The Fortunate Fall, was it fortunate for mankind that we fell?

[Paleouss]

The Fortunate Fall, was it fortunate for mankind that we fell?

I do understand that this is a position held by the Mormon church. I, however, am not interested in debating for or against Mormonism per say. I am interested in the theology and reasoning behind whether the fall of Adam, thereby the fall of mankind, was a fortunate or unfortunate thing. I'm looking for reasoning and biblical reference.

The general concept, to me (I am not aware of the debate issues), seems to revolve around the ultimate state of mankind, i.e., the glorified man. Anyone saying that the fall was a fortunate thing for mankind would seem to suggest that Adam (thereby mankind) could only attain the state of Able to Sin, Able not to Sin (posse peccare, posse non peccare), which is not the ultimate state of mankind, which is posse non peccare (meaning Not Able to Sin). This postition, of the fall being fortunate, would hold that Adam was created perfect and complete in regard to how Adam could possibly be (both of these terms would need to be defined for a proper discussion). Thus, being created perfect and complete, Adam had no path to posse non peccare (Able Not to Sin).

This position, that the fall was fortunate would seem to require one of few lines of thought; (1) God had a plan and it was thrwarted by sin so he went to plan B, (2) The final end of mankind has always been tied to sin. We had to sin to get to our ultimate state. As Orson F. Whiteney said in 1908, “Adam’s fall was a step downward,” but teach that “it was also a step forward . . . in the eternal march of human progress.”

1. Was the fall fortunate of unfortunate?
2. Was Adam created complete with no path toward glorified man?
3. Did mankind have to sin so that our ultimate state of posse non peccare could be achieved? (Is sin necessary)


Thank you for your responses in advance

 

[bling]

The Fortunate Fall, was it fortunate for mankind that we fell?

I do understand that this is a position held by the Mormon church. I, however, am not interested in debating for or against Mormonism per say. I am interested in the theology and reasoning behind whether the fall of Adam, thereby the fall of mankind, was a fortunate or unfortunate thing. I'm looking for reasoning and biblical reference.

The general concept, to me (I am not aware of the debate issues), seems to revolve around the ultimate state of mankind, i.e., the glorified man. Anyone saying that the fall was a fortunate thing for mankind would seem to suggest that Adam (thereby mankind) could only attain the state of Able to Sin, Able not to Sin (posse peccare, posse non peccare), which is not the ultimate state of mankind, which is posse non peccare (meaning Not Able to Sin). This postition, of the fall being fortunate, would hold that Adam was created perfect and complete in regard to how Adam could possibly be (both of these terms would need to be defined for a proper discussion). Thus, being created perfect and complete, Adam had no path to posse non peccare (Able Not to Sin).

This position, that the fall was fortunate would seem to require one of few lines of thought; (1) God had a plan and it was thrwarted by sin so he went to plan B, (2) The final end of mankind has always been tied to sin. We had to sin to get to our ultimate state. As Orson F. Whiteney said in 1908, “Adam’s fall was a step downward,” but teach that “it was also a step forward . . . in the eternal march of human progress.”

1. Was the fall fortunate of unfortunate?
2. Was Adam created complete with no path toward glorified man?
3. Did mankind have to sin so that our ultimate state of posse non peccare could be achieved? (Is sin necessary)


Thank you for your responses in advance

This world as it exists right now is the very best place for willing humans to fulfill their earthly objective, while as we learn from the Adam and Eve story, the Garden is a lousy (impossible) place to fulfill our earthly objective. We can thus be grateful to Adam and Eve for going through that situation and allowing us to learn from them. Adam and Eve prior to sinning did not fulfill their earthly objective in what we might consider an ideal situation. Adam and Eve were not made perfect like Christ is perfect that is not possible even for God, but man was made “very good” by God’s standard which can be as good as made beings could be made.

It is not that we want Adam and Eve to sin, but they will sin is both inevitable and necessary, since sin has purpose for the unbelieving sinner.

You have to understand mans and God’s objective in all this since like it should be in any organization the objective drives the conclusion:

• God is not trying to “get” something from man (man cannot “provide” anything for God), but God as pure unselfish charity is trying to give the greatest most powerful gifts possible to man. These gifts will enable man to be like God himself in that they will have Godly type Love (God is Love).
• Godly Love compels God to do all He does, so Love (which is God Himself) is the greatest force in all universes.
• There are things that just cannot be done even by God and one thing God cannot do is program a person to have Godly type Love (an instinctive love) since that love would be a robotic type love. God just cannot make a person who has always existed or He could make more Christs.
• God cannot force Godly type Love on a being, since that would be like a shotgun wedding with God holding the shotgun.
• This “Love” has to be the result of a “free will” choice with likely alternatives (those alternatives for man are “the perceived pleasures of sin for a season”).
• Man “not ever sinning” is not man’s objective, since obtaining and growing this Godly type Love is man’s objective (along with this Love God throws in heaven, eternal life, and a wonderful close relationship to sweeten the offer) we become like God Himself.

