What would have happened had Adam never sinned?

[Kenny]

Both are excellent points Paulsacramento; I agree.

K

[Kurieuo]

If Adam and Eve never sinned, and lived an eternal life in the Garden of Eden without death, would they have eventually had children in the Garden? If there were no death, wouldn't it just be a matter of time before humans animals and insects overpopulate the planet due to reproduction without anyone or anything dying? Or do we assume they would not have had any off spring; that God had no intention for them or the animals to reproduce. If that is the case, is it safe to assume they were originally created without sex organs?

Does anybody know of anything in the bible that might address this? Your thoughts?

Ken

Late comer here. But, say what?!? No sex organs...

Really, although your questions at first seem silly, on deeper reflection I think you have a great line of questions.
Questions that requires some unpacking on the part of the Christian theologian who doesn't want their foundational creation beliefs reduced to absurdities.

Firstly, no death pre-fall is generally a YEC position. So some questions are perhaps irrelevant to an OEC Day-Age interpretation.
Rather many OECs believe death came to humanity post-fall (since God was in their midst sustaining them up until then).

It was the Augustinian theodicy (response to evil in the world given the existence of an all-good and all-powerful God) that pinned sin as the cause of anything we perceive as wrong in the world including death.
I personally feel that the Irenaean theodicy has much more appeal.

An identification of God's foreknowledge is perhaps missing from your questions.
Thus, God's plans from the beginning also included how He would act once humanity sinned.
I think it safe to say that if God foreknew that Adam and Eve would not sin, then the world God created would have been very different -- perhaps even angelic.
So it is postulation at best to hypothesise over your questions, and at worst unsound becuase is leads to absurdities that would never have eventuated.

One question that is raised in my reflection is whether there is a possible world that God could have actualised where His creatures would have freely chosen Him? I do not believe so. It seems logically possible in that I see no inherent contradiction with all created beings freely always doing what is right. However, actualising such a world may not in fact be possible. This is a complex thought to unpack, so I'll let re-shelf it for now because I'm not sure we need to go there.

For the fact our world exists, shows that God thought it worthwhile and good to create despite our warts and all.
Perhaps we are more hung up on perfection than God is? God might prefer to love in the face of imperfections.
Certainly, it seems to me that love is better demonstrated when faced with frustrations.
Perhaps an argument could even be made that a loving God would desire to create a world wherein His love is demonstrated the most?

In any case, I do not think it is necessary that a good God must actualise the best world possible based upon his knowledge and foresight.
What is important for a good and loving God is His response when creatures freely choose wrong.

I'd question God's love and goodness if all were condemned and consumed by God's wrath.
For sure, there is nothing wrong with a Holy God righteously condemning all of us -- since humanity has sinned.
But, then why create the world to begin with? Unless God isn't omniscient, then I think such would be a sadistic God.

So I expect God to present a solution, a cure to this dilemma given that we all sin.
No religion that espouses works to attain favour will ever succeed to remove even one blemish. Bury perhaps, but not remove.

So it seems to me if you believe in God, Christianity is the only one that even attempts to try and provide a solution to this dilemma.
That solution being found in God reaching down to us, so that He can offer grace rather than judgement in Christ.

More could be said, much more, however I'll stop before I have another book here.

[Kenny]

If Adam and Eve never sinned, and lived an eternal life in the Garden of Eden without death, would they have eventually had children in the Garden? If there were no death, wouldn't it just be a matter of time before humans animals and insects overpopulate the planet due to reproduction without anyone or anything dying? Or do we assume they would not have had any off spring; that God had no intention for them or the animals to reproduce. If that is the case, is it safe to assume they were originally created without sex organs?

Does anybody know of anything in the bible that might address this? Your thoughts?

Ken

Late comer here. But, say what?!? No sex organs...

Really, although your questions at first seem silly, on deeper reflection I think you have a great line of questions.
Questions that requires some unpacking on the part of the Christian theologian who doesn't want their foundational creation beliefs reduced to absurdities.

Firstly, no death pre-fall is generally a YEC position. So some questions are perhaps irrelevant to an OEC Day-Age interpretation.
Rather many OECs believe death came to humanity post-fall (since God was in their midst sustaining them up until then).

