Adam and Eve
Commentor:Where was Adam?? Golfing, that's what men do, or maybe fishing...... Eve had to eat the apple.......it was all part of the plan.......
MPN: ooo, Ayekah, so Eve didn't have free will? Did Satan? I'm moving this to a post!
Commentor: Well.......that's a long debated topic, as you well know. Did she have free will prior to the deed? Or did the deed incite free will?
It's akin to the chicken or the egg thing. If I had to call it, I would have to say yes, she did have free will prior to the act. I think the serpent also played his part freely though, somewhere (non theologically) I think the serpent was part of the "plan". What I mean to say is that I do not think he insinuated himself into the Garden, he was placed there. Oh boy.....what a can of worms this is.....
Commentor: Allowing myself to throw further fuel on the flame, Eve does have a "discussion" with the serpent over the eating.....Adam simply takes the fruit and eats it.......:)
Carry on, people, and when I am well, I will add my $.02. Blessings!
UPDATE: I am recovered, praise God.
Here is my question. Is it possible that God the Son would have incarnated, not as our saviour, but still to participate in the unity with His creation, even if the fall hadn't happened. In other words, was it really necessary for sin to have happened for Jesus to become incarnate. Could He have worked it out that we would still have the benefit of having Him share our humanity without having the huge separation caused by the fall? Isn't it His greatest desire for unity with his creations, bound in love for all eternity? Couldn't it all have worked our without the fall?
MPN: ooo, Ayekah, so Eve didn't have free will? Did Satan? I'm moving this to a post!
Commentor: Well.......that's a long debated topic, as you well know. Did she have free will prior to the deed? Or did the deed incite free will?
It's akin to the chicken or the egg thing. If I had to call it, I would have to say yes, she did have free will prior to the act. I think the serpent also played his part freely though, somewhere (non theologically) I think the serpent was part of the "plan". What I mean to say is that I do not think he insinuated himself into the Garden, he was placed there. Oh boy.....what a can of worms this is.....
Commentor: Allowing myself to throw further fuel on the flame, Eve does have a "discussion" with the serpent over the eating.....Adam simply takes the fruit and eats it.......:)
Carry on, people, and when I am well, I will add my $.02. Blessings!
UPDATE: I am recovered, praise God.
Here is my question. Is it possible that God the Son would have incarnated, not as our saviour, but still to participate in the unity with His creation, even if the fall hadn't happened. In other words, was it really necessary for sin to have happened for Jesus to become incarnate. Could He have worked it out that we would still have the benefit of having Him share our humanity without having the huge separation caused by the fall? Isn't it His greatest desire for unity with his creations, bound in love for all eternity? Couldn't it all have worked our without the fall?
posted by Renee at Saturday, March 04, 2006
5 Comments:
Not sure if this was already covered but I have read in more than one place that when the tempter was talking to Eve he was using a plural version of the word "you" ... which implies that Adam was nearby and listening. If that is the case, not only is Adam complicit just as Eve is but even worse, he never stepped up and said a word ... just let Eve carry the burden of dealing with the serpent herself.
In the Latin Vulgate, at least, the serpent does use the plural, but one must be careful in relying so heavily on the literal statement of the text, especially when it is a question of what the text doesn't say, such as how exactly Adam was involved. That Adam was more guilty than Eve, though, seems to be the idea Paul indicates when he says that Eve was deceived, but Adam was not. (1 Timothy 2:14)
With regard to the question of freedom, it is necessary to say that Eve freely chose to eat the fruit. Otherwise her action would have been neither sinful nor culpable, since a sin is an evil action freely performed; no one can justly be blamed for what he does out of necessity. This is why sin pertains only to humans, and not to other animals or animate objects.
Yet it is also true that it was "all part of the plan." That a thing is foreknown to God, however, does not make it necessary in itself, but only in the way in which it is eternally present in his knowledge. Considered in itself, Eve's action was able to either be or not be.
And the commentor will hold her two cents as well............
In a certain sense, it is true that Eve "had to do it" because it was part of the plan. This is not absolute necessity, however, but only necessity by supposition--e.g., if I want to get to school within a reasonable time, it is necessary for me to drive a car. But this type of necessity does not take away freedom, as I am still free to drive or not drive my car; it is only necessary for me to drive my car if I want to get to school. But since it is not absolutely necessary that I get to school, it is also not absolutely necessary that I drive my car. Similarly, since it was not absolutely necessary that the plan involve Eve falling, it was therefore not absolutely necessary that she fall; but only by supposition. Thus she acted freely.
Well, I can shhot holes in one theory at least... the chicken came first. God created fowl, then fowl laid egg. *Grin*
Post a Comment
<< Home