According to an Orthodox that replies to someone else in an exchange regarding marital sex, he states, "Remember the words of Psalm 50" (Psalm 51 in Masoretic-based Bibles): > I was conceived in iniquity and in sins did my mother bear me We were never meant to have sex before the fall, so at some level no sexual activity could be considered "pure." After asking him about this view that no sexual activity could be considered pure because we weren't meant to have sex before the fall, he produces an amount of quotes from the early church fathers about the matter: > Saint Gregory of Nyssa, from *On the Making of Man*: > > > Now the resurrection promises us nothing else than the restoration of the fallen to their ancient state; for the grace we look for is a > certain return to the first life, bringing back again to Paradise him > who was cast out from it. If then the life of those restored is > closely related to that of the angels, it is clear that the life > before the transgression was a kind of angelic life, and hence also > our return to the ancient condition of our life is compared to the > angels. Yet while, as has been said, there is no marriage among them, > the armies of the angels are in countless myriads; for so Daniel > declared in his visions: so, in the same way, if there had not come > upon us as the result of sin a change for the worse, and removal from > equality with the angels, neither should we have needed marriage that > we might multiply; but whatever the mode of increase in the angelic > nature is (unspeakable and inconceivable by human conjectures, except > that it assuredly exists), it would have operated also in the case of > men, who were "made a little lower than the angels," to increase > mankind to the measure determined by its Maker. > > Saint Gregory Palamas, from his homily *On the Annunciation*: > > > God sent the archangel to a virgin and made her, who continued a virgin, His mother by means of a salutation alone. If He had been > conceived from seed, He would not have been a new man, nor sinless, > nor the Saviour of sinners. The flesh's impulse to reproduce is not > subject to our minds, which God has appointed to govern us, and is not > entirely without sin. That is why David said, "I was shapen in > iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Ps. 50:5). So if the > conception of God had been from seed, He would not have been a new > man, nor the author of new life which will never grow old. If He were > from the old stock and inherited its sin, He would not have been able > to bear within Himself the fullness of the incorruptible Godhead or to > make His flesh an inexhaustible source of sanctification, able to wash > away even the defilement of our First Parents by its abundant power, > and sufficient to sanctify all who came after them. > > The same saint, from the homily *On the Gospel Reading for the > Seventeenth Sunday of Matthew About the Canaanite Woman*: > > > What is the starting point of our coming into the world? Is it not almost the same as for irrational animals? Actually it is worse, > because the procreation of animals did not originate from sin, whereas > in our case it was disobedience that brought in marriage. That is why > we receive regeneration through holy baptism, which cuts away the veil > which covers us from our conception. For although marriage, as a > concession from God, is blameless, yet our nature still bears the > tokens of blameworthy events. For that reason one of our holy > theologians [Saint Gregory the Theologian] calls human procreation, > "nocturnal, servile, and subject to passion", and before him David > said, "I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me" > (Ps. 50:5) > > Saint John Chrysostom, from *On Virginity*: > > > When he was created, Adam remained in paradise, and there was no question of marriage. He needed a helper and a helper was provided for > him. But even then marriage did not seem to be necessary... Desire for > sexual intercourse and conception and the pangs and childbirth and > every form of corruption were alien to their soul. > > The same saint, from *Homilies on Genesis*: > > > Whence, after all, did he come to know that there would be intercourse between man and woman? I mean, the consummation of that > intercourse occurred after the Fall; up till that time they were > living like angels in paradise and so they were not burning with > desire, not assaulted by other passions, not subject to the needs of > nature, but on the contrary were created incorruptible and immortal, > and on that account at any rate they had no need to wear clothes . . . > Consider, I ask you, the transcendence of their blessed condition, how > they were superior to all bodily concerns, how they lived on earth as > if they were in heaven, and though in fact possessing a body they did > not feel the limitations of their bodies. After all, they had no need > for shelter or habitation, clothing or anything of that kind . . . > > In another place, he says: > > > “Now Adam knew Eve his wife.” Consider when this happened. After the disobedience, after their loss in the Garden, then it was