn't aware until now of anyone who considered Mary free from the fall.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: One of the effects of original sin is that it makes all humans prone to sin. Augustine postulated that after the fall humans were no longer able not to sin (non posse non peccare).
This is one of the things I have wondered about.
Our second article of Faith clarifies "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's trangression." So the fact that we have sinned is due to circumstances put in motion by Adam, but they are not his "fault".
P.S. I'm thinking that the fact that Adam and Eve transgressed while in the unfallen state means that even if any of us were not subject to the fall, we might have transgressed.
If Mary were freed from Original Sin and did sin, (Adam and Eve show that a non fallen person could sin), would that sin not be covered by Christ's ransom? That is, the sin would be her own and not traceable to the single event by which sin came into the world.
Something I thought was very interesting in this discussion with the Jehovah's Witnesses was the idea that Eve's transgression was less than Adam's. My experience has been that most people think Eve was more at fault.
[ January 06, 2005, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: Trisha the Severe Hottie ]
Posts: 666 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Isn't John (the Baptist/the Forerunner) the first to Baptise people? If this is the case, since he is born just before Jesus (son of Mary's cousin), Mary cannot have been baptised.
No, as adam mentioned, some Jewish sects were practicing baptism before John the Baptist.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, one scenario would be that they could not have had children. The Jehovah's witnesses believe they definitely would have. The Book of Mormon clarifies that they couldn't have. But we don't ever talk about the Book of Mormon, just the Bible. Even the Book of Mormon doesn't make clear why.
Posts: 666 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
LDS doctrine holds that children are innocent and not accountable for transgressions until they reach the age of accountability. Then they make covenants with the Lord and are baptized, and are thereafter held accountable for their sins.
This pretty much follows the Adam and Eve story as the LDS believe it.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So you're saying that Adam and Eve were like children younger than 8 until they took the fruit? So how could the be accountable for taking the fruit?
Posts: 666 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are they considered accountable? The church is very consistent in calling it a "transgression" and specifying that it is not the same as a "sin".
They are responsible for the sins they committed afterwards.
To be sure they suffered consequences to their actions, but I have always thought of them as being like children under the age of 8 also.
posted
I know LDS doesn't believe in Original Sin, but do they still consider the events in the Garden to be "The Fall?"
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Augustine’s posse/peccare thing is one of those bits that’s a treat for first year theology and Latin students. It’s a progression – prior to the fall humanity were posse non peccare, after the fall we are non posse non peccare, at the perfection of creation we will be non posse peccare. Church Latin is such a precise language. It’s fun. Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
...after all, how can someone who doesn't know right from wrong be held accountable and God still be both just and merciful?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
By "partaking of the fruit" they gained knowledge of good and evil, and that made them accountable from then on, and able to sin.
We believe the Fall was a separation from the presence of God that Adam and Eve enjoyed in the Garden of Eden. This separation, or "spiritual death," is the state that we are born into, and it is the state that Christ's atonement overcame for those who repent.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee: Yes. Very much so. But we do not think that what Adam and Eve did was a bad thing--that it brought about the conditions of the "test" of mortality.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can (sort of) answer your question, at least from a JW standpoint.
If Adam and Eve had not sinned we believe that they would have carried out God's command to "fill the earth and subdue it" (Ge 1:28). As they had offspring the Garden, though large enough to contain at least the headwaters of four rivers, would eventually have gotten crowded. Eventually, their offspring would have to go out into the wild uncultivated areas. As they did this, they would bring those areas under their care, all in harmony with that purpose, until the earth was filled with perfect people living in a worldwide (though probably geographically varied) garden.
Now, assuming that Satan, though still having a bad leaning, had not yet acted before Adam and Eve had offspring. So now we have other people on the earth. Or, assume that Eve hadn't listened to the serpent, or that Adam hadn't followed his wife's eating. What would have happened then?