It was the Augustinian theodicy (response to evil in the world given the existence of an all-good and all-powerful God) that pinned sin as the cause of anything we perceive as wrong in the world including death.
I personally feel that the Irenaean theodicy has much more appeal.

An identification of God's foreknowledge is perhaps missing from your questions.
Thus, God's plans from the beginning also included how He would act once humanity sinned.
I think it safe to say that if God foreknew that Adam and Eve would not sin, then the world God created would have been very different -- perhaps even angelic.
So it is postulation at best to hypothesise over your questions, and at worst unsound becuase is leads to absurdities that would never have eventuated.

One question that is raised in my reflection is whether there is a possible world that God could have actualised where His creatures would have freely chosen Him? I do not believe so. It seems logically possible in that I see no inherent contradiction with all created beings freely always doing what is right. However, actualising such a world may not in fact be possible. This is a complex thought to unpack, so I'll let re-shelf it for now because I'm not sure we need to go there.

For the fact our world exists, shows that God thought it worthwhile and good to create despite our warts and all.
Perhaps we are more hung up on perfection than God is? God might prefer to love in the face of imperfections.
Certainly, it seems to me that love is better demonstrated when faced with frustrations.
Perhaps an argument could even be made that a loving God would desire to create a world wherein His love is demonstrated the most?

In any case, I do not think it is necessary that a good God must actualise the best world possible based upon his knowledge and foresight.
What is important for a good and loving God is His response when creatures freely choose wrong.

I'd question God's love and goodness if all were condemned and consumed by God's wrath.
For sure, there is nothing wrong with a Holy God righteously condemning all of us -- since humanity has sinned.
But, then why create the world to begin with? Unless God isn't omniscient, then I think such would be a sadistic God.

So I expect God to present a solution, a cure to this dilemma given that we all sin.
No religion that espouses works to attain favour will ever succeed to remove even one blemish. Bury perhaps, but not remove.

So it seems to me if you believe in God, Christianity is the only one that even attempts to try and provide a solution to this dilemma.
That solution being found in God reaching down to us, so that He can offer grace rather than judgement in Christ.

More could be said, much more, however I'll stop before I have another book here.

So if I understand you correctly; there was never a question if they would sin or not, God knew from the start and this foreknowledge was taken into account when God decided to create them. Is that correct?

K

[Jac3510]

Let me not speak for K, but let me add a perspective (I think he'd be fine with your basic summary). Regarding design, when you add in God's foreknowledge as per K's suggestion, human designers are known to create backup systems, correct? Would it not make sense for God to design creation in such a way that it would work in one of several "modes"? That is, because He knew humans would sin, He had an original design that would be optimal (how many times have we all talked about how good things would be "if only . . ." and then went on to make broad, global type statements?!) but one that would be functional precisely in the case that sin entered the world. In fact, I would suggest to you than any being worthy of the name "God" would do at least that, and that should be a part of any theodicy we entertain.

[Kenny]

Let me not speak for K, but let me add a perspective (I think he'd be fine with your basic summary). Regarding design, when you add in God's foreknowledge as per K's suggestion, human designers are known to create backup systems, correct? Would it not make sense for God to design creation in such a way that it would work in one of several "modes"? That is, because He knew humans would sin, He had an original design that would be optimal (how many times have we all talked about how good things would be "if only . . ." and then went on to make broad, global type statements?!) but one that would be functional precisely in the case that sin entered the world. In fact, I would suggest to you than any being worthy of the name "God" would do at least that, and that should be a part of any theodicy we entertain.

Thanx for the clarification.

Ken

[Lonewolf]

Let me not speak for K, but let me add a perspective (I think he'd be fine with your basic summary). Regarding design, when you add in God's foreknowledge as per K's suggestion, human designers are known to create backup systems, correct? Would it not make sense for God to design creation in such a way that it would work in one of several "modes"? That is, because He knew humans would sin, He had an original design that would be optimal (how many times have we all talked about how good things would be "if only . . ." and then went on to make broad, global type statements?!) but one that would be functional precisely in the case that sin entered the world. In fact, I would suggest to you than any being worthy of the name "God" would do at least that, and that should be a part of any theodicy we entertain.