that the > practice of intercourse had its beginning. You see, before their > disobedience they followed a life like that of the angels, and there > was no mention of intercourse. How could there be, when they were not > subject to the needs of the body? > > And again: > > > Why did marriage not appear before the disobedience? Why was there no intercourse in Paradise? Why not the pains of childbirth before the > curse? Because at that time these things were superfluous. The > necessity arose later because of our weakness, as did cities, arts and > skills, the wearing of clothes, and all our other numerous needs. > > Saint John of Damascus, from *An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox > Faith*: > > > Carnal men abuse virginity , and the pleasure-loving bring forward the following verse in proof, Cursed be every one that raises not up > seed in Israel. But we, made confident by God the Word that was made > flesh of the Virgin, answer that virginity was implanted in man's > nature from above and in the beginning. For man was formed of virgin > soil. From Adam alone was Eve created. In Paradise virginity held > sway. Indeed, Divine Scripture tells that both Adam and Eve were naked > and were not ashamed. But after their transgression they knew that > they were naked, and in their shame they sewed aprons for themselves. > And when, after the transgression, Adam heard, dust you are and unto > dust shall you return , when death entered into the world by reason of > the transgression, then Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and > bare seed. So that to prevent the wearing out and destruction of the > race by death, marriage was devised that the race of men may be > preserved through the procreation of children. > > > But they will perhaps ask, what then is the meaning of “male and female,” and “Be fruitful and multiply?” In answer we shall say that > “Be fruitful and multiply ”does not altogether refer to the > multiplying by the marriage connection. For God had power to multiply > the race also in different ways, if they kept the precept unbroken to > the end. But God, Who knows all things before they have existence, > knowing in His foreknowledge that they would fall into transgression > in the future and be condemned to death, anticipated this and made > “male and female,” and bade them “be fruitful and multiply.” Let us, > then, proceed on our way and see the glories of virginity: and this > also includes chastity. > > Saint Athanasius, from his commentary on the Psalms (specifically > Psalm 50:5 in this case): > > > The original intention of God was for us to generate not by marriage and corruption. But the transgression of the commandment introduced > marriage on account of the lawless act of Adam, that is, the rejection > of the law given him by God. Therefore all of those born of Adam are > “conceived in iniquities,” having fallen under the condemnation of the > forefather. > > Saint Symeon the New Theologian, from the *Ethical Discourses*: > > > There was no one, you see, who was able to save and redeem him. For this very reason, therefore, God the Word Who had made us had pity on > us and came down. He became man, not by intercourse and the emission > of seed – for the latter are consequences of the Fall – but of the > Holy Spirit and Mary the Ever-Virgin. > > Saint Maximus the Confessor, from *Ad Thalassium*: > > > He [Christ] appeared like the first man Adam in the manner both of his creaturely origin and his birth. The first man received his > existence from God and came into being at the very origin of his > existence, and was free from corruption and sin – for God did not > create either of these. When, however, he sinned by breaking God’s > commandment, he was condemned to birth based on sexual passion and > sin. Since henceforth constrained his true natural origin within the > liability to passions that had accompanied the first sin, as though > placing it under a law. Accordingly, there is no human being who is > sinless, since everyone is naturally subject to the law of sexual > procreation that was introduced after man’s true creaturely origin in > consequence of his sin. > > Tertullian, from *On the Resurrection of the Flesh*: > > > To this discussion, however, our Lord's declaration puts an effectual end: "They shall be," says He, "equal unto the angels." As > by not marrying, because of not dying, so, of course, by not having to > yield to any like necessity of our bodily state; even as the angels, > too, sometimes. Were "equal unto" men, by eating and drinking, and > submitting their feet to the washing of the bath-having clothed > themselves in human guise, without the loss of their own intrinsic > nature. > > I could go on, if you want, but I believe this is enough. My question is, *why did the early church fathers think that sex was a consequence of the Fall?* if we think that Adam and Eve did have sex before the fall According to this reply in Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange to *Did Adam and Eve not have sex in the Garden of Eden?* (granted, they can be wrong as they are not the Church fathers).