The permission of evil was for one primary reason (and a second one regarding man's ability to stay faithful). The primary issue, though, was that of sovereignty. The tree represented God's right to decide what was good and bad, as opposed to Adam and Eve's deciding what was good and bad themselves. For the harmony of the universe, Adam and Eve, especially given the roles they were to have on the earth as the parents and teachers of all the rest of undying mankind, had to recognize that authority was with God. They had to reflect his wisdom as Jesus did, later. He was the Universal Sovereign. But when the fruit was eaten, when Eve, and later Adam, decided that they would rather decide for themselves what was good and bad, that sovereignty was brought into question.
God could have destroyed Adam, Eve and Satan. But that would not have settled the issues, either in the minds of the angels or in the minds of any that God might create afterward. In fact, it might seem like God had something to hide, that he was scared. That was Satan's claim to Eve, in fact. "You won't die. God knows that when you eat it, you become like him." 'God's lying. In fact, he's using an idle threat because he fears you.'
So what would God do? He was still sovereign and his purpose had to be fulfilled. Moreover, all creation must understand that his way is best, for their own good. They had the right to know if there was a better way. So he wisely decided to permit them to keep living and even have offspring and allow man to show what they could do. Perfection was a result of being tied to God, so they would lose that, but that was part of the package. They couldn't have their cake and eat it to. For a short time (from an eternal perspective) he would allow the issue to be settled. He would still work to bring about his purpose, first to settle the issue and also to save the decendents of Adam and Eve.
Both things were accomplished with the death of Jesus. By his faithfulness even to death, he affirmed that God's way was best. He witnessed, or testified about this truth throughout his life, and that the kingdom would bring relief in the face of great pain and persecution from Satan and from people on earth. And he sealed that testimony with his life. Thus, his life as the "Faithful Witness" (Revelation 3:14) answered that charge forcefully. And it also provided a ransom for mankind.
With that in mind, let's go back to the question. What if someone later had fallen, while other's had been faithful? If that was the case, if, say, Adam had said no to Eve, or Satan had tried to tempt Abel or Seth or someone afterwards.
The fact of the matter is we cannot say for sure. Given the situation where Adam didn't eat, let's say, then a perfect man (who Jesus was a corresponding ransom of when he died) would have testified that God had the right to rule and that would have ended it, ended the issue. Satan and Eve would have likely been destroyed. No need for ransom. But if Satan had waited till later and tempted a decendent, and if they fell, then what? That is harder to speculate on since thing would also depend on how the other perfect humans reacted, on how much time had passed and so forth. Again, we cannot say for sure.
posted
"And it also provided a ransom for mankind."
(Also from a JW perspective...) Just to further that thought, the scriptures indicate that Jesus death was a "propitiatory sacrifice." Propitiatory essential means "covering over," like the propitiatory cloth that covered the ark of the covenant. (1 John 2:2)
Since "through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned," Jesus' sacrifice covered the sins of the original human pair and all of the sins of their subsequently sinful offspring. (Romans 5:12)
As JW's believe that their God-given assignement was to populate the earth, if Adam and Eve had had children before their act of disobedience then those children would have been perfect. (Genesis 1:28) They, too, could have had perfect kids and so on. Not every person on the planet would have required a sacrifice that carried the enormity of significance that Jesus' did.
In the case that a single person sinned while living on a planet populated by perfect people, I cannot speculate what course of action Jehovah God would have taken at that time. But it doesn't seem that it necessarily be the same course of action that he required himself to take with the rebellion of Adam and Eve.
posted
Thanks for the info on JW doctrine. These ideas are totally new to me.
So, might it be true to say that the effects of the fall are passed on from parent to child? In other words, Adam and Eve falling definitely meant all their descendants would be the same, but the fall of one man would only reflect on that person's posterity? I imagine this would just be speculation anyway.
About God acting so as not to cause others to think He had something to hide, what about the act of cutting Adam and Eve off from the tree of life? Wouldn't that cause similar suspicions? What would have happened, hypothetically, if they had partaken of the tree of life after partaking of the tree of good and evil?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: But we do not think that what Adam and Eve did was a bad thing
See, this is pretty much what I am perplexed about. As my earlier quotes from elsewhere in the book of Mormon show, it is hard to come up with a definition of "bad" that doesn't include the fall. It made our natures evil continually.