Thanx for the clarification.

Ken

Personally I believe that man's fall and sin was all part of the equation from the beginning., that was all part of the grand plan to bring man into the family of God, fire tested and solid steel members of the family of priests able to withstand the test of eternity, faithful to the Love of God.

[Kurieuo]

If Adam and Eve never sinned, and lived an eternal life in the Garden of Eden without death, would they have eventually had children in the Garden? If there were no death, wouldn't it just be a matter of time before humans animals and insects overpopulate the planet due to reproduction without anyone or anything dying? Or do we assume they would not have had any off spring; that God had no intention for them or the animals to reproduce. If that is the case, is it safe to assume they were originally created without sex organs?

Does anybody know of anything in the bible that might address this? Your thoughts?

Ken

Late comer here. But, say what?!? No sex organs...

Really, although your questions at first seem silly, on deeper reflection I think you have a great line of questions.
Questions that requires some unpacking on the part of the Christian theologian who doesn't want their foundational creation beliefs reduced to absurdities.

Firstly, no death pre-fall is generally a YEC position. So some questions are perhaps irrelevant to an OEC Day-Age interpretation.
Rather many OECs believe death came to humanity post-fall (since God was in their midst sustaining them up until then).

It was the Augustinian theodicy (response to evil in the world given the existence of an all-good and all-powerful God) that pinned sin as the cause of anything we perceive as wrong in the world including death.
I personally feel that the Irenaean theodicy has much more appeal.

An identification of God's foreknowledge is perhaps missing from your questions.
Thus, God's plans from the beginning also included how He would act once humanity sinned.
I think it safe to say that if God foreknew that Adam and Eve would not sin, then the world God created would have been very different -- perhaps even angelic.
So it is postulation at best to hypothesise over your questions, and at worst unsound becuase is leads to absurdities that would never have eventuated.

One question that is raised in my reflection is whether there is a possible world that God could have actualised where His creatures would have freely chosen Him? I do not believe so. It seems logically possible in that I see no inherent contradiction with all created beings freely always doing what is right. However, actualising such a world may not in fact be possible. This is a complex thought to unpack, so I'll let re-shelf it for now because I'm not sure we need to go there.

For the fact our world exists, shows that God thought it worthwhile and good to create despite our warts and all.
Perhaps we are more hung up on perfection than God is? God might prefer to love in the face of imperfections.
Certainly, it seems to me that love is better demonstrated when faced with frustrations.
Perhaps an argument could even be made that a loving God would desire to create a world wherein His love is demonstrated the most?

In any case, I do not think it is necessary that a good God must actualise the best world possible based upon his knowledge and foresight.
What is important for a good and loving God is His response when creatures freely choose wrong.

I'd question God's love and goodness if all were condemned and consumed by God's wrath.
For sure, there is nothing wrong with a Holy God righteously condemning all of us -- since humanity has sinned.
But, then why create the world to begin with? Unless God isn't omniscient, then I think such would be a sadistic God.

So I expect God to present a solution, a cure to this dilemma given that we all sin.
No religion that espouses works to attain favour will ever succeed to remove even one blemish. Bury perhaps, but not remove.

So it seems to me if you believe in God, Christianity is the only one that even attempts to try and provide a solution to this dilemma.
That solution being found in God reaching down to us, so that He can offer grace rather than judgement in Christ.

More could be said, much more, however I'll stop before I have another book here.

So if I understand you correctly; there was never a question if they would sin or not, God knew from the start and this foreknowledge was taken into account when God decided to create them. Is that correct?

K

That's correct.

This of course raises other questions.
I don't turn a blind eye to them though or pretend they don't exist.

Also, there is a thing called "Middle Knowledge".
God doesn't just know everything about this world, but God knows about every thing that would be actualised (i.e. happen) in any possible world that he created.
So God has foreknowledge of many possible worlds.
He chose to actualise our world as one out of many possibilities.

One with the physical properties that it has,
and when Kenny and I were born at a time where we'd have these exchanges. Etc, etc.