In his book *In the Beginning*, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger wrote the following with regards to the pre-Pauline hymn of Phil 2:5-11: > We cannot consider this extraordinarily rich and profound text [Phil > 2:5-11] in detail. We want to limit ourselves here to its connection > with the story of the Fall, even though **it seems to have a somewhat > different version in mind** than the one that is related in Genesis 3 > (cf., e.g., Job 15:7-8). What is the account of the Fall presumed by Phil 2:5-11? And what is the account of the Fall related in Job 15:7-8? More over, are there other places where the Bible gives an account of original sin (either explicitly or implicitly)? If this question is too involved, I would be satisfied by any book/article recommendations.

Some disagree on whether a Christian in this life may fall utterly and lose or forfeit eternal life. However, most Christians do agree that after death, the Christian is eternally secure in heaven (or the new earth). And this seems to be well supported in Scripture: > **[John 10:28](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john+10%3A28&version=ESV)** (ESV) > 28 A)"> I give them eternal life, and B)"> they will never perish, and C)"> no one will snatch them out of my hand. > > **[Revelation 21:4](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=revelation+21%3A4&version=ESV)** (ESV) > 4 A)"> He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and B)"> death shall be no more, C)"> neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.” So it seems clear that Christians could not be susceptible to another Fall . My question is, Why? What is the fundamental reason why Christians would not be susceptible to another Fall or rebellion against God? *Please answer from a Protestant, non-Calvinist perspective.* ---------- ### Possible responses I have considered ### > There will be no law, and thus no concept of sin *But wouldn't rebellion against God would be considered sin, even apart from a "law"?* > After death we no longer have a sin nature, and are thus incapable of sin *But weren't Adam and Eve created without a sin nature, and yet sinned?* > Satan will be vanquished, unable to tempt us *But didn't Lucifer rebel without being externally tempted? If we are unable to rebel without a tempter, that implies that we will have less free will than Lucifer and the angels had.* > We will be unable to sin, either through lack of free will, or prevention by God *The argument that I usually use and hear for the existence of free will is that God would rather have willful obedience than robotic obedience. Is God then hedging on this preference for the sake of our eternal souls?* > We have already been atoned for by Christ, so if we were to sin, it could not be counted against us *This allows for sin in heaven, which I can't buy. It contradicts Revelation 21:4 for one thing, and makes heaven imperfect*

In Genesis, Adam and Eve's disobedience resulted in death entering the world. Does Christian doctrine interpret human aging and physical decline as part of the curse resulting from the fall? Or was aging part of the natural human design even before sin? How have theologians historically interpreted this?

The devil deceived Eve into eating what was forbidden. She then persuaded Adam to do likewise. After eating, they gained knowledge of good and evil. It is my view that God's true intentions, his omnibenevolence, is presented in the Ten Commandments and the Bible. Basically they are a moral guide to overcome the sin we all inherited from Adam and Eve. But what was Eve's situation before the bite? Did she have knowledge of good and evil? Was she pure still and acting as God meant her to act? Why is gaining knowledge of good and evil in the devil's advantage? Because she had no knowledge of the bad yet? She knew the good neither. Wasn't it a great gift then, the devil gave her with the apple? What gain had the devil to give her knowledge of the good? If Eve had no knowledge of good, how she could act good? By divine instinct? What was in it for the evil devil Satan, disguised as a luring snake? Was this, as the fallen angle, his way to take revenge on God? By letting people know what is bad? At the same time he gave knowledge of the good. Wasn't it better to give Eve knowledge of the bad only?

### Background Protestants who believe that the sin of Adam/Eve caused a fall in creation appear to believe some variation of the following : > The fall of man was caused by Adam’s sin. Sin is any human behavior, word, or thought that is contrary to the perfection of God. Because of Adam’s sin, God placed a curse upon the world, the people, the animals, the plants, and the very ground (Genesis 3:14–19). The idea of sin "entering the world" via Adam and Eve is also found in the NT: > Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned - Romans 5:12 ### Question If the sin of Adam and Eve caused the Fall of Creation and sin to enter the world, one could imagine had they not sinned the eternal fate of all humanity would hover on a knifes edge until someone else sinned. Do Christians believe there was something unique about Adam and Eve and their sin where they (and only they) could cause the fall?