Though in pondering whether an immaculately conceived Mary could disobey God, as Adam and Eve did indeed, I have answered another question I long wondered- Whether Jesus was ever really Tempted.
This idea of the second Adam is an interesting one, as the Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Jesus was a different kind of being from humans. He was God's first creation, and God also created Angels, but human spirits are not Angels. We haven't exactly hammered out the issue of human spirits yet.
Posts: 666 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, might it be true to say that the effects of the fall are passed on from parent to child? In other words, Adam and Eve falling definitely meant all their descendants would be the same, but the fall of one man would only reflect on that person's posterity? I imagine this would just be speculation anyway.
If I'm not mistaken, I believe I answered this in my previous post. If I missed an angle and that's your question, let me know and I'll try and clarify.
quote:About God acting so as not to cause others to think He had something to hide, what about the act of cutting Adam and Eve off from the tree of life? Wouldn't that cause similar suspicions? What would have happened, hypothetically, if they had partaken of the tree of life after partaking of the tree of good and evil?
I'm not sure if I would have articulated it as having something to hide, but rather that destroying Satan, the first human pair and evidence of their rebellion may have appeared to be (in the eyes of on-lookers) a premature action. By allowing humans to rule themselves for a time without Jehovah - and fail - a precedent is set that there is only one person who has the right to be sovereign. Any further rebellion would not be done to simply satisfy 'what if?' questions, because they will have been answered.
As I've said previously, it is like a court case that is being settled.
Posts: 7600 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: We haven't exactly hammered out the issue of human spirits yet.
I won't steal the thunder of your discussion with the JW's that visit you. But I think you'll find this topic an interesting one. Posts: 7600 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In fact, the putting of Adam and Eve out of the garden is spoken of as having the purpose of making sure they did not eat of the Tree of Life. Partaking of the Tree of Life would have indicated that person had been judged worthy of living forever, we believe. With that partaking would go God's promise of eternal life.
Contrasted with the promise of death for eaters of the other tree and one can see that there would have been a severe problem if they had eaten both. In fact, it is possible that that was exactly Satan's plan- get them to eat both and put God on the horns of a dilemma, break one promise to fulfill the other or vice-versa.
Posts: 1346 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is an interesting thought, Ian. I hadn't considered that possibility, only that the Tree of Life was to be made open to them at some point in the future. (I'm glad you addressed the second part of beverly's post. I totally hit 'enter' before I was done, and then - with characteristic faulty memory - didn't think anything of it until read your post.)
I'll have to have some highly inappropriate speculatory conversations with people on that subject, now.
posted
IanO, that is actually pretty close to my understanding of LDS doctrine.
Ralphie re:fallen nature passed from parent to child, I wasn't sure if that was the case. I guess it is. Again, similar to LDS doctrine (except for the part about unfallen humans being able to have children--which admittedly is a pretty big difference.)
Trisha, we believe it was not a bad thing (in the overall net balance) because what was gained was so important. From the 2 Ne scripture:
...having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.
The temple endowment expands on this idea.
Adam fell that men might be. Men are that they might have joy.
This is a pretty fundamental idea to LDS theology.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, we've talked a bit about spirits, though they haven't come out and said "People don't have spirits". We've gone through the requirement brochure and are in the "Why suffering" chapter of the Knowledge book.
I mean, I've already made it clear that I just don't agree that the Holy Spirit is Jehovah's "active force". It is not possible to argue how one translates the Hebrew "Ruh". You either say it is spirit or active force. It can't be deconstructed further.
Posts: 666 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And that's ok, Trisha. It's a discussion as well as a study and what is important is that you feel that what you are learning is from the scriptures. Sometimes it may take a while for something to click, for previous scriptures or elements you are learning to make things clearer.
In any event, the fact that you are looking into the Bible and are willing to have discussion about it says volumes. I can guarantee that the person who comes over is probably very excited (and has told everybody about it) and happy over that fact. It's our most enjoyable work, regardless of outcome.
Hope it goes well.
Posts: 1346 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.