Why would God have a totally unselfish type of Love, since He personally would not get anything out of it? If God’s “Love” is some kind of knee jerk reaction, then it is really meaningless (something like; gravity which is nice to have, but everyone automatically has it). God Loves us in spite of what we have done, who we are or what we will do, so it has to be by His choice.



So, God would create the right universe for the sake of the individuals that will accept His gift (the most powerful force in all universes that compels even God to do all He does) and become like He is (the greatest gift He could give).

What keeps the all-powerful Creator from just giving whatever He wants to his creation?

Again there are just something even an all-powerful Creator cannot do (there are things impossible to do), the big inability for us is create humans with instinctive Godly type Love, since Godly type Love is not instinctive. Godly type love has to be the result of a free will decision by the being, to make it the person’s Love apart from God. In other words: If the Love was in a human from the human’s creation it would be a robotic type love and not a Godly type Love. Also if God “forces” this Love on a person (Kind a like a shotgun wedding) it would not be “loving” on God’s part and the love forced on the person would not be Godly type love. This Love has to be the result of a free will moral choice with real alternatives (for humans those alternatives include the perceived pleasures of sin for a season.)

This Love is way beyond anything humans could develop, obtain, learn, earn, pay back or ever deserve, so it must be the result of a gift that is accepted or rejected (a free will choice).

An unselfish God would be doing all He can to help willing individuals to make that free will decision to accept His Love. Again, since God will not be forcing these individuals, they have to be willing (it is their choice) and God cannot “make” them willing since that is robotic action. God can only at best make them free will agent (like God is) and capable of make the right decision without the selection being worthy of anything (it is a gift of pure charity).

This “Love” is much more than just an emotional feeling; it is God Himself (God is Love). If you see this Love you see God.

Let me just give you an example of How God works to help willing individuals.

All mature adults do stuff that hurts others (this is called sin) these transgressions weigh on them burden them to the point the individual seeks relief (at least early on before they allow their hearts to be hardened). Lots of “alternatives” can be tried for relief, but the only true relief comes from God with forgiveness (this forgiveness is pure charity [grace/mercy/Love]). The correct humble acceptance of this Forgiveness (Charity) automatically will result in Love (we are taught by Jesus and our own experience “…he that is forgiven much will Love much…”). Sin is thus made hugely significant, so there will be an unbelievable huge debt to be forgiven of and thus result in an unbelievable huge “Love” (Godly type Love).

That is an introduction to a huge topic.

Question: Would you prefer to be in a place where your eternal close relationship with God was dependent on your personal ability to be obedient to all God’s rules forever (that is the garden before sin situation) or in a place where your eternal close relationship with God was dependent on your humbly accepting God’s charity (that is where you are today)?

 

[HarleyER]

The Fortunate Fall, was it fortunate for mankind that we fell?

I do understand that this is a position held by the Mormon church. I, however, am not interested in debating for or against Mormonism per say. I am interested in the theology and reasoning behind whether the fall of Adam, thereby the fall of mankind, was a fortunate or unfortunate thing. I'm looking for reasoning and biblical reference.

The general concept, to me (I am not aware of the debate issues), seems to revolve around the ultimate state of mankind, i.e., the glorified man. Anyone saying that the fall was a fortunate thing for mankind would seem to suggest that Adam (thereby mankind) could only attain the state of Able to Sin, Able not to Sin (posse peccare, posse non peccare), which is not the ultimate state of mankind, which is posse non peccare (meaning Not Able to Sin). This postition, of the fall being fortunate, would hold that Adam was created perfect and complete in regard to how Adam could possibly be (both of these terms would need to be defined for a proper discussion). Thus, being created perfect and complete, Adam had no path to posse non peccare (Able Not to Sin).

This position, that the fall was fortunate would seem to require one of few lines of thought; (1) God had a plan and it was thrwarted by sin so he went to plan B, (2) The final end of mankind has always been tied to sin. We had to sin to get to our ultimate state. As Orson F. Whiteney said in 1908, “Adam’s fall was a step downward,” but teach that “it was also a step forward . . . in the eternal march of human progress.”

1. Was the fall fortunate of unfortunate?
2. Was Adam created complete with no path toward glorified man?
3. Did mankind have to sin so that our ultimate state of posse non peccare could be achieved? (Is sin necessary)


Thank you for your responses in advance

1) Was the fall fortunate or [sic] unfortunate?