According to the Bible 'sin' by definition is anything that is against God! Which is why God cannot commit sin [Hebrews 6:18; Titus 1:2], not that He doesn't choose to commit sin. This is because God cannot do anything against Himself [2Tim.2:13]. In other words, it is impossible for God to sin. However, when we think of the creation we sin because we have the freedom to choose between good and bad. Adam and Eve committed sin because of that freedom. If we assume that they sinned because of the tempter then this is not the case when Satan sinned while being in the very presence of God! Therefore, a free being/entity can commit sin even when that being/entity has no sinful nature internally or a sinful tempter externally. All those who enter into Heaven or the presence of God and enjoy eternal life will have free-will. But the question is what makes them not to sin again like Satan or other angels that were sent out from God's presence because of their sin?

Eating a [fruit](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:3&version=NIV)\* is not even a real wicked deed like killing somebody or something. Why did this whole sin thing get started with something so innocuous that by today's standard it wouldn't even be considered a sin? \* I'm pretty sure it was a fig.

I've stumbled multiple times across the claim that Adam and Eve were clothed in light before the fall, and afterward they saw their nakedess not merely as a new form of enlightenment ("Suddenly I feel like I should put on some clothes!") but rather visual change had occurred. What original sources contain this information to make it such that some commonly believe this?

2 Nephi 2:23 states > 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. Often, it is said that Adam and Eve *could* not of had children, based on this verse. But the verse says *would*, not *could*. Are there any other verses or latter day saint doctrine explaining whether or not they *could* have children?

Does Young Earth Creationism teach that Adam and Eve only had a concept of morality after the fall, once they had eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? If so, would they have been unaccountable for their actions before the fall?

I found very good information on this site where the author logically and according to the **Catholic teaching** explains certain parts of sexual behavior. I agree and practice what is written, just in case if someone wonders if it's even possible. But I don't want to discuss whether the site or the author is correct on the subject so please avoid any comments on the authenticity of the site. There is a statement: > Now the emotion of sexual passion is a result of the fallen state, and > so neither Jesus nor Mary experienced sexual passion or sexual > arousal. What is the source of this knowledge or where does the author bases this information from?

Adam was not with Eve when she ate the fruit Satan offered her. He did not hear the conversation, otherwise, God in His response would have said that Adam listened to the serpent, but God said that he listened to his wife. Gen 3:17: > And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; This opinion is the basis for my understanding of this comparison. I do not wish to discuss this aspect of the situation. I state it here merely to illustrate my understanding of Genesis 3:6 and its translation, from which my question originates. Gen 3:6: > And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband **with her [?]** and he did eat. Just as Adam was not deceived, neither was Jesus deceived, Jesus did not sin. Adam was not deceived but partook to help Eve. 1 Tim 2:14: > And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Jesus partook of flesh and blood to help us. The Church is referred to as a Crown of thorns to Jesus in Prov 12:4, just as a wife is a crown to her husband: > A virtuous woman is a crown to her husband: but she that maketh ashamed is as rottenness in his bones. The Bride of Christ is Jesus's "Crown" as I complete the comparison from John 19:5: > Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them, Behold the man! John 3:16: > For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Another observation: What other situation could Paul have been referring to when he referred to the "husband" as the savior or the marriage? Ephesians 5:23 (KJV): > For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body This appears in all aspects to be accurate. Showing unnecessary deference to Eve/woman-kind by suggesting that Adam was "with her" at that time is merely an attempt to allude to a shared sense of guilt and does not justify distorting scripture, in my opinion. **Hence my question**: Did Adam join Eve in disobedience to save her?

What was God’s role in the Fall (if He had one)? I’m learning about the Calvinist (or perhaps hyper-Calvinist) view of Pre-determinism, and respectfully, it causes me great concern. Perhaps I’m concerned because I misunderstand Pre-determinism altogether. However, if I understand it correctly (which I probably don’t; hence why I’m asking), wouldn’t the Pre-determinist’s natural conclusion of God’s involvement in the Fall be that, because God has willed all events to happen He Himself is responsible for their occurrence? Would the line of reasoning be something like this: 1. Results of events have been determined (or willed) from eternity past. 2. The rebellion (or fall) of spiritual and physical beings were events. 3. Therefore, God determined (or worse, willed) the rebellion of spiritual and physical beings.

