When Adam was first created, there is no hint that he immediately realized he was shy of a mate. But as he EXPERIENCED SENSORILY that other critters had mates, he recognized that he was deficient in that sense. But what happened? Was he responsibe to get himself a mate? No, because God was the only one that could do that. So AS Adam attained knowledge of a "not good" state, God immediately provided. Given that, I would assume that such benevolent provision would have continued to occur as historical exigencies arose so that no one would be tempted above what they were able.

 

So I take the acquisition of the knowledge of good and evil (together with the denial of access to the tree of life) to indicate that God was basically telling them, "you have knowledge now that you would not have needed at this time since you were not responsible for, or capable of, acting on it aright (as was the case with the creation of a mate), but now humanity IS responsible even though you are still not CAPABLE of acting on it aright in all cases." Responsible, i.e., in the sense that they would at least receive the penalty of death even though they were incapable of being sinless. I would not argue that God would judge people in terms of a works-judgment for actions they were literally incapable of performing (for where nothing is given, nothing is required in that works sense of accountability). IOW, the life vs. death judgment is logically distinct from judgment for works.

 

The Fall assured that sin was inevitable. Prior to that, it seems that sin was not inevitable. Indeed, as I have said heretofore, to say that the very first sin was inevitable seems like conceptual non-sense. For how can one miss a non-existent mark? For how can there be a mark/goal/target in God's mind if such a state of affairs is literally impossible? And yet Paul, at least, seems convinced that humans can not fulfill a law, which is spiritual, without the Spirit. And he specifically claimed that THROUGH ONE MAN sin ENTERED the world. IOW, inevitable sin (and its effect. i.e., mortality/inevitable death) ENTERED the world because of what Adam did. It was always possible that death or sin could have occurred. What ENTERED the world was INEVITABLE death and INEVITABLE sin.

Apart from the Fall, God would have provided when and as provision was needed. Now, we need the Spirit EVERY day just to be sinless.

---

 

Post Edited (Similitude) : 9/18/2010 9:38:33 AM (GMT-5)

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

 

Even now, some people have a stronger sense of embarrasment over nakedness than other people do, even though virtually all people have some sense that nakedness is inappropriate in at least SOME contexts. There are plenty of people who would argue, completely independent of Genesis, that nakedness exposes our UNCOMELY parts. And maybe the associations of the "use" of genitals contribute to the desire to cover them. And so eventually unfallen humans may have been learned that coverings (i.e., clothing) can be (to use the words of the torah) used for beauty and honor, as well.

 

Jeff: Let's say that as more people came into the world the possibility of coveting another man's wife arose. I can think of two possibilities:

 

1) For some reason, coveting another man's wife would not have been a sin in the pre-Fall world, or

 

2) There was something about that world or God's providential intervention into it (like creating a woman was theretofore) that would have rendered coveting NON-inevitable.

 

I'm guessing 2) is the deal. But now (i.e., post-fall), coveting of certain kinds is literally inevitable. Regardless, if the NT is true, if humans covet other human's spouses, whether freely or inevitably, they will die. That's the accountability I'm talking about. I only bring up God's intervention of creating a woman AFTER Adam recognized the deficiency to establish a point about the nature of God's intervention--not to make a big deal about that case and its relation to accountability, per se.

 

Here's the thing. We have two possibilities:

 

1) Sin was inevitable from the get-go.

 

2) Sin was not inevitable from the get-go.

 

As I've said, 1) seems like sheer logical non-sense. How can a "missing of the mark" be inevitable unless God is incompetent in some sense?

 

If 2), then we have these possibilities:

 

2a) It is theoretically possible for any given human to live sinlessly for indefinite lenghts of time without God's Spirit.

 

2b) It is not theoretically possible for every human to live sinlessly for indefinite lengths of time without God's Spirit.

 

If 2a), then so much of NT theology is wrong that for all practical purposes we don't have an historical Christ either. Because in that case, the writers of that history were just as likely as shameless in their pontifications as were the apostles that wrote the epistles. But there are PROFOUND historical problems with that view. Read Boyd's book on the historicity of the gospels.

 

If 2b), then the NT is coherent. But it is also plausible on purely historical grounds. Thus, Christ's endorsement  of the Torah (borne divine witness to by his signs and wonders) is strong evidence for the Genesis account being the explanation of why some sin is now inevitable without God's Spirit.

 

So, if 2b), the only way I can make sense of 2) is if sin is inevitable for humans in this fallen world without God's Spirit, whereas it wouldn't have been in the pre-fallen world. And from there, we have to infer what about that pre-fallen world makes that difference. That's all I'm doing.

 

There is the obvious fact that the pre-fallen world, per its biblical description, would have been less taxing on the human psyche. But I suspect more is needed for a full explanation than that. That's why I posit additional divine intervention (like God's creating of the woman) as exigencies arose in that world over time as humans multiplied and societies complexified (is that even a word? LOL!).

---

 

Post Edited (Similitude) : 9/19/2010 11:58:44 AM (GMT-5)