I don't know if "fortunate" or "unfortunate" is the right term. God is holy and glorious. And it was His will to share this glory with man. Man was created to share in God's glory.

Isaiah 43:7 Everyone who is called by My name, And whom I have created for My glory, Whom I have formed, even whom I have made.”​

It was His will.

2) Was Adam created complete with no path toward gloridied man?

Without understanding Orson Whiteney's context, I'm not sure if I would agree with him. God planted the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil knowing what Adam would do. The tree was for Adam's benefit so that he could understand his need and dependency on God. Adam's sin in my mind wasn't a step downward as much as fulfilling God's will and plan. He sinned just like every one of us and it is through this understanding that we are sinners in need of God by which we learn dependence on God.

3) Did mankind have to sin so that our ultimate state of posse non peccare could be achieved? (Is sin necessary)

This gets into the mysterious will of God. It's like asking the question, "Why does God demands a blood sacrifice?" All I can say is that without sin, we would be all lying naked under trees eating a bunch of fruit. We would never be able to tell if we really feel remorse for our sin and have a great desire to seek after God. We would never exercise faith in God.

Hebrews 11:6 And without faithi it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

 

[RandyPNW]

The Fortunate Fall, was it fortunate for mankind that we fell?

This is not difficult. Of course it was not good in any way that Mankind fell into sin. By definition, to Sin is wrong and cannot therefore be a blessing in any way.

 

[Hawkins]

The story is never about fortune. Firstly, it is because ancient humans can only bring forward information in story forms. It's more like information being encrypted which requires a key from the Author for the story to be re-decrypted.

Secondly, the story is about how humans with low intelligence being misled by the bad angelic beings (crafty snake), which resulted in sins. Sin is inevitable (mathematically) to both angels and humans alike, it's worse to humans when misguided by the much more intelligent angelic beings. The effect is in Eden and is on earth. That's actually how all mankind is kept captive by Satan in terms of Law.

 

[Qubit]

The Fortunate Fall, was it fortunate for mankind that we fell?

Yes...

Romans 8:28
"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose."

 

[Jonaitis]

The Fortunate Fall, was it fortunate for mankind that we fell?

I do understand that this is a position held by the Mormon church. I, however, am not interested in debating for or against Mormonism per say. I am interested in the theology and reasoning behind whether the fall of Adam, thereby the fall of mankind, was a fortunate or unfortunate thing. I'm looking for reasoning and biblical reference.

The general concept, to me (I am not aware of the debate issues), seems to revolve around the ultimate state of mankind, i.e., the glorified man. Anyone saying that the fall was a fortunate thing for mankind would seem to suggest that Adam (thereby mankind) could only attain the state of Able to Sin, Able not to Sin (posse peccare, posse non peccare), which is not the ultimate state of mankind, which is posse non peccare (meaning Not Able to Sin). This postition, of the fall being fortunate, would hold that Adam was created perfect and complete in regard to how Adam could possibly be (both of these terms would need to be defined for a proper discussion). Thus, being created perfect and complete, Adam had no path to posse non peccare (Able Not to Sin).

This position, that the fall was fortunate would seem to require one of few lines of thought; (1) God had a plan and it was thrwarted by sin so he went to plan B, (2) The final end of mankind has always been tied to sin. We had to sin to get to our ultimate state. As Orson F. Whiteney said in 1908, “Adam’s fall was a step downward,” but teach that “it was also a step forward . . . in the eternal march of human progress.”

1. Was the fall fortunate of unfortunate?
2. Was Adam created complete with no path toward glorified man?
3. Did mankind have to sin so that our ultimate state of posse non peccare could be achieved? (Is sin necessary)


Thank you for your responses in advance

Well, in the context of the redemption of Jesus Christ, if man did not sin, this concept would not exist. Therefore, sin was a necessary evil to bring about God's glory through the redemption of man.

In the context of original sin, Adam would have been innocent, not perfect. They seem similar, but are very different.

Honestly, everything known about the biblical God would be obsolete in the absence of sin, including the creation. Sin unfolds the story, without which, there is no discussion about anything that is discussed in the whole faith. Even the attributes of the biblical God would vanish without the concept of sin, since characteristics like justice, mercy, goodness, kindness, righteousness, etc, would make no sense or have any meaning in the absence of sin. The whole Christian faith is built upon the very concept that it tries to be redeemed from. It is pretty foundational for the unfolding of the decretive plan of the Trinity. Therefore, though the concept is negative, it is, therefore, a necessity for its opposite to exist. Light will always cast a shadow in some way or another.

 

[Paleouss]

Hello Jonaitis, thank you for your contribution to this post. I hope your week has been a blessed one.

Well, in the context of the redemption of Jesus Christ, if man did not sin, this concept would not exist.