Inspired by this answer to a previous question , in which the answerer stated: >"For example, the Book of Mormon adds the belief that Adam and Eve could not have children before the Fall." Supported by quoting from 2 Nephi 2:22-23: >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 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. This leads me to ask how could this be true, given that God told Adam and Eve to "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." {Genesis 1:28 } It would *seem* that this is a clear contradiction between the *Book of Mormon* and the *Bible*. How does the LDS church address this apparently-blatant contradiction?

I want to ask why would God create such concept as attractiveness if He does not look at someone’s looks? 1 Samuel 16:7 ”for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.” Study after study shows that there is objective beauty which is symmetry and anything that has symmetry is considered pretty or more prettier than anything else. Also there are genes that are better and stronger and people with such genes tend to look pretty (symmetrical), think more positive, be very healthy and accomplish a lot of things. Weaker genes give the opposite and someone with such genes struggles. It seems like before the Fall people were very symmetrical and had stronger genes but after the Fall the degradation happened. Also Solomon’s song is clear that people are designed to be attracted also to looks. I just feel somewhat down because if God does not care about looks then why did He bother to do objective attraction like symmetry, better genes etc. I always thought that all the features that we have that are considered unattractive were just made that way by us because after the Fall we choose what is pretty and what is not and if we did not Fall we would not care. But studies show something completely different and we are creatures attracted to symmetry which gives pretty features and in turn good genes because symmetry comes from them. Children are the best example, they tend to go to prettier symmetrical things, animals and people. What do you think? Clarifying, I know that God does not look at our looks when it comes to salvation but still, He created people to find themselves attractive and He shows beauty in symmetry and proportions.

In Augustine's four stages of the Christian life, is the Reborn Man in the same state as the Pre-Fall Man? In which state was Christ the man while on earth? [Editor's note: OP refers to the 4 stages mentioned in Augustine's [*Enchiridion*, Ch. 118](https://biblehub.com/library/augustine/the_enchiridion/chapter_118_the_four_stages_of.htm) . [From OP's comment:] The first question is on what Augustine really meant, because both have the same able to sin and able to not sin. The second is an application of the fourfold state. My information and knowledge is based on [this]( http://monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/four-fold.html) .

We know that Adam and Eve had Cain and Abel and their 600 (I forgot the exact number) after Heaven was taken from them for consuming the fruit. But if hypothetically, if they hadn't sinned, would they give birth to new humans in Eden? God says **before** "the fall" that He blessed man to be "fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth". However from what I understand Adam and Eve didn't know what nakedness is, they seem to be so innocent that they wouldn't even know how to "multiply" before eating the fruit, and indeed they didn't had babies in Eden. It seems to me that initially God didn't want billions of humans, just two. Some even propose the theory that the fruit is a metaphor, a symbol for the sexual pleasure of Adam and Eve. I know some modern literature (not in English, not religious related) that uses the wording "girls that didn't yet tasted the sweetness of the fruit of sin" to describe a virgin woman. Maybe before the fall, God designed mammals with a non-sexual multiplication, similar to the idea that God designed all creatures to eat plants, but after the fall he permitted meat-eating in humans and animals.

Was the sin of Adam and Eve caused by partial ignorance? Before the fall they were ignorant about the shame of nakedness.

For scoping purposes, let's assume that [Divine Command Theory](https://iep.utm.edu/divine-command-theory/) is false. This means that explanations of the form *"X is evil because God said so"* would be out of scope. Having clarified that, if we bring our attention to the first sin committed by humanity, the eating of the forbidden fruit by Adam & Eve, how can we sufficiently explain that this act was "evil", "wrong" or "sinful" according to a theory of ethics consistent with Christian theism but different from DCT? God commanded Adam & Eve not to eat nor touch the fruit from a specific tree. What made breaking this commandment "evil", "wrong" or "sinful", if we rule out Divine Command Theory from the pool of candidate explanations? Please make the theory of ethics you are coming from explicit in your answer. Thanks.