If you are saying, for there to be a clearing of debt there must first be a debt. I think everyone would agree with that. Without debt there need not be a redemtion from debt. But it seems you mean more. You then wrote...

In the context of original sin, Adam would have been innocent, not perfect. They seem similar, but are very different.

Regarding your distinction between "innocent" and "perfect". In your use of the word "perfect", you suggest godly perfection. In this I agree, Adam was not God. Nor could he be created as such. This in no way suggests that Adam was flawed. And also, for me, in no way suggests that Adam could not have been obedient, that is, he was capable of being obedient to God's requirements. God did not ask of Adam more than he could do.

I would also like to point out that Im not debating the "why didn't God make Adam where he could not sin".

You also use the word "innocent". For me, this means sinless, without spot or blemish. I also agree with this. In my vernacular, I would say Adam was in a sinless state.

Honestly, everything known about the biblical God would be obsolete in the absence of sin, including the creation.

Is this really true? Or is it more true to say, 'that which is known about God through the lense of depravity and redemption would be obsolete'? The way I put it seems obvious. The same thing can be understood through different perspectives and experiences. If I came to know (1), God, through perspecitve (a), sin and redemption, then I didn't come to know (1) through perspective (b). So perspective (b) would be obsolete, if you will. But that doesn't mean that I couldn't have come to know (1) through (b). Its just the case that I didn't.

Even the attributes of the biblical God would vanish without the concept of sin, since characteristics like justice, mercy, goodness, kindness, righteousness, etc, would make no sense or have any meaning in the absence of sin.

Here is where my above would pertain. You say that mankind comes to know (1), God, through perspecitve (a), sin and redemption. This is fact, we do in a fallen state come to know God through sin and redemption. And then you emply that there is no other way to come to know (1), God. Of the examples you give, I agee that justice and mercy would be harder for me to parse out as being expressed in a prefall Adam state.

The whole Christian faith is built upon the very concept that it tries to be redeemed from. It is pretty foundational for the unfolding of the decretive plan of the Trinity. Therefore, though the concept is negative, it is, therefore, a necessity for its opposite to exist. Light will always cast a shadow in some way or another.

I agree the whole Christian faith, as we know it through God's revelation, is built upon the very concept of redemption. This is the 'actual world' in which mankind finds itself in a fallen state and comes to know (1), God, through perspective (a), sin and redemption. However, just because we come to know God through (a) does not necessitate that God cannot be known by Adam through (b), (b) being the prefall state in this case.

So is it the case that...

(a) mankind's path to 'glorified man', before the fall, must include sin. That is, it was necessary for there to be sin so that mankind could reach 'glorified man'. Here 'glorified man' is posse non peccare (meaning Not Able to Sin)

It would appear that you would hold to (a).

Or is it the case that ...

(b) Mankind, Adam, was on a path toward 'glorified man' and was sidetracked by the sin of Adam. After being sidetracked by sin, the redemption of Jesus Christ was needed to put man back on track by being redeemed by grace and blood (Rom 3:24, 5:1, 5:9). After being put back on track, those that believe continue that same purposful growth that was intended for Adam toward 'glorified man'. That is, we end up in the same end of glorified man as Adam would have through the sinless state (only through a different perspective). Same end all along. The Alpha and Omega has always been the Son of God.

It just seems to me that (b) could be more true than (a). For me (a) suggests yin-yang and (b) suggest that the purposeful end of this world, the Alpha and the Omega, has always been the same purposeful end despite the sinless state or sinful state. The sinful state simply added a component to the equation. That componant being sin and redemption.

Prefall equation: Creation - sinless state - spiritual growth - glorified man
Postfall equation: Creation - sinless state - sinful state - redemption - spiritual growth - glorified man

The whole Christian faith is built upon the very concept that it tries to be redeemed from. It is pretty foundational for the unfolding of the decretive plan of the Trinity. Therefore, though the concept is negative, it is, therefore, a necessity for its opposite to exist. Light will always cast a shadow in some way or another.

I don't think this follows.

(1) The whole Christian faith is built upon sin and redemption in the fallen state perspecitve
(2) Sin and redemption is foundational for the unfolding of the decretive plan of the Trinity in the fallen state perspective.
(C) Therefore, sin, or the sinful state is a necessity to reach 'glorified man'.
(C) Therefore, 'glorified man' cannot be reached through a sinless state.

All I see in your premises is that sin and redemption is necessary in a sinful state. In this, I agee. I don't see anything that would suggest that sin and redemption is necessary in a sinless state; or that God could not be known through a sinless state; or that mankind could not have reached 'glorified man' in a sinless state.

Thank you for your thought provoking post. You provided some informative information. Thank you.

Peace be with you